• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Casey Anthony Trial: Jury Reaches Verdict

Gargantuan said:
They are not standard procedure, but I'd imagine one must've been done if it was claimed she drowned... like I said before I didn't follow this case really until the last month of it so I am unaware of when they made the claim she drowned. Diatom tests again though are not standard autopsy procedure.
Click to expand...

I think the problem was that the defense didn't suggest drowning until the day of opening statements. Prior to that point it had never been offered as a public explanation.
 
Gargantuan said:
All evidence is not circumstantial by definition... where did you get that from? There is direct evidence and circumstantial evidence.
Eyewitness statements are pretty poor evidence but they tend to hold up in court.
Click to expand...

Evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An important distinction in the field of evidence is that between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, or evidence that suggests truth as opposed to evidence that directly proves truth. Many have seen this line to be less-than-clear and significant arguments have arisen over the difference.
Click to expand...

I'm one of the many.
I suspect this is another argument arisen over the difference.

Look, "directly proves the truth" is a bankrupt concept. It took years to expel it from the common language of science, apparently we've got a lot more work to do on the front.
 
Just to be more precise-- the 14th juror said the duct tape was found near the skull, the mandible was still attached to the skull, so they assumed the tape had been on the skull or why was the mandible still attached to the skull? I'm 90% sure that is what I heard him say. The tape could have been on the bag, not the baby's face. THEY heard the entire evidence, WE heard the news clips.
As for the test for drowning... after it came out in opening arguments-- would the prosecution want to take the chance at that point of testing for drowning?? That would mess their case up if it came up positive -- show biz, folks. Yes, they should have done that test then, but they didn't.
 
Mach said:
Evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I'm one of the many.
I suspect this is another argument arisen over the difference.

Look, "directly proves the truth" is a bankrupt concept. It took years to expel it from the common language of science, apparently we've got a lot more work to do on the front.
Click to expand...

Many what? Is there a source on who this "many" is? Let's say that there is a bank robbery. There is camera footage of you entering the bank - that is direct evidence that you were at the bank at the time of the robbery. You're at the ATM drawing money, then suddenly the camera goes out, and the bank is robbed. We cannot find who committed the robbery, but based on the investigations of people who were in the bank, we find that the day after the robbery, you bought a brand new 100,000 dollar sportscar. You tell the agents investigating you were at the ATM and did nothing more. But they can't find anyone else to charge for the robbery, so they decide to charge you. That is circumstantial evidence - it doesn't directly prove that you are guilty of the robbery. Just like Casey Anthony being a ****ty mother, that doesn't prove she killed the daughter.
 
Gargantuan said:
Many what? Is there a source on who this "many" is? Let's say that there is a bank robbery. There is camera footage of you entering the bank - that is direct evidence that you were at the bank at the time of the robbery. You're at the ATM drawing money, then suddenly the camera goes out, and the bank is robbed. We cannot find who committed the robbery, but based on the investigations of people who were in the bank, we find that the day after the robbery, you bought a brand new 100,000 dollar sportscar. You tell the agents investigating you were at the ATM and did nothing more. But they can't find anyone else to charge for the robbery, so they decide to charge you. That is circumstantial evidence - it doesn't directly prove that you are guilty of the robbery. Just like Casey Anthony being a ****ty mother, that doesn't prove she killed the daughter.
Click to expand...

And to be fair, all of the investigative interviews and depositions overwhelmingly agreed that Casey was an excellent mother prior to that June. Friends, family, neighbors, former coworkers all pretty much all agreed. Financially she wasn't providing, but apparently in terms of her affection, attention, discipline and care...she was spot-on right up until **** got crazy.
 
Mach said:
Right, because the primary care giver of her 2 year old child not reporint her missing, doesn't indicate the primary care giver.
The searches on the primary care givers computer for chloroform, does not indicate the primary care giver.
The dead smell in the trunk of Casey, doesn't evidence Casey.
Casey's diary and partying she did while her 2 year old is gone unreported, doesn't point to Casey.

Silly me!

I want you all on my jury if I'm framed. It's always possible my dog ate my homework. Seriously.
Click to expand...
The law is clear on what makes someone guilty and if the case is not substantial enough it really doesn't matter how it looks. The case was not able to be built to convict her. The laws are designed to attempt to keep people who are innocent from being put in jail or to death. Sometimes guilty people will be set free because of that.I can't say whether she is guilty or not. I have no idea. I didn't sit on the jury for 31 days and listen. You do know that she has been found not guilty and in the US that sets her free. Your opinion makes zero difference in the matter. She was set free by a jury. If you were accused of a crime I am certain that you would want a jury to convict you not by public opinion but by facts.
 
j-mac said:
I understand your frustration Mach
Click to expand...

I'm done, it's run its course. You're right, a lesser charge would have been more appropriate. Who protects us from bad prosecutors again? ;)
 
j-mac said:
OMG! has it come to this? We need a law to force parents to report when their child is missing? Are you kidding me? This is really logic on its head, much like Geraldo last night proclaiming that Casey was a good mother.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Yes, we need a law that says something is illegal before you can be charged with a crime for doing so. I think that your idea that a criminal is required to talk to the police, even though the 5th Amend of the Constitution says otherwise is foolish. Even worse is your idea that the govt can lock up people for doing something that is not illegal
 
sangha said:
Yes, we need a law that says something is illegal before you can be charged with a crime for doing so. I think that your idea that a criminal is required to talk to the police, even though the 5th Amend of the Constitution says otherwise is foolish. Even worse is your idea that the govt can lock up people for doing something that is not illegal
Click to expand...

My particular feeling is that this girl, is guilty. If not of Murder 1 per se, but Manslaughter, and child abuse. Too bad they didn't have the evidence needed to convict. Our system did work even if we don't like the verdict. Ah well, one more multi millionaire that doesn't deserve it about to be made because of the peoples sick obsessions.

j-mac
 
From what I know about this, it sounds like the prosecutors basically did a terrible job and the defense was able to use the holes (gaping ones) in their case to mount a successful defense.

From the sounds of things, obviously something untoward occurred – the problem is that the prosecutors couldn’t prove the charges they made against the defendant.

Some lesser charges would likely have been a better choice.
 
Mach said:
The kid is ****ing dead with duct tape, in a bag, in a swamp, unreported for 31 days. WTF kind of evidence do you expect you'd get from someone who wanted to murder someone?
You want them to leave a note? Good ****ing lord I want liberals on my jury, let me just say that right up front.

That's absurd. Not reporting her kid missing for 31 days cannot be considered evidecnce someone is hiding oh I don't know, a murder?
The lies can't are not evidence of trying to get out of a murder conviction?
The diary and partying and 31 days and lies are not evidence for motive?

I realize OJ getting off evidenced that people have issues with reality. I naively thought we may have learned something from it.
Click to expand...

Actually if you go back and read the thread you'll find that it's mostly Libertarians and Conservatives who think this is just a great verdict. I'm a liberal and I would fry her ass tomorrow.
 
Wiggen said:
Actually if you go back and read the thread you'll find that it's mostly Libertarians and Conservatives who think this is just a great verdict. I'm a liberal and I would fry her ass tomorrow.
Click to expand...

I think you ought to stop trying so hard to place every thing into a neat box. I don't believe that anyone really thinks justice was done here. But more that the system did work, and that the prosecution team failed to convict. I have agreed with both political stripes in here today. The shame is that a little girl is dead and no one to answer for it.

j-mac
 
Wiggen said:
Actually if you go back and read the thread you'll find that it's mostly Libertarians and Conservatives who think this is just a great verdict. I'm a liberal and I would fry her ass tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Such a silly statement. LOL
 
Wonder if HE will get rich off this little one's death?
 
apparently we have a nation of professional prosecutors who have undergone the legal study and reached a determination that ms. anthony, indeed, needs to burn in hell.

at no point was any of these people merely armchair critics who believe they could glean "right" or "wrong" on their off hours from work.

next we'll have national ejuries where everyone can be a juror and they get to tweet in the votes online. no real knowledge of the case need apply, just smug convictions
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Just an aside, but Geraldo Rivera's moustache is edging dangerously close to Salvador Dali territory.
Click to expand...

LOL. I always thought his mustache was actually in control of him. I think seen it blink at me a couple of times. Creepy o_O
 
Wiggen said:
Actually if you go back and read the thread you'll find that it's mostly Libertarians and Conservatives who think this is just a great verdict. I'm a liberal and I would fry her ass tomorrow.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any polarization about this verdict. People on both sides are all over the place. Some think she's not guilty of anything, some that she's guilty but not murder, and some think she's the devil incarnate
 
Mach said:
The kid is ****ing dead with duct tape, in a bag, in a swamp, unreported for 31 days. WTF kind of evidence do you expect you'd get from someone who wanted to murder someone?
You want them to leave a note? Good ****ing lord I want liberals on my jury, let me just say that right up front.

That's absurd. Not reporting her kid missing for 31 days cannot be considered evidecnce someone is hiding oh I don't know, a murder?
The lies can't are not evidence of trying to get out of a murder conviction?
The diary and partying and 31 days and lies are not evidence for motive?

I realize OJ getting off evidenced that people have issues with reality. I naively thought we may have learned something from it.
Click to expand...

The kid was dead, we all know that. The duct tape, which wasn't even on the face of the victim when discovered, proves nothing. In a bag, nothing. In a car, nothing. I can take a dead child out of a pool and stuff her in a bag and throw her the trunk of a car. I can party for a month after I do that.

Still doesn't mean I killed the kid.
 
I think what some folks are missing is that the prosecution could not provide a single, solitary expert witness who could testify that the child was in fact murdered and that a homicide had even taken place. Not one. Even the ME declared the cause of death to be "Unknown".

Now imagine yourself as a juror on a death penalty case about a death that no one knows the cause of and no one can prove is even a homicide. The most that was proven in that trial is that Casey Anthony is a pathological liar, that she knew all along that her daughter was dead and didn't care, and that she knew her child was rotting in a swamp. However, she was not charged with any of these things.

I believe the bitch killed that poor baby, dumped her in a swamp, partied her ass off then threw her family under the bus to save herself. But the prosecutors simply couldn't prove any of that. Blame the worthless cop who was too lazy to wade through a few feet of swampland back in August, when there might have been tissue for toxilogical and DNA tests available. :(
 
j-mac said:
That is true enough, but wouldn't neglect be a mitigating factor in ACA?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Actually I would think it would be an aggravating factor. If you had aggravated child abuse and also neglect, I think a case could be made that not only is the person a bad mother (Neglect), they also engaged in criminal conduct (ACA).....to me, I would think a judge would consider the neglect to be aggravating, unless it rose to the level of a mental defense, i.e., the mother had severe psychological problems that was a factor to both the aca and the neglect.
 
I think the jury got it right on this verdict.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom