OKLAHOMAN
Member
Of course none of us sat on the jury so lets not judge them, it seems the prosecution really did not prove their case.
Casey Anthony acquitted of killing daughter
- Thread starter OKLAHOMAN
- Start date
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
terryf
Member
the worst part is that there was probably compelling evidence but was hidden amongst all the lies and deceit. Scary that you can actually get away with murder!
The story reads like a Murder She Wrote TV drama!!!
The story reads like a Murder She Wrote TV drama!!!
sbell111
Member
Rule #1: If your case isn't an absolute slam dunk, work a little harder at making yourself likable.
bitshird
Member
This is a sad day for American Justice, but now at least she can "live the good life"
Akula
Member
Very sad but not unexpected. The State failed on just about everything. We don't go on feelings in the courtroom, still need facts at the end of the day. I would have hated being on the jury. That might be played in their minds the rest of their lives.
No guilty does not mean innocent.
No guilty does not mean innocent.
vallealbert
Member
Not guilty does not mean innocent...she has all the life to deal with that... God have mercy!!!
Last edited:
leestoresund
Member
AHA! That's the whole point.
The evidence showed that she was killed but not who did it. But it also did not even prove HOW she was killed.
If it WAS Casey, the State did a horrible job of preparation.
From the bits and pieces I saw over the last 3 years the investigation was a clusterf**k from the very beginning.
If the government can't properly do its job she deserved to be acquitted.
Just the viewpoint of a criminal defense lawyer.
Lee
The evidence showed that she was killed but not who did it. But it also did not even prove HOW she was killed.
If it WAS Casey, the State did a horrible job of preparation.
From the bits and pieces I saw over the last 3 years the investigation was a clusterf**k from the very beginning.
If the government can't properly do its job she deserved to be acquitted.
Just the viewpoint of a criminal defense lawyer.
Lee
Under our system - it does.
Under our system of justice...not guilty does in fact mean innocent.
2nd definition of the word innocent ---
I didn't pay enough attention to the case to have formed an opinion, since she at minimum hid the body and covered up the death I would probably have leaned toward thinking she had something to hide. But evidently the prosecutors didn't satisfy the jury that she did.
Under our system of justice...not guilty does in fact mean innocent.
2nd definition of the word innocent ---
- Not guilty of a specific crime or offense; legally blameless: [SIZE=+0]was innocent of all charges.[/SIZE]
I didn't pay enough attention to the case to have formed an opinion, since she at minimum hid the body and covered up the death I would probably have leaned toward thinking she had something to hide. But evidently the prosecutors didn't satisfy the jury that she did.
Last edited:
wolftat
Product Reviews Manager
She can go and hang out with OJ....ooops, forgot, he got busted for something else and is doing time.
penhead
Local Chapter Leader
Umm, don't agree with you on that one..
Not guilty is a verdict in a criminal trial by by a jury after finding that the prosecution has not proved the defendant guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt or that it believes the accused person was insane at the time the crime was committed.
Key words here are 'proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I could be wrong, but I believe OJ Simpson was also found 'not guilty', instead of innocent of his accused crime...and he was then taken to civil court.
JMHO...
Not guilty is a verdict in a criminal trial by by a jury after finding that the prosecution has not proved the defendant guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt or that it believes the accused person was insane at the time the crime was committed.
Key words here are 'proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I could be wrong, but I believe OJ Simpson was also found 'not guilty', instead of innocent of his accused crime...and he was then taken to civil court.
JMHO...
THarvey
Member
Juries must decide on the evidence. I listened to the closing arguments. I could not have voted to convict, based on the evidence presented. The tape of the phone call, played by the prosecution in closing, sounded more like the family was refusing to even give Casey a simple phone number.
The prosecutors did not even prove that Cayley was killed. They only showed evidence that she was dead.
Casey's attorneys did not have a responsibility to prove or disprove anything. The burden of proof was solely on the prosecution.
Noone wins in this case. No matter what the outcome of the trial, this family has been destroyed.
The prosecutors did not even prove that Cayley was killed. They only showed evidence that she was dead.
Casey's attorneys did not have a responsibility to prove or disprove anything. The burden of proof was solely on the prosecution.
Noone wins in this case. No matter what the outcome of the trial, this family has been destroyed.
