• 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!

Did the Jury get it right in the Casey Anthony trial

Did the jury get the verdict right in the Casey Anthony trial?


  • Total voters
    38
Yes, double jeopardy still applies. Double jeopardy applies to the offense, not the specific charages.

It could be tried, because the charges related to the offense were not the same.
Child Abuse being different from Child Neglect.

It's possible, although it would be litigated heavily I think.
 
It just seems so unfair and perverted.

What's to keep me from doing the same thing and being found "not guilty" even though my stone-cold face and certain behaviors have betrayed me?

I also wonder what the judge felt and thought. Maybe he felt like throwing his gavel at her at that moment?

And, oddly enough, Papa Roach's "Getting Away With Murder" sounds appeasing right now.
There is nothing stopping you but you and your own sense of morals. I personally agree with the system the way it is because if I were on trial for a crime I knew I did not commit, I would want a jury to act based on evidence and not their personal feelings. That's not saying that Casey Anthony is innocent; I don't believe she is -- that's saying I want a system which errs on the side of letting a murderer go free than locking up (or executing) an innocent person.
 
It could be tried, because the charges related to the offense were not the same.
Child Abuse being different from Child Neglect.

It's possible, although it would be litigated heavily I think.
Child abuse & child neglect are charges. In this case, either charge still applies to the same offense and falls under the protection of double jeopardy.

That's why the state charged her with murder, child abuse, and manslaughter -- hoping one of them would lead to a conviction. If they could do what you suggest, they would have only tried her for murder, knowing they could try her again for abuse or neglect or whatever should she beat the murder charge.
 
I agree with you on this.

They say karma is a *****.

What would you think if someone killed her, similar to what happened with Vander slu*, the guy who killed Holloway? Would you feel God may have passed judgment? I don't know. I just feel deeply that Casey is the murderer, and that she will walk.

Joran van der Sloot has not been killed he is awaiting trial in Lima Peru for the murder of Flores Ramírez.
 
Good news Sgt I hadn't known that. That bastard deserves to die.

Agreed, fortunately he has testified to his guilt for the murder of Stephenie Flores Ramirez. Then he retracted his confession. The judge ruled that his confession stands. In accordance with Peruvian law he will not be allowed to post bail. And defendants do not have a right to a speedy trial unlike Aruba and the USA. They cannot find an interpretur to work his case so he may rot in jail without ever being convicted of a crime. ;)
 
Last edited:
Joran van der Sloot has not been killed he is awaiting trial in Lima Peru for the murder of Flores Ramírez.

I could have sworn on one of the news shows that he was "killed in a Peruvian jail cell". I'll recheck to be sure.
 
Nvm, I must have mistaken him for his father..

Then again, there's a website called "riehlworld.com" that says he was found dead..
 
I dont know. I wasnt there. I wasnt on the jury. I wasnt behind the scenes. I didnt spend a single minute in the court room.. I did not see all the evidence. And im guessing none of us here did either.











But then again i really dont care about this court case.
 
Where is the "I don't care about this" option at?
 
Did the jury in the Casey Anthony trial get the verdict right? The defense demonstrated reasonable doubt and the prosecution was unable to prove the case against Ms. Anthony

This is an impossible question to answer if we were not on the jury. We do not know whether the state presented a case that was beyond a reasonable doubt.Obviously in the minds of twelve people the state did not do so. So according to them they got it right.
 
I agree with you on this.

They say karma is a *****.

What would you think if someone killed her, similar to what happened with Vander slu*, the guy who killed Holloway? Would you feel God may have passed judgment? I don't know. I just feel deeply that Casey is the murderer, and that she will walk.
Why don't you give it a shot. You sound like you are pissed off enough to want to and I'm sure a smart guy, such as yourself, could get away with it. :roll:

.
 
I don't know why everyone wants to do the OJ thing all over again. Well, without the "he's innocent, you racist" trolls (which were probably the best part).

Can we just stop it.
 
Law Enforcement the Judicial system always relied on Circumstantial evidence, when it was overwhelming. We cannot have DNA, fingerprints and eye witness's for every case.
This set a precedent if continued by other jurists will allow the lion share of murder go unpunished.
All the evidence pointed right at the mother irrevocably.....now were left with one question who killed cahley but unfortunately under the circumstances we know the answer to that.
Once again we see what sleazy defense attorneys are allowed to get away with...Making totally unsubstantiated character assassinations of people...like stating emphatically and that he will PROVE that George Anthony molested his daughter...or that George Anthony was the real culprit and hiding it... the doofas defense attorney showed and had zero evidence of that...yet they can destroy individuals with their lies. Ive seen this same thing play out over and over again on cases without this much attention.
 
Law Enforcement the Judicial system always relied on Circumstantial evidence, when it was overwhelming. We cannot have DNA, fingerprints and eye witness's for every case.
This set a precedent if continued by other jurists will allow the lion share of murder go unpunished.
All the evidence pointed right at the mother irrevocably.....now were left with one question who killed cahley but unfortunately under the circumstances we know the answer to that.
Once again we see what sleazy defense attorneys are allowed to get away with...Making totally unsubstantiated character assassinations of people...like stating emphatically and that he will PROVE that George Anthony molested his daughter...or that George Anthony was the real culprit and hiding it... the doofas defense attorney showed and had zero evidence of that...yet they can destroy individuals with their lies. Ive seen this same thing play out over and over again on cases without this much attention.

No, it didn't. Casey was the last person to report seeing Caylee. That is the only evidence that links directly to her. They could not tie the duct tape, garbage bag, laundry bag, or heart sticker directly to the Anthony home, or any purchases Casey had made. They could not prove that Caylee's dead body was ever in the trunk of Casey's car. Caylee was left in a muddy, mucky, marshy area of low-lying swamp area...yet Casey's car had absolutely no traces of any dirt or mud from the drop location. The searches on the home computer could not be concretely linked to Casey. There were no witnesses. All character testimony indicated Casey was an excellent mother with no history of ill-treatment, resentment, or regret. The evidence was all circumstantial. Every last bit of it. As the prosecution said, "It really hurt us that it took so long to find the body". Perhaps if it had been found sooner they could have found something to indicate Casey.

As to George and the allegations of abuse/sexual abuse? Baez tried several times to admit just evidence into the trial and was repeatedly shot down by Perry, who deemed it to be "irrelevant".
 
Last edited:
Did the jury in the Casey Anthony trial get the verdict right? The defense demonstrated reasonable doubt and the prosecution was unable to prove the case against Ms. Anthony

I believe she did kill her child. There is no reason to cover up a accident. That said with what evidence the jury had they made the right decision.
 
No, it didn't. Casey was the last person to report seeing Caylee. That is the only evidence that links directly to her. They could not tie the duct tape, garbage bag, laundry bag, or heart sticker directly to the Anthony home, or any purchases Casey had made. They could not prove that Caylee's dead body was ever in the trunk of Casey's car. Caylee was left in a muddy, mucky, marshy area of low-lying swamp area...yet Casey's car had absolutely no traces of any dirt or mud from the drop location. The searches on the home computer could not be concretely linked to Casey. There were no witnesses. All character testimony indicated Casey was an excellent mother with no history of ill-treatment, resentment, or regret. The evidence was all circumstantial. Every last bit of it. As the prosecution said, "It really hurt us that it took so long to find the body". Perhaps if it had been found sooner they could have found something to indicate Casey.

As to George and the allegations of abuse/sexual abuse? Baez tried several times to admit just evidence into the trial and was repeatedly shot down by Perry, who deemed it to be "irrelevant".


There was enough forensics to prove there was a body in her trunk...but lets go back further....to this day casey anthony has not told anyone where her daughter went the last day she saw her...the story she gave was a LIE...to this day no one knows where her daughter was the last day she saw her...she has lied all the way through thats what people that have something to hide do....shes guilty the cops know it the prosecutors know it and h er scumbag defense lawyer knows it
 
There was enough forensics to prove there was a body in her trunk...but lets go back further....to this day casey anthony has not told anyone where her daughter went the last day she saw her...the story she gave was a LIE...to this day no one knows where her daughter was the last day she saw her...she has lied all the way through thats what people that have something to hide do....shes guilty the cops know it the prosecutors know it and h er scumbag defense lawyer knows it

The forensics actually didn't prove anything. I would strongly suggest looking at some of the evidence released. There's a link to it in the "Casey Anthony Trial Surprise" thread.
 
Based on her disturbing behavior and the many circumstantial evidence, I strongly believe her guilty.

It's sad to see people state that a system that releases murderers... works.
 
Based on her disturbing behavior and the many circumstantial evidence, I