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

[The30YardSlant]

It doesn't surprise me she didn't get 1st degree murder - no actual direct tie to the murder made that a hard sell for the prosecutor. But it's indisputable that she knew her daughter was missing, inconceivable that she didn't know she was dead, and she clearly and blatently covered it up in an effort to keep it from being discovered, so whether the jurors had enough evidence to prove she intentionally killed her daughter, I'm shocked they didn't at least feel convinced she was involved and therefore guilty of manslaughter.

The only one that shocked me was that she was found not guilty of child abuse.

 

[trickblue]

I'm glad she was found Not Guilty as the case was purely circumstantial...

Do I think she did it? Yes, but I get really uncomfortable with people being convicted by conjecture and wild stories with no evidence...

The prosecution needed to put together a better case. She didn't have a great lawyer and still won...

I'd rather 1000 guilty people be acquitted than one innocent person be convicted of something they didn't do...

Hopefully Karma will deal with her...

 

[casmith07]

It was one of those cases where the amount of circumstantial evidence was so overwhelming that it became obvious that she almost certainly did it barring the biggest set of coincidences imaginable, however because none of the evidence was concrete there wasnt really any way to convict her of murder under the guidelines of our judicial system. OJ just got off ebcause the police were idiots and screwed up, but the point is that both were guilty and everyone knows it.

She clearly did it and I bet everyone on thta jury knew it, but they had to do their job

I agree. The good thing, at least, is that the jury did their jobs correctly the first time. This would be bad for the judicial system if they returned a guilty verdict and then it went up on appeal and came back that the jury screwed up...Florida's judiciary would be a joke at that point.

It doesn't surprise me she didn't get 1st degree murder - no actual direct tie to the murder made that a hard sell for the prosecutor. But it's indisputable that she knew her daughter was missing, inconceivable that she didn't know she was dead, and she clearly and blatently covered it up in an effort to keep it from being discovered, so whether the jurors had enough evidence to prove she intentionally killed her daughter, I'm shocked they didn't at least feel convinced she was involved and therefore guilty of manslaughter.

Still wouldn't satisfy the elements of manslaughter.

 

[DFWJC]

The only one that shocked me was that she was found not guilty of child abuse.

I thought it was an either/or thing. Could they have also tried her for manslaughter or even child abuse when she was on tiral for murder?

 

[The30YardSlant]

I'm glad she was found Not Guilty as the case was purely circumstantial...

I'm not because she was guilty. Just because the system worked within its flawed parameters doesnt mean justice was served nor that we should be happy.

 

[The30YardSlant]

I thought it was an either/or thing. Could they have also tried her for manslaughter or even child abuse when she was on tiral for murder?

Murdering your child would constitute child abuse, it's just that if found guilty of murder the child abuse conviction is inconsequential in comparison so it is neglected.

 

[Stautner]

The only one that shocked me was that she was found not guilty of child abuse.

Child abuse for what? Duct taping her mouth? If they were convinced she did they very easily would have been able to

I agree. The good thing, at least, is that the jury did their jobs correctly the first time. This would be bad for the judicial system if they returned a guilty verdict and then it went up on appeal and came back that the jury screwed up...Florida's judiciary would be a joke at that point.



Still wouldn't satisfy the elements of manslaughter.

If they thought she put the tape over her daughter's mouth, and that led to suffocation, it would. In other words, they may not have been able to reach the conclusion that she intentionally killed her daughter, but they may have been able to at least believe she took an action that led to her death, even if unintentional.

Even so, I felt, just as I'm sure the prosecution did, that the jury might convict of manslaughter even if they were hesitant about the charge of 1st degree murder.

 

[Doomsday101]

I'm glad she was found Not Guilty as the case was purely circumstantial...

Do I think she did it? Yes, but I get really uncomfortable with people being convicted by conjecture and wild stories with no evidence...

The prosecution needed to put together a better case. She didn't have a great lawyer and still won...

I'd rather 1000 guilty people be acquitted than one innocent person be convicted of something they didn't do...

Hopefully Karma will deal with her...

Karma is going to deal with her? Yeah right.

 

[The30YardSlant]

Child abuse for what? Duct taping her mouth? If they were convinced she did they very easily would have been able to

If she didnt actually kill her (which is what the record shows now) then it becomes a case of a parent knowingly ignoring and failing to report a missing child and then lying about, which constitutes child abuse as it was a detriment to her well-being given that she was only three and can clearly not thrive on her own. People have have been convicted of child abuse in such instances with much less evidence.

 

[zrinkill]

This thread is making me feel even worse.

I now understand why a murderous callous lying party girl got away with the murder of an innocent child.

Bella Vita

 

[casmith07]

I thought it was an either/or thing. Could they have also tried her for manslaughter or even child abuse when she was on tiral for murder?

They can, but a good defense attorney will argue that the charges are multiplicious and try and get some of the counts/charges dropped as a result.

I'm not because she was guilty. Just because the system worked within its flawed parameters doesnt mean justice was served nor that we should be happy.

Well, she wasn't guilty.

Murdering your child would constitute child abuse, it's just that if found guilty of murder the child abuse conviction is inconsequential in comparison so it is neglected.

No. It's because the elements of the crime cannot be satisfied to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the act was committed. I understand your frustration, but in examining this case and the evidence the finding is correct.

If they thought she put the tape over her daughter's mouth, and that led to suffocation, it would. In other words, they may not have been able to reach the conclusion that she intentionally killed her daughter, but they may have been able to at least believe she took an action that led to her death, even if unintentional.

Even so, I felt, just as I'm sure the prosecution did, that the jury might convict of manslaughter even if they were hesitant about the charge of 1st degree murder.

Perhaps, if they were able to prove the elements of manslaughter. It sounds like this jury was actually pretty intelligent and not what you normally see on trial.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

It doesn't surprise me she didn't get 1st degree murder - no actual direct tie to the murder made that a hard sell for the prosecutor. But it's indisputable that she knew her daughter was missing, inconceivable that she didn't know she was dead, and she clearly and blatently covered it up in an effort to keep it from being discovered, so whether the jurors had enough evidence to prove she intentionally killed her daughter, I'm shocked they didn't at least feel convinced she was involved and therefore guilty of manslaughter.

there was nothing to tie her to the death from what I understand.

 

[Stautner]

there was nothing to tie her to the death from what I understand.

That's what I said - no direct tie.

 

[Doomsday101]

You leave a child in a parked car while you go into a store and people are arrested for child abuse and yet there is no child abuse in this case? Not even Abandonment? Missing June 16, 2008, but was not reported missing until July 15, 2008

 

[Stautner]

Well, she wasn't guilty.

You are obviously bright enough to know that being found not guilty doesn't mean she wasn't guilty. It only means the jury didn't feel the prosecution was able to prove she was guilty.

 

[The30YardSlant]

Well, she wasn't guilty.

Only because the flawed system says she isnt, which is the point. Our system worked, but our system needs modification.

No. It's because the elements of the crime cannot be satisfied to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the act was committed. I understand your frustration, but in examining this case and the evidence the finding is correct.

I was referencing the instance in which the accused party is found guilty of murdering their child. Once they are found guilty of murder, the child abuse charge becomes irrelevant. It would be like finding someone guilty of both grand theft and petty theft for the same act of thievery.

 

[casmith07]

You are obviously bright enough to know that being found not guilty doesn't mean she wasn't guilty. It only means the jury didn't feel the prosecution was able to prove she was guilty.

I also am looking at this from a legal standpoint, since that's my field, particularly military justice (criminal law).

She was acquitted in a court of law. Therefore not guilty. Anything else is mere opinion on the matter.

As I said before it's always frustrating when the death of anyone, be it a child or an adult, goes without some sort of resolution, but it happens all the time.

Nobody continued to cover the story of the little girl that was gunned down in cold blood at that political rally in Arizona past that weekend it happened. Why does this case deserve any different treatment or ire from "fans"?

 

[Doomsday101]

I also am looking at this from a legal standpoint, since that's my field, particularly military justice (criminal law).

She was acquitted in a court of law. Therefore not guilty. Anything else is mere opinion on the matter.

As I said before it's always frustrating when the death of anyone, be it a child or an adult, goes without some sort of resolution, but it happens all the time.

Nobody continued to cover the story of the little girl that was gunned down in cold blood at that political rally in Arizona past that weekend it happened. Why does this case deserve any different treatment or ire from "fans"?

Because it was the mother. That is why.

 

[casmith07]

Only because the flawed system says she isnt, which is the point. Our system worked, but our system needs modification.

I'd be interested to know what you think is flawed about the system?

I was referencing the instance in which the accused party is found guilty of murdering their child. Once they are found guilty of murder, the child abuse charge becomes irrelevant. It would be like finding someone guilty of both grand theft and petty theft for the same act of thievery.

OK - I misread it. In this case it depends. Child abuse is not (as far as I know) a lesser included offense under murder/homicide, and therefore would not be multiplicious. It would be a separate charge, and therefore good to go, so they absolutely could convict on both charges as opposed to neglecting one or the other.

 

[Stautner]

You leave a child in a parked car while you go into a store and people are arrested for child abuse and yet there is no child abuse in this case? Not even Abandonment? The June 16, 2008, but was not reported missing until July 15, 2008

If the jury bought the idea that she may have drowned accidentally and all Casey was doing was covering up out of panic, then there would have been no abuse, and the jury's decision makes sense. Still, the duct tape is pretty hard to explain away in that scenario.

I'm not sure how the jury could come to that conclusion though since there was absolutely no evidence that's what happened. I'm not sure how the law views it, but in my mind the jury should have been instructed to disregard the entire notion since there was no evidence at all presented to suggest it - nothing even remotely presented that sets it up as a plausible alternative.

I suspect casey's Dad is what presented the biggest reasonable doubt. He tried to kill himself and left a note, while vague, still expressed personal remorse as if he had some responsibility for what happened.