THarvey
Member
A jury cannot declare anyone innocent. There is no evidence presented to attempt to prove innocense. There is only an attempt to prove guilt. The jury basicaly vote "yes" or "no" on the evidence supporting proof of guilt.
ctubbs
Member
Ken, I'll bet you remember a similar case between where you live and here several years back, where a woman in Obion County TN "lost" her very young daughter, then she was sold for drugs, then she was thrown into one of the Obion swamps, none of which were ever proved. Later she had a 12 year old son she tried to kill in a graveyard in Graves County, KY. For that one she was finally sent up as the boy survived and was proof of the deed. Yes, justice is not always swift or equal, but as my late wife liked to say, "God doesn't like ugly." Over the years I have found much truth in those four little words. If she is truly guilty, It will come around, one way or the other. My $0.02 today.
PenMan1
Member
The only concrete evidence presented in this case was that Caylee Anthony IS dead and Casey Anthony lied to police.
The evidence did not even concretely prove that a murder occured. Do I THINK that Casey killed her child? YES! Did the State prove that there was a murder? NO. Did the
State prove that Casey killed her? NO.
In light of the evidence presented, I'm surprised that the judge did not grant the motion for aquittal at the end of the State's case. IMHO, this case should never have gone to the jury.
Based of the evidence presented, I think the jury got this one exactly right.
The evidence did not even concretely prove that a murder occured. Do I THINK that Casey killed her child? YES! Did the State prove that there was a murder? NO. Did the
State prove that Casey killed her? NO.
In light of the evidence presented, I'm surprised that the judge did not grant the motion for aquittal at the end of the State's case. IMHO, this case should never have gone to the jury.
Based of the evidence presented, I think the jury got this one exactly right.
Longfellow
Member
I live in the Orlando area and for 3 years this has been a media circus. It riled up every whacko and lunatic within 100 miles if not more. The State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And the childish 13 year old 8th grader actions of Jeff Ashton, lead prosecutor, in the courtroom doomed any hopes the state had of a conviction. Casey's mother will probably spend a good long time in prison for perjury. Ashton faces sanctions by the court for his actions. Now all parties can make millions on TV, books, movies, and all the Surermarket Rag papers. But life goes on for everyone but Caylee Marie Anthony.
THarvey
Member
If I were the prosecuter, I would have to pour back over these transcripts.
Might even quietly open an investigation on Casey's father.
Do I think Casey had something to do with Caylee's death? YES. I don't think she is smart enough to do it alone. She had to have help.
My opinion: She knew Caylee was dead. She did not know where the body was.
The prosecution did not support their charges against Casey. They rushed this to trial without gathering (or at least did not present) the appropriate evidence.
Might even quietly open an investigation on Casey's father.
Do I think Casey had something to do with Caylee's death? YES. I don't think she is smart enough to do it alone. She had to have help.
My opinion: She knew Caylee was dead. She did not know where the body was.
The prosecution did not support their charges against Casey. They rushed this to trial without gathering (or at least did not present) the appropriate evidence.
G1Pens
Member
I would have not wanted to be on that jury. Based on what I know, which is very little, I don't know that I could have voted to convict her. However, she is guilty of something and a lot more than lying to the authorities. She knew/knows more that she is admitting to. It's something she and possibly her family now have to live with for the rest of their lives. In the end a little girl never got to grow up, the rest is really irrelevant. It's all very sad.
OKLAHOMAN
Member
She was only convicted of 4 counts of lying and each count has a max penalty of one year, she has served 3 years in jail awaiting trial, the judge can set her free for time served and it would not suprise me.
civil case
OJ Simpson was not tried in civil court by the state for murder he was sued by a father for wrongful death. That lawsuit (like most other civil lawsuits) can be filed (in some jurisdictions) regardless of the criminal verdict in any case. It aledges that even if it was not murder the defendant wrongfully caused the death.
He was and is as far as our legal system is concerned innocent of murder, and can not even be charged again for the same crime.
Criminal verdicts (when a verdict is reached) can only be Guilty or Not Guilty. Not Guilty by reason of insanity is still Not Guilty.
The standard for reaching a verdict of Guilty is that the State has proved Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. An accused in our system is entitled to the presumption of innocence UNTIL proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, a not guilty means innocent.
OJ Simpson was not tried in civil court by the state for murder he was sued by a father for wrongful death. That lawsuit (like most other civil lawsuits) can be filed (in some jurisdictions) regardless of the criminal verdict in any case. It aledges that even if it was not murder the defendant wrongfully caused the death.
He was and is as far as our legal system is concerned innocent of murder, and can not even be charged again for the same crime.
Criminal verdicts (when a verdict is reached) can only be Guilty or Not Guilty. Not Guilty by reason of insanity is still Not Guilty.
The standard for reaching a verdict of Guilty is that the State has proved Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. An accused in our system is entitled to the presumption of innocence UNTIL proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, a not guilty means innocent.
Last edited:
sbell111
Member
Casey's mother is Cindy. I doubt that any charges will be filed against her.
sbell111
Member
That doesn't logically follow.
Imagine that I kill someone. I plan it out carefully and cover my tracks very well. Gary Sinise can't find a bit of evidence against me. I have motive, means, and opportunity, so I get arrested. My lawyers shred the prosecuter's case.
Am I innocent? Of course not. I killed someone. I was found not guilty, but I'm sure not innocent.
PenMan1
Member
Roy:
I think he is talking about Cindy Anthony (Casey's mother). It wouldn't surprise me if they do put her on trial. The State DID prove that she lied under oath.
Bet there's a book or a movie in her future about this!
OKLAHOMAN
Member
bitshird
Member
Steve, you unfortunately are "Innocent in the eyes of the law", But isn't Justice supposed to be blind?? With idiots like the prosecutor in the Anthony case and the circus in the OJ trial. I guess Lady Justice poked her own eyes out!!
By definition....
We are getting into two different meanings of innocent.
adj. innocent - not guilty of a specific crime or offense. In your example you have been found by a jury of your peers to be that.
adj. innocent - doing or thinking nothing morally wrong: pure. In your example you are not that.
So you are both innocent and not innocent.
We are getting into two different meanings of innocent.
adj. innocent - not guilty of a specific crime or offense. In your example you have been found by a jury of your peers to be that.
adj. innocent - doing or thinking nothing morally wrong: pure. In your example you are not that.
So you are both innocent and not innocent.
sbell111
Member
I knew a girl like that once. Good times.
snyiper
Member
If we indeed are innocent in the eyes of the law untill proven guilty why did she wait in jail for 3 years? That does not sound like innocent untill proven guilty. That sounds like"we think you are guilty and now all we have to do is prove it" to me.
azamiryou
Member
Gut feeling #1: She did it.
Gut feeling #2: I am damn proud to live in a country where gut feelings are not sufficient to convict someone of a crime.
Gut feeling #2: I am damn proud to live in a country where gut feelings are not sufficient to convict someone of a crime.
Our system does allow, under some circumstances, people to be held in jail waiting and during trial.
Waiting trial for 3 years does not sound like the "speedy trial" promised by the constitution either.
roddesigner
Member
One big difference between the two cases, when OJ was found not guilty the state CLOSED the case inferring that nothing further would be done with investigating other possible suspects.
At the press conference nothing was mentioned about closing the Anthony case.
At the press conference nothing was mentioned about closing the Anthony case.
Russianwolf
Member
The true failure here was at the Grand Jury level. There is no way that the Prosecution should have been able to get an indictment with no real evidence.
The Grand Jury's job is to make sure that the Court's time and money isn't wasted. When I served duty in DC we had a prosecutor that came in with a great story. But that's all he really had was a story. We told him to come back when he had evidence.
The Grand Jury's job is to make sure that the Court's time and money isn't wasted. When I served duty in DC we had a prosecutor that came in with a great story. But that's all he really had was a story. We told him to come back when he had evidence.
roddesigner
Member
Sorry but in most states the Grand Jury is a star chamber, with only the prosecutor presenting evidence, virtually no defense attorney would allow his client to even be present, a half decent attorney can convince a grand jury that the dog committed the crime
Russianwolf
Member
A Grand Jury isn't a trial jury. It is simply a jury where the prosecution presents their case and the jury decides if it moves forwards to trial or if the prosecution needs to do more work. The defendant is not present nor are they effected in any way by the findings in a Grand Jury. Its all about finding if the prosecution is ready for a trial.
OKLAHOMAN
Member
Well seems that starting this thread the gods are trying to get me to understant the justics system better. In todays mail I got a notice to apperar on Monday the 11th for jury duty. Its been over 40 years the last time I servered on a jury.
ham sandwich
Wachtler, (Sol Wachtler former chief justice of the NY State court of appeals in a 1985 interview with the NY Daily News) who became the state's top judge earlier this month, said district attorneys now have so much influence on grand juries that "by and large" they could get them to "indict a ham sandwich."
Last edited:
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
Serves you right, Roy.