Casey Anthony - NOT Guilty!

[danem]

The system isn't broken, unless you don't mind executing innocent people. Which would be the result if you changed the system in a way that would allow anyone to be convicted based on the evidence presented at the Anthony trial. You can't always have things both ways, the point of a trial isn't to help the cops. It's an evidentiary fact-finding enterprise, and if the facts don't support the charge brought, then that's really all there is to it and an acquittal was the correct course of action. Did she murder the kid? Nobody knows. Did she probably have something to do with the kid's death in some way? Of course. But nobody knows what that might have been, and unless you connect the dots, you can't just go convicting and sentencing people to death based on gut feelings. People are wrong, often. We already convict far too many innocent people as it is.

+10000 more well said than anything I've heard so far

[Timkin]

IF she probably had something to do with the kid's death (this is even your opinion, Chris and I do respect your opinion) that would make her, at the very least an accessory to murder.   You are correct.. based on the evidence presented, she is off the hook.  But the lady either directly or indirectly had something to do with the death of the child...yet she is not convicted of anything except lying which was not disputed at all .. That should be the first clue and should have given the jury VERY reasonable basis for her being directly responsible for the child's murder.   THAT is the problem I find with the system.  It seems to me , if you have a good enough attorney , there can be solid evidence, and you can still buy your way out of it.  I totally agree that we convict innocent people...by the same token we let GUILTY , incompetent and apparently heartless people like this lady go with basically a slap on the wrist, so to speak for lying.  I stick to my opinion.. The justice system is broken. Yes innocent people are convicted.. something terribly wrong with that.  Guilty people set free even though they killed someone (cite OJ and this incompetent Mother) .  Something still terribly wrong.

[Ralph W]

Unfortunately, things do go terribly wrong. In this case there were many dots but not enough lines to connect enough of them to prove the charge of murder.  That poor baby didn't walk herself into the woods but if you're going to jump to a conclusion (even if it is the correct one) then in our justice system the only way you win the game of hopscotch is to hit every number in every box.

Because the child was in the care of the mother, and ended up in the underbrush, I can't understand why something like child abuse, child endangerment or whatever the violation might be wasn't at least a part of the charges. If someone found a child in their car seat in a closed hot car you could bet your bippy the one in charge would be arrested and convicted.

[Timkin]

Unfortunately, things do go terribly wrong. In this case there were many dots but not enough lines to connect enough of them to prove the charge of murder.  That poor baby didn't walk herself into the woods but if you're going to jump to a conclusion (even if it is the correct one) then in our justice system the only way you win the game of hopscotch is to hit every number in every box.

Because the child was in the care of the mother, and ended up in the underbrush, I can't understand why something like child abuse, child endangerment or whatever the violation might be wasn't at least a part of the charges. If someone found a child in their car seat in a closed hot car you could bet your bippy the one in charge would be arrested and convicted.

Bingo, Ralph!   While I totally concur with Chris' position and similar,  I still maintain that even a moron could tell this "Mother" directly or indirectly is responsible... yet she faces no charges.  A horrible case of blind justice.

[buckethead]

She did face charges. She prevailed against them.

Not having paid the amount of attention to this case as so many seem to have done, I don't have an opinion as to the actual guilt or innocence of the accused. The jury did.

If the glove don't fit...

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Let me ask this question to the ones who know how the law works - If they had tried her on a lesser charge ilo 1DM do you think there would have been sufficient evidence to convict?  Or was it because the prosecution went for the gusto that she was awarded an acquittal and a slap on the wrist for perjury.

Second thought to this, WTF was the prosecution thinking when they went to trial for 1DM, knowing the lack of evidence that they had.  Where was the level head talking them down to a reasonable charge that might have stuck?

[cityimrov]

Unfortunately, things do go terribly wrong. In this case there were many dots but not enough lines to connect enough of them to prove the charge of murder.  That poor baby didn't walk herself into the woods but if you're going to jump to a conclusion (even if it is the correct one) then in our justice system the only way you win the game of hopscotch is to hit every number in every box.

Because the child was in the care of the mother, and ended up in the underbrush, I can't understand why something like child abuse, child endangerment or whatever the violation might be wasn't at least a part of the charges. If someone found a child in their car seat in a closed hot car you could bet your bippy the one in charge would be arrested and convicted.

Bingo, Ralph!   While I totally concur with Chris' position and similar,  I still maintain that even a moron could tell this "Mother" directly or indirectly is responsible... yet she faces no charges.  A horrible case of blind justice.

So what your saying is, if you are accused of something (example: murder) and the jury doesn't seem to be convinced you are a murderer.  Then that means you should be tried again for another charge?  If that charge doesn't work, you  should be tried again for another charge until they figure out what crime you actually caused?  This keeps going on and on and on no matter how many years or decades it takes until "justice" is done and the court finds out what you did?  Should you be found not guilty of any of this stuff, what happens then?  What happens to the years of your life spent in the court system?

Is this what your saying or am I missing something? 

[Ralph W]

I believe the state has one chance to get it right and if the charges related to the case were not included, such as were the four counts of lying to law enforcement officials, then those charges can no longer be brought.

[Timkin]

Unfortunately, things do go terribly wrong. In this case there were many dots but not enough lines to connect enough of them to prove the charge of murder.  That poor baby didn't walk herself into the woods but if you're going to jump to a conclusion (even if it is the correct one) then in our justice system the only way you win the game of hopscotch is to hit every number in every box.

Because the child was in the care of the mother, and ended up in the underbrush, I can't understand why something like child abuse, child endangerment or whatever the violation might be wasn't at least a part of the charges. If someone found a child in their car seat in a closed hot car you could bet your bippy the one in charge would be arrested and convicted.

Bingo, Ralph!   While I totally concur with Chris' position and similar,  I still maintain that even a moron could tell this "Mother" directly or indirectly is responsible... yet she faces no charges.  A horrible case of blind justice.

So what your saying is, if you are accused of something (example: murder) and the jury doesn't seem to be convinced you are a murderer.  Then that means you should be tried again for another charge?  If that charge doesn't work, you  should be tried again for another charge until they figure out what crime you actually caused?  This keeps going on and on and on no matter how many years or decades it takes until "justice" is done and the court finds out what you did?  Should you be found not guilty of any of this stuff, what happens then?  What happens to the years of your life spent in the court system?

Is this what your saying or am I missing something? 

I will answer that by simply asking you this question.  Do you (personally) belive that she was either DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY involved in the murder of this child?  Simple question.   I am not arguing that the dots do not connect completely... but they connect enough for me, personally to believe that she was either directly the murderer or had something to do with it. 

[cityimrov]

Unfortunately, things do go terribly wrong. In this case there were many dots but not enough lines to connect enough of them to prove the charge of murder.  That poor baby didn't walk herself into the woods but if you're going to jump to a conclusion (even if it is the correct one) then in our justice system the only way you win the game of hopscotch is to hit every number in every box.

Because the child was in the care of the mother, and ended up in the underbrush, I can't understand why something like child abuse, child endangerment or whatever the violation might be wasn't at least a part of the charges. If someone found a child in their car seat in a closed hot car you could bet your bippy the one in charge would be arrested and convicted.

Bingo, Ralph!   While I totally concur with Chris' position and similar,  I still maintain that even a moron could tell this "Mother" directly or indirectly is responsible... yet she faces no charges.  A horrible case of blind justice.

So what your saying is, if you are accused of something (example: murder) and the jury doesn't seem to be convinced you are a murderer.  Then that means you should be tried again for another charge?  If that charge doesn't work, you  should be tried again for another charge until they figure out what crime you actually caused?  This keeps going on and on and on no matter how many years or decades it takes until "justice" is done and the court finds out what you did?  Should you be found not guilty of any of this stuff, what happens then?  What happens to the years of your life spent in the court system?

