<p>You are right that she was found not guilty by a jury. It doesn’t mean that with 100% certainty that she was not involved in any wrongdoing with the death of her child. When people cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty, it doesn’t then imply that they did not do it. It just wasn’t able to be proven. She may have and she may not have. Can’t prove she didn’t do it, and can’t prove she did do it. The jury didn’t feel they had enough proof that she did do what was charged. They weren’t required (nor was the defense required) to prove that she didn’t do it.</p>
<p>It is only natural that people would discuss a case that was so prominent in the media and the implications of such a case.</p>
<p>If a CC member is not interested, do not open and read a thread or post on it.</p>
So, legally, she’s not guilty of wrongdoing in the death of her child.</p>
<p>
I’m not 100% certain that you didn’t kill her child. In fact, I’m not 100% sure that her child is dead.</p>
<p>
I wonder how laws concerning defamation of character apply to such scenarios? I know if I were acquitted of such a heinous crime and somebody kept saying I did it, I’d not hesitate to press civil charges if I were entitled to damages.</p>
<p>That’s strange, indeed. There is PROOF of 100% that the dead body is that of Caylee Anthony.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t say Casey Anthony murdered her child. I said that we don’t have proof that she did, nor proof that she didn’t. We don’t know. I also wrote that all the evidence so far, when taken in sum, would be hard to come to another conclusion where Casey was not involved in her child’s death in some capacity, even though I understand that the jury was unable to find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the evidence presented, particularly with the lack of forensics with a body that was dead so long.</p>
<p>By the way, since you think Casey Anthony should press charges for defamation of character :rolleyes:, do you think George Anthony should do the same since his character was defamed when Baez told the world that George had sexually abused his daughter with no evidence to back up that claim?</p>
<p>aegrosomia, I love it that you are critical that people are talking about the case now that the verdict is in, and yet you have taken the time to read the thread or part of it, and are posting and discussing it! :)</p>
<p>Ha! I’d love to see her bring such a suit. For one thing, she would finally be on the witness stand. She can start by suing the jury. The ones who have spoken so far have all said they don’t think she’s innocent.</p>
There isn’t 100% proof of anything (outside of quite theoretical exercises, and even then, the proof is conditional on assumptions). We certainly don’t know whether that is Casey’s body, or an elaborate conspiracy. That’s well beyond what human beings are able to prove with 100% accuracy.</p>
<p>
I think there are special exceptions to defamation laws applying to things said at trial. Surely you can’t sue the prosecutor for making a case that you murdered your child, as long as he does so at trial. Once you have been found not guilty, though, I wonder how the game changes. That being said, if someone here were claiming that he had sexually assulted the child, then I’d probably be making the same kind of argument here.</p>
<p>
I’m not necessarily against discussing the case, just about implying something that is damaging, sad, and legally not true.</p>
I’m genuinely interested to know how defamation works in this case. If she had never been brought to trial and one guy were posting here that she had murdered her child, could she sue then? I’d say that, probably, yes, so long as she could claim it damaged her character. So now that she’s as legally blameless as she would have been in that scenario, is she still protected?</p>
<p>Note that saying “the was accused of murder” and saying (or heavily implying) that “she murdered her daugther” are subtly different things. Certainly you could say she is a bad person for lying to the police, obstructing justice, or whatever… she is guilty of that (though not with 100% certainty).</p>
<p>If anybody knows how defamation law applies to people acquitted of crimes, I’m genuinely interested to know.</p>
Sure I do. But DNA testing isn’t 100% accurate. Even if it were, how can you prove that the forensics people aren’t participating in a mass delusion?</p>
<p>This is a side issue. Saying that science isn’t 100% certain is as close to a tautology as you can get.</p>
<p>Folks, it’s not that hard to grasp the fact that there is never 100% proof of anything. There is always some remote possibility that things are not as they seem, that someone lied, that evidence was misinterpreted, that a machine malfunctioned, that test results were altered by an unscrupulous technician, and on and on and on. It’s 99.999999999999% percent certain that the body was Caylee’s, and that’s as good as 100% in a court of law because it eliminates reasonable doubt, but it’s still not 100%. See?</p>
<p>Defamation only works if you can prove damages. She COULD sue the prosecutor if she could show that he brought the charges falsely which isn’t the case.</p>
<p>Those working in the justice system get a lot of leeway. Multiple suits against juries have been squashed. For all intents and purposes you can’t sue a jury unless you could show all sorts of malfeasance but I don’t think you would get anywhere.</p>
<p>Well, you did say: “Give it a rest!”
So, are you opposed to the fact that many jurors are stating publicly that they don’t necessarily think Casey is innocent of wrongdoing in the death of her child? Many think she was involved but were unable to find her guilty of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First of all, it was CAYLEE’s body, not Casey’s. I believe that there is 100% proof when a dead body is identified. The DNA and dental records and so on prove identity of dead people.</p>
<p>I have read of barely anyone on this thread saying with fact that Casey is guilty. Perhaps some may have. Speaking for myself, and what I observe many others to be saying is that Casey was found not guilty in a court of law of the charges as the jury was unable to find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but by the same token, nobody has proved Casey is innocent. Many believe, as I do, that so much points to Casey having been involved in her child’s death in some capacity, though the forensics with the dead body are missing as evidence. Many find it difficult to come up with any rational explanation to explain away a lot of pieces when taken together in total any other way. No one single piece of evidence seems extremely compelling but the sum of these things appears to point to Casey. It cannot be proven and we don’t know. Thinking someone may be guilty is not the same as stating and proving she IS guilty of involvement in her child’s death. I also think OJ appears to have been involved in his wife’s murder based on what I have observed about the case. I don’t think that is defamation of character to opine how I see a case and my thoughts on whether I think it points to guilt or innocence.</p>
<p>Now, if you get an eyewitness and/or some other hard proof that Casey’s child drowned in the pool as her lawyer states and that George made it look like a murder and threw his grandbaby in the swamp, that may help people who opine that the evidence presented in the case points toward Casey’s wrongdoing in her child’s death. The defense was not required to provide proof of their story. But the proof doesn’t exist. That leaves us as nobody knows what happened but Casey. Therefore, people can opine what they believe may have happened based on what they know.</p>
<p>You posted that at 12:54 PM. You have 184 posts on CC, not counting posts in the cafes. I can’t prove that? </p>
<p>I know where I was born and who my parents are and on what date I was born and what I was named. I can obtain my birth certificate. I can’t prove when and where I was born and to whom??? </p>
<p>Plenty of things can be proved. </p>
<p>It was proven that the dead toddler is Caylee Anthony. She was identified through proven ways of identifying a body. For you to question whether that was really her or some conspiracy makes me find much else of what you say as not all too credible.</p>
