<p>
</p>
<p>Good point, blankmind. It’s certainly easier to see the point when you are talking about a factually innocent person who is found guilty in a court of law of a crime.</p>
<p>In any case, we know Casey was involved in some fashion with her child’s death (but we don’t know if the child was murdered). She admits to an accident (if you go by her defense lawyer) in which the child accidentally died and she was part of a cover up of the death and staging it to appear as if the child was murdered. She didn’t report the death. She didn’t report the child missing (of course she was not truly missing in an unknown kind of way). She improperly disposed of a dead body. She lied about everything afterward. So, even if not found guilty of murder, all of these things are clearly wrongdoing. At the very least (if you believe her story), she has done some very egregious things that are wrong involving death of a child.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with all you wrote. There were some lesser charges of manslaughter on the table but I think once they found her not guilty of capital murder, they continued with their doubts and stayed consistent. We will never know if the charge had ONLY been manslaughter, how it would have turned out.</p>
<p>An opening statement by definition cannot be arguing the facts of the case because the facts have not been presented on the record. There are lots of reasons that evidence might be denied admission into the record. So, the Defense gets to suggest to the jury what they believe the evidence*** will ***show in opening argument.</p>
<p>Closing arguments come after all the evidence that will be admitted has been admitted into the record. Therefore, closing argument is limited to arguing from the evidence admitted at trial. I seem to recall that some posters have noted that witnesses were examined on whether there had been sexual abuse of Casey and all said no. Therefore, there was no evidence to argue for the fact of sexual abuse at closing.</p>
<p>now i’m crazy for posting the following but here goes lol</p>
<p>during the OJ trial i was actually able to watch the entire thing…and i was definitely addicted to that whole trial…I would watch the actual proceedings and then go nuts when i watched the news or the legal eagles discussing it on news shows etc. They would present an excerpt from the trial and then make comments about what happened… at times i thought my H wouldnt be able to take it anymore… i would go on and on about…no wait that is NOT what was said, or that was NOT what the evidence showed, … anyway, by the end of the trial and the verdict…i actually understood why the jury returned the verdict it did…if i had only watched the talking head shows or news i wouldnt have been able to believe they could say not guilty.</p>
<p>I think the hype around this trial rivals OJ…and perhaps what we see in the news shows may not be a true reflection of the court proceedings.</p>
<p>My moral compass is angry at the verdict here though, its with her behavior on discovering her dead daughter (if you believe she knew her child drowned and then did nothing)…and unfortunately you cant charge her for her behavior and there is no law saying she had to report it… but how could anyone throw their child into a swamp, rather than burying her with the dignity and love she deserves. I dont care if she partied, i dont care if she got a tattoo… i care that the baby was treated like garbage.</p>
<p>thank you 07Dad…great explanation!</p>
<p>oooh pause in current programming…the last shuttle is about to launch!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The idea is that, in opening, the attorneys will set out what they intend to prove with evidence. Since the judge doesn’t know what all the evidence is or what the theory of the case is, there is a measure of good faith that the attorneys will not discuss things for which there is no evidence. In closing, the attorneys are only allowed to sum up the evidence. Since the judge knows what the evidence is, that can be enforced. </p>
<p>Traditionally, it is believed that jurors come down hard on attorneys who present theories in opening for which they have no evidence. The fear of attorneys is that their clients will suffer from the anger of the jurors that they were misled. This case seems to turn that idea on its head.</p>
<p>Tutu Taxi continued the “what if” script by positing:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, how about this:</p>
<p>Casey to Attorney:</p>
<p>I was distraught after I lost that beautifiul life that was my daughter. Ask anyone other than my parents who ever saw me with her. I always loved her. Look at the photos of me and her. Heck, I even got a tatoo of “beautiful life” on my shoulder in her memory. All the hard partying and sleeping around could not dull the pain of that loss. Smiling through invisible tears. Just like I had done while living with the abuse done to me.</p>
<p>I know now that after we agreed that I needed a cover story for where was Caylee and we came up with “the nanny” story, my parents were calling my friends to provide themselves with “cover” if this blew up. Who said they made those calls to me? My parents? Any recorded message was only for their cover.</p>
<p>My parents said they found my abandoned car? BS–apparantly my dad used my car to transport Caylee’s body. Nice guy. I guess when they realized that there was a stink that indicated that there might be evidence in the car of the use of that car to hid the body, that made them go public as the concerned grandparents to further provide them cover.</p>
<p>Btw-- I told my dad that if he ever touched my child I’d know the signs and would go to the police with the evidence about her abuse , and give them my report of the prior abuse that involved me, him and my brother to substatiate that he was abusing Caylee. I told him I would never allow him to abuse her like mommie dearest had turned a blind eye to the abuse of me.</p>
<p>07dad - what a writer - but the first one was better. This not so much. :)</p>
<p>Does anyone know for the Zanny the Nanny trial - “defamation of character” or whatever she is charging Casey with - will Casey HAVE to testify on her own behalf??</p>
<p>think her deposition is scheduled for the 19th…so she is supposed to turn up and be deposed which is testifying under oath</p>
<p>07Dad,one issue…which I find hard to ignore…Casey Anthony lacks all credibility due to countless and substantial lies. So, believing her stories doesn’t hold up as well as other ones.</p>
<p>here’s a question… she was serving time for the bad checks while on trial…why couldnt the judge ADD the 4 years… the time she was “serving” while awaiting trial was for a different crime, she hasnt actual “served” time for this crime of lying yet. i would understand it being counted if she was just awaiting trial…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because once you are found not guilty the time you spent in jail becomes unwarranted.</p>
<p>That basically gives her a credit of however many years she served. If a judge tried to add years any challenge to that would almost automatically be granted…</p>
<p>Jail time is jail time. If we went by your suggestion she would have served near 4 years of jail for nothing. Not exactly ideal in our system of justice…</p>
<p>You must remember that being in jail while on trial is NOT punishment but rather a guarantee that you will appear in court. If you are granted bail the bail is the guarantee.</p>
<p>xslacker… but what about… the time she was serving was for another crime it wasnt for nothing. as i said if she had just been awaiting trial that would be different but she was serving time for another crime</p>
<p>Most jail sentences for crimes that occur on or about the same time are given concurrently…</p>
<p>Meaning you would serve two five year sentences at the same time. (5 years instead of ten)</p>
<p>Judges only give consecutive sentences when they are REALLY laying the smack down. Like when they give a serial killer 5 consecutive life sentences.</p>
<p>Giving her consecutive sentences at this point would be considered abnormal and overturned when challenged. Doing so would immediately been seen as the judge trying to get around the not guilty murder charge. </p>
<p>Consecutives usually appear in murder, rape and molestation cases. Serious violent crime.</p>
<p>Or in serious white collar crime a la Bernie Madoff and his 150 year sentence…</p>
<p>Justice is about justice NOT revenge…</p>
<p>thanks that makes sense then…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, she will have to testify if the case goes forward and that’s a big “if.” I think the deposition will surely be postponed.</p>
<p>The check fraud and whatnot, while felonies, are penny ante crimes…</p>
<p>And the timing of the crimes means she is not legally a “career criminal” so the 3 strikes laws won’t apply.</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure if she ever commits another crime though she’s screwed. That’s how they got OJ. Waited for him to screw up and then nailed him with the maximum penalty. LOLOL</p>
<p>“Innocent until proven guilty” is more accurately stated as “Withholding judgment until the facts declare guilt otherwise.” We don’t say Casey is innocent. We don’t say “not guilty” = “innocent.” We just say she wasn’t found to be definitively guilty. Doesn’t mean she’s innocent.</p>
<p>cartera… could she just not turn up and then a judgment in default could happen?</p>