Casey Anthony trial starts today...*Found not guilty*

[JohnnyHopkins]

I thought this tweet was funny....

 

[Doomsday101]

The one question I had is.......and I never heard anyone ask it......if Caylee drowned accidentally as claimed - why did Casey allow a "manhunt" to go on for weeks? Why allow hundreds of people search for your daughter and you not say anything? Was it because you didn't know what your defense would ultimately be? I dunno.

Doesn't pass the smell test.

I agree and the fact is if it was an accidental drowning you’re not looking at murder charges. I can understand the jury not handing down the death sentence but I have a hard time swallowing her going scott free. I just hope somewhere down the line she has a slip of the tongue and we find out the truth.

 

[Doomsday101]

Absolutely not, and not because of "common sense and a backbone" but because during jury selection you'd probably obviously show a bias toward kids/grandkids. Voir dire is a pretty serious process.

I guess that is why lawyers love me. I have been to jury duty 13 times and have been chooen as a member of the jury 12 times.

 

[zrinkill]

I just hope somewhere down the line she has a slip of the tongue and we find out the truth.

Why? The ****** is untouchable now ....... she could admit to killing the baby, laugh about it, and there is not a thing our joke of a legal system could do.

 

[Doomsday101]

Why? The ****** is untouchable now ....... she could admit to killing the baby, laugh about it, and there is not a thing our joke of a legal system could do.

At least people would know the truth. I'm not thrilled with the verdict but I don't see our legal system as a joke I see it as imperfect but then there is no legal system that is. I would much rather have a system that ensures the accused the presumption of innocent and the state proves guilt than a person trying to prove they are innocent.

 

[Khartun]

I just hope somewhere down the line she has a slip of the tongue and we find out the truth.

The problem with that is you could never believe a thing that crazy ***** says. She has told so much BS that she is now like Joran van der Sloot.

 

[Doomsday101]

The problem with that is you could never believe a thing that crazy ***** says. She has told so much BS that she is now like Joran van der Sloot.

I would still hope some where down the line she confesses. I doubt she will

 

[casmith07]

Brings me back to my point of doing away with the civil aspect and the CPS hoopla. Make neglect a criminal offense.

And then what? Tie up valuable resources by having police officers and other law enforcement officials investigating child neglect cases rather than catching drug dealers, murderers, rapists, and child molesters?

OK.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

True, but that fact along with many other facts prove she did. Not only did she not report it, she lied to her parents about her whereabouts for over a month (she lived at their house with Caylee), she lied to the police about what happened to the little girl when they offered to help her find her, she tells the police she had been looking for her for over a month but we later found out she had been partying and never mentioned the baby being gone to her friends, she was driving around a car that was proven to have decomposing flesh and a hair from Caylees head after death, (she was the only one that drove the car) in phone calls after being arrested she did not want to talk about Caylee, when Texas Equisearch came to her house she refused to cooperate to find her little girl. She basically admitted in her defense that the baby died under her care (even though she lied about it was the pool) Duct tape was found over the babys face.

Not one fact proves she did it. But all the facts show she and she alone was responsible for her death.

Sigh..no. It doesn't.

Being responsible for the death does not equal committing murder or manslaughter. There's nothing to actually prove she committed either of those two crimes, by definition.

 

[Stautner]

The thing that galls me is that the defense was allowed to essentially present testimony from Casey without putting her on the stand.

What I mean is, the defense was allowed to make claims that could only have come from Casey, without any other testimony from another party or evidence to support the claim.

For example, the claim that the drowning was accidental and that Casey's dad covered it up after Casey panicked had no foundation other than Casey presumably telling her attorney's that's what happened. There was no other witness to back up the claim, and no evidence to back up the claim, therefore the defense was allowed to present Casey's claim - here testimony - as to what happened without putting her on the stand where she would be forced to discuss it rather than just present it.

Same goes for the claim that Casey's bizarre behavior stemmed from her Dad molesting her when she was young. In the absence of any testimony from another party or any supporting evidence, the only possible source of this claim could be Casey hereself, therefore she was allowed to make this claim without having to be put on the stand.

I don't begrudge a defense lawyer the right to suggest alternate scenarios, but it seems to me there should have to be at least some minimum level of evidence to at least provide a foundation for the possibility of the alternative scenario.

 

[casmith07]

The thing that galls me is that the defense was allowed to essentially present testimony from Casey without putting her on the stand.

What I mean is, the defense was allowed to make claims that could only have come from Casey, without any other testimony from another party or evidence to support the claim.

For example, the claim that the drowning was accidental and that Casey's dad covered it up after Casey panicked had no foundation other than Casey presumably telling her attorney's that's what happened. There was no other witness to back up the claim, and no evidence to back up the claim, therefore the defense was allowed to present Casey's claim - here testimony - as to what happened without putting her on the stand where she would be forced to discuss it rather than just present it.

Same goes for the claim that Casey's bizarre behavior stemmed from her Dad molesting her when she was young. In the absence of any testimony from another party or any supporting evidence, the only possible source of this claim could be Casey hereself, therefore she was allowed to make this claim without having to be put on the stand.

