• 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

Learn to read
leaving kid in car = neglect
Not reporting it = not neglect.
Actually florida law says it's a misdemeanor crime. Not sure why you're referring to "neglect"
FHP: Florida Law

If you want to argue neglect, the primary care giver leaving a kid for 31 days who was killed, is trivially willful act resulting in physical harm. In some states that have to literally spell out the fact that abandonment is similarly punishable, all depends on how you interpret it.



It's a crime to murder someone
It's not a crime if you don't confess to it.
Strawman. The argument is that leaving a child for 31 days is both:
Neglect (its abandonment, a willful act that resulted in death)
Evidence towards the murder charge i.e. covering up her murder as the theory goes.

What is sick is thinking that people have no right to refuse to testify against themselves. You should read the constitution
I never claimed that she had no right to refuse that. Get it straight, and quote me next time, because you mispreprsented my position twice in a row.

She can refuse all she likes. If the evidence without further input from her, evidences no one but her for the death of her daughter, so be it. If she wants to testify that something else occured (presumably we call this evidence to the contrary, and how it's weighed the jury decides), so be it.

You are still getting it wrong, just like the jury.
 
Last edited:
Actually florida law says it's a misdemeanor crime. Not sure why you're referring to "neglect"
FHP: Florida Law

If you want to argue neglect, the primary care giver leaving a kid for 31 days who was killed, is trivially willful act resulting in physical harm. In some states that have to literally spell out the fact that abandonment is similarly punishable, all depends on how you interpret it.

How about "Depraved Indifference"?

To constitute depraved indifference, the defendant's conduct must be 'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime. Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created by the defendant’s conduct, not the injuries actually resulting.

Depraved Indifference Law & Legal Definition

j-mac
 
The noise this has generated is amazing. If you followed the trial at all then you can see where the state failed to make a case. They also overcharged the case.

A key ingredient, cause of death, was and still is missing.

Yes, it is terrible the child died. Should we then compound it by ignoring a thing called "reasonable doubt" as many are suggesting? The system worked. Lazy prosecution and grandstanding didn't.

A jury of 12 people weren't convinced by evidence presented. They were isolated from the media circus surrounding the trial for obvious reasons.

In the American Justice System there is a simple phrase that places the burden of proof on the prosecutor.

"Innocent until proven guilty."

Whether she did it or not is not the debate, the debate is that the prosecutor failed to remove reasonable doubt. They offered no cause of death and no motive. Without those no reasonable jury could in good conscience return a guilty verdict.

In criminal law, Blackstone's formulation (also known as Blackstone's ratio or the Blackstone ratio) is the principle: "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.

Our laws are actually based on Blackstones common law.
 
They suggest murder, but don't confirm it.

Suggest, and not confirms? What do you mean by that? I'm dying over here.
All evidence 'suggests' a particular theory is correct or incorrect. It is up to interpretation whether or not you believe it's sufficient, or not.
For example, even hard science is considered "falsifiable", that is, there is no 100% confirmation even about something as obvious as gravity.
Wkipedia notes this!:
However, in an important sense all evidence is merely circumstantial because on no evidence can prove a fact in the absence of one or more inference

In the absence of other evidence, the kid was murdered. Tape, bag, lies, chloroform, 31 days, swamp. You think that evidence points to something other than murder?
 
Suggest, and not confirms? What do you mean by that? I'm dying over here.
All evidence 'suggests' a particular theory is correct or incorrect. It is up to interpretation whether or not you believe it's sufficient, or not.
For example, even hard science is considered "falsifiable", that is, there is no 100% confirmation even about something as obvious as gravity.
Wkipedia notes this!:

In the absence of other evidence, the kid was murdered. Tape, bag, lies, chloroform, 31 days, swamp. You think that evidence points to something other than murder?
I think it points to murder, but when I'm ready to say "she's guilty", I still have the doubt in my mind that wouldn't allow me to convict her.
 