Is this what your saying or am I missing something? 

I will answer that by simply asking you this question.  Do you (personally) belive that she was either DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY involved in the murder of this child?  Simple question.   I am not arguing that the dots do not connect completely... but they connect enough for me, personally to believe that she was either directly the murderer or had something to do with it.

I cannot answer that question.  I haven't watched the trial or even the media coverage.  Except for a very few snippets that CNBC shows in their 10 second blurb, a Twitter/Facebook/etc account full of outrage, and this thread - I know barely anything about this case.  I'm not even sure where this case took place at!

However, what I do see is a whole bunch of people ready to drastically change the entire legal system.  That's what concerns me.  Politicians know this story riles people up and if they can use it to change laws which will eventually decide court cases of not only this story but thousands to millions of other people - that concerns me. 

[Timkin]

I would only see the system changed because I did watch enough of it and follow it well enough to have an opinion. Maybe if I had some doubt about this lady , I would not be so upset at the outcome.

Reasonable doubt is one thing.  I just do not buy into the notion that this woman was not involved in the death of the child. I think she either directly did it, or was an accessory to it , and either way because of "reasonable doubt"  she walks.  Just her lying to law enforcement should have put "reasonable doubt" into the credibility of her story.   OJ's trial was basicly the same thing.. Botched up Prosecution....so he got away with it.. but the evidence against him and her , to me at least, is too damning .

[cityimrov]

Too late, the pieces are falling.  It's happening.  It's happening very very quickly.  Laws like these usually take months to years of debate to prevent any "side-effects".  People want this law to happen, tomorrow! 

Here's the first fallout: "Caylee's Law":
"Florida's proposal would make it a felony for a parent or other caregiver to not report a child under the age of 12 missing after 48 hours. It also makes it a felony to not report a child's death or "location of a child's corpse" to police within two hours of the death."
http://www.news4jax.com/news/28495818/detail.html

Also look at:
http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/11/cayleys-law-crime-fighter-or-more-grief-for-mourning-parents-and-troubled-teens/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/caylees-law-casey-anthony-_n_893953.html

Wow, a felony.  This is a dangerous law - especially if it has strict enforcement.  If people (especially parents) really want this law as it is being discussed today, I really hope they are paying close attention to the person they vote for attorney general. 


As for the jury...
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/28509115/detail.html
http://www.wpbf.com/news/28502086/detail.html

[wsansewjs]

Too late, the pieces are falling.  It's happening.  It's happening very very quickly.  Laws like these usually take months to years of debate to prevent any "side-effects".  People want this law to happen, tomorrow! 

Here's the first fallout: "Caylee's Law":
"Florida's proposal would make it a felony for a parent or other caregiver to not report a child under the age of 12 missing after 48 hours. It also makes it a felony to not report a child's death or "location of a child's corpse" to police within two hours of the death."
http://www.news4jax.com/news/28495818/detail.html

Also look at:
http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/11/cayleys-law-crime-fighter-or-more-grief-for-mourning-parents-and-troubled-teens/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/caylees-law-casey-anthony-_n_893953.html

Wow, a felony.  This is a dangerous law - especially if it has strict enforcement.  If people (especially parents) really want this law as it is being discussed today, I really hope they are paying close attention to the person they vote for attorney general. 


As for the jury...
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/28509115/detail.html
http://www.wpbf.com/news/28502086/detail.html

So if I don't report my child missing because my child was in the care of my friend on a trip with my child's friend, BAM! I would be in the slammer.

Gee thanks a lot leg jerkers who RUSH to the legislation. That's like acting without thinking.

-Josh

[cityimrov]

Interesting update on that law.  It's turning out to be very popular. 
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/os-caylees-law-qpoll-20110805,0,5861598.story

The article doesn't say but I'm curious if parents are strong supporters of the law since it affects them the most.