I don't begrudge a defense lawyer the right to suggest alternate scenarios, but it seems to me there should have to be at least some minimum level of evidence to at least provide a foundation for the possibility of the alternative scenario.

The defendant never has to take the stand. They also don't have to present a case at all, or evidence at all. The burden of proof rests solely with the state/government.

 

[Stautner]

The defendant never has to take the stand. They also don't have to present a case at all, or evidence at all. The burden of proof rests solely with the state/government.

Thanks for the 101 version of the judicial system, however it has no application to what I said.

The point was not that she should be required to take the stand, or to present a case at all. The point was that if she is going to testify, she should have to testify on the stand rather than allow her lawyer to present her testimony in her stead.

Now, to go further with the 101 version of the judicial system - we also all know that if a defendent chooses to testify in his/her own behalf, he/she will be subject to questioning by the prosecution. What I am saying is that by allowing the defense to present her testimony for her it seems to me that principle is being circumvented. To me that should be disallowed as hearsay - other people cannot testify as to what another person witnessed, and I don't like the idea that attorneys can wiggle their way around that.

 

[Doomsday101]

“It seems inevitable that Casey Anthony and her family will try to capitalize on their situation and that they will hire a publicist, and perhaps even an agent, to identify and sort out immediate opportunities. No doubt her legal counsel will also want to limit her exposure and ensure she is careful with any statements she might make,” said crisis management expert Gene Grabowski. “Casey and her family have a short window of opportunity on which to capitalize – probably no more than a few months. It is generally acceptable for someone like Casey, who is not a traditional public figure and who is without substantial income, to accept a fee for a big, exclusive interview with the likes of ABC’s 20/20 or Oprah.”

“Big money will be involved in the deal – millions,” said publicist and media strategist, Angie Meyer. “But those who are upset about the verdict will be upset even more if Casey is awarded a generous sum of money from networks and/or publishers for her story. It’s a disturbing trend we’ve seen trickle down throughout large cases in the past decade. Those organizations that have vilified Casey for the last few years will also be the ones to make her a millionaire.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...-millions-from-media-hollywood/#ixzz1RLOmQlVw

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Or the mother played the role her very intelligent and talented defense attorney wanted her to play--for her daughter's sake.

Think about it. She was still the mother and going out dancing and stuff isn't what you do a month after you know you're child dies....

Her behavior is the most telling thing to me..only because I've dealt with an uncontrollable situation where someone had my child and I wasn't dancing, nor feeling like it.

Unlike Scott Peterson, she has breasts and generally juries don't convict females as much statistically last time I checked.

In any case, poorly done by the state of Florida. Someone killed that little girl.

My hunch is the role of the cop and boyfriend was played in to imply he could have maybe told her not to call and report because she'd potentially be charged with murder by the defense, yet downplayed by the state.

you clearly are projecting the pain you feel over your child's death onto this case. You feel no one was blamed for her death so you want to make sure Casey Anthony pays for her girl's death even though the evidence was not there.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

I blame the verdict on the Canadians...they are at the very essence of most things that go wrong in America...even if they go right but are perceived as wrong.

It's the furriners of the north that are to blame.

 

[vta]

The defendant never has to take the stand.

I think that's a major flaw in the system. A person, if brought that far on reasonable suspicion, should have to explain him or herself. Pricey mouthpieces just don't seem the logical choice for obtaining the truth in any situation.

 

[peplaw06]

Thanks for the 101 version of the judicial system, however it has no application to what I said.

The point was not that she should be required to take the stand, or to present a case at all. The point was that if she is going to testify, she should have to testify on the stand rather than allow her lawyer to present her testimony in her stead.

Now, to go further with the 101 version of the judicial system - we also all know that if a defendent chooses to testify in his/her own behalf, he/she will be subject to questioning by the prosecution. What I am saying is that by allowing the defense to present her testimony for her it seems to me that principle is being circumvented. To me that should be disallowed as hearsay - other people cannot testify as to what another person witnessed, and I don't like the idea that attorneys can wiggle their way around that.

How did her attorney get to present "Casey's testimony?" I'm going to need specifics before I can answer this question properly.

 

[Doomsday101]

you clearly are projecting the pain you feel over your child's death onto this case. You feel no one was blamed for her death so you want to make sure Casey Anthony pays for her girl's death even though the evidence was not there.

In this jury eye your right. She got the luck of the draw. I don't think anyone could guarantee another jury would have seen it the exact same way.

Let's be honest no one knew how this jury would rule, when the verdict came down most through Anthony was toast given the Jury had deliberated for only 11 hours.

 

[Doomsday101]

How did her attorney get to present "Casey's testimony?" I'm going to need specifics before I can answer this question properly.

By suggesting that the child drowned and her dad knew and helped her? All they had to do is make the claim and did nothing nor were required to prove that is what happened.

 

[Stautner]

How did her attorney get to present "Casey's testimony?" I'm going to need specifics before I can answer this question properly.

Read Post #230