Suggest, and not confirms? What do you mean by that? I'm dying over here.
All evidence 'suggests' a particular theory is correct or incorrect. It is up to interpretation whether or not you believe it's sufficient, or not.
For example, even hard science is considered "falsifiable", that is, there is no 100% confirmation even about something as obvious as gravity.
Wkipedia notes this!:


In the absence of other evidence, the kid was murdered. Tape, bag, lies, chloroform, 31 days, swamp. You think that evidence points to something other than murder?

Evidence may well suggest murder. That is true. But evidence did not lead to a specific person. That was the problem from the beginning.
 
I think it points to murder, but when I'm ready to say "she's guilty", I still have the doubt in my mind that wouldn't allow me to convict her.

And that is our justice system. We simply can not start convicting people when doubt occurs. We have a bad enough track record of having convictions of people that didn't do the crime, to start convicting on hunches. The prosecution put up a weak ass case, and the jury saw that.

j-mac
 
The chloroform and the tape are the only evidence of murder and that's not enough at all.

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.
 
Evidence may well suggest murder. That is true. But evidence did not lead to a specific person. That was the problem from the beginning.

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.
 
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.

I understand your frustration Mach, and share in some of it, but we have to place the blame in this case where it belongs, and that is with the prosecution of this case....I don't think I have ever heard a closing argument that included the phrase "You the jury decide for yourself what fits".... That was jaw dropping for me.

j-mac
 
To the neglect issue--- it wasn't proven that she was murdered, or that she drowned. It WAS proven that she died. So, how could it be child neglect, when the defense said the child drowned? Can one neglect a child that is dead? I think her Dad took the body, told her it was buried, told her to stick with her story and act normal. I also think her relationship with her father was so bizarre, and she was so mentally ill, that she did what Daddy told her to do. The evidence was not there for murder, and child neglect of a dead child doesn't work, nor could they even get her for child neglect for the drowning, because there was no evidence that she even drowned. What else could the jury really do based on the evidence? I'm sure they will lose sleep over this ...
That 14th juror guy said the duct tape was not ON the skull, but NEAR it. 3 small pieces. They ASSUMED it had been on the skull because the mandible was still attached. The evidence just was not there. No evidence of how she died, and no evidence of who dumped her. No evidence.
 
To the neglect issue--- it wasn't proven that she was murdered, or that she drowned. It WAS proven that she died. So, how could it be child neglect, when the defense said the child drowned? Can one neglect a child that is dead? I think her Dad took the body, told her it was buried, told her to stick with her story and act normal. I also think her relationship with her father was so bizarre, and she was so mentally ill, that she did what Daddy told her to do. The evidence was not there for murder, and child neglect of a dead child doesn't work, nor could they even get her for child neglect for the drowning, because there was no evidence that she even drowned. What else could the jury really do based on the evidence? I'm sure they will lose sleep over this ...
That 14th juror guy said the duct tape was not ON the skull, but NEAR it. 3 small pieces. They ASSUMED it had been on the skull because the mandible was still attached. The evidence just was not there. No evidence of how she died, and no evidence of who dumped her. No evidence.

Yeah, I know...That happens to me all the time....I hate when some stray pieces of duct tape stick to my mandible when I remove it in the swamp where I have lunch.

j-mac
 
I have to assume that the coroner checked the body for chlorine in her lungs.

they did do this, did they not?
 
I think it points to murder, but when I'm ready to say "she's guilty", I still have the doubt in my mind that wouldn't allow me to convict her.

I accept that you believe that.

Doubt can be introduced into even the most absurdly obvious facts of reality. Entire schools of philosophy developed techniques to intentionally, knowingly turn a strong argument on its head to elicit just that sort of doubt. We still have a large percentage of the population that is not ready to say evolution is evidenced to be real. I don't entertain the notion that most people can navigate all of that very well. If every jury is simply subject to "doubt", without reasoned discourse, they are doomed to make bad choices. It's been that way for thousands of years, don't let me fool you into thinking I believe it will change any time soon ;)
 
I have to assume that the coroner checked the body for chlorine in her lungs.

they did do this, did they not?

No lungs to check....The remains were skeletal, however they could have checked for a parasite in the bone marrow that is evidence of drowning, and they didn't.

j-mac
 
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? Circumstantial.
The lies can't are not evidence of trying to get out of a murder conviction? Circumstantial.
The diary and partying and 31 days and lies are not evidence for motive? Maybe

There may be evidence for motive, but there is no evidence that she definitively killed the kid. There just isn't. There is no TOD or COD.. meaning that there is no proof the baby was actually murdered.
 
No lungs to check....The remains were skeletal, however they could have checked for a parasite in the bone marrow that is evidence of drowning, and they didn't.

j-mac

Highly doubtful they didn't do a diatom test.
 
Suggest, and not confirms? What do you mean by that? I'm dying over here.
All evidence 'suggests' a particular theory is correct or incorrect. It is up to interpretation whether or not you believe it's sufficient, or not.
For example, even hard science is considered "falsifiable", that is, there is no 100% confirmation even about something as obvious as gravity.
Wkipedia notes this!:


In the absence of other evidence, the kid was murdered. Tape, bag, lies, chloroform, 31 days, swamp. You think that evidence points to something other than murder?

The postive test for chloroform could not be duplicated. That is to say, 1 test confirmed the presence of chloroform, every other test did not confirm. That's hardly a solid piece of evidence in and of itself. The tape was ASSUMED to have been placed over her mouth, but it cannot be confirmed because of (1) the state of the body @ the time of discovery and (2) the lack of any DNA or trace evidence on the tape. The bag is a means of disposal, not a means of death. It was a standard black trash bag available at almost any grocery store. The odds of any person having that type of bag in the 5-month time frame during which the body was discarded are pretty high. The swamp was a means of disposal, not a means of death. It's proximity is suspicious, but it doesn't eliminate everybody but Casey. The 31 days are suspicious, but don't confirm or really even suggest murder...they merely suggest an abnormal reaction to the event of Caylee's death.

In addition, no trace evidence from the dump site was found Casey's car, on Casey's personal belongings, or in the Anthony home. No decomp evidence could be confirmed in the trunk. The method which was used to indicate possible decomp was a previously untested and unverified methodology which has never been used in a court of law prior to this trial. No trace or DNA evidence was found in the trunk aside from 1 singular hair. As I stated elsewhere, it is not outside the realm of logic for a hair to end up in the trunk naturally, without malicious cause.

All of the evidence points to Caylee's body being dumped after death, and Casey acting abnormally in the days after Caylee disappeared. None of them, even when combined, point to murder, or Casey specifically murdering her daughter. It is a huge leap of emotionally charged supposition to say the evidence is even 90% indicative of a murder at the hands of Casey.
 
Coroner's report doesn't state that they did...

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.
 
This... I was not expecting. I don't know that much about the case, but I do know the basics. Its pretty obvious that Casey Anthony killed her kid.

Here is the problem I have with statements like this:

1) We are not the jury. We did not have access to all the data that the jury had access to. The jury evaluated the EVIDENCE that was presented, and made a decision based on that evidence.

2) It did not help the prosecution that some of the evidence they presented was pretty much fabricated, and was easily debunked. After being caught fabricating "evidence", would you believe anything the prosecution told you had you been on the jury? This hurt the case against Casey Anthony more than anything else.

So, while the child's death is a tragedy, let's not hastily go out and grab our pitch forks yet. This is America, not Iran.
 
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? Circumstantial.
The lies can't are not evidence of trying to get out of a murder conviction? Circumstantial.
The diary and partying and 31 days and lies are not evidence for motive? Maybe.

All evidence is circumstantial, by definition. What's your point exactly?
What do you call eyewitness evidence that is falsified? You call that hard evidence? I'm rolling my eyes.
 
All evidence is circumstantial, by definition. What's your point exactly?
What do you call eyewitness evidence that is falsified? You call that hard evidence? I'm rolling my eyes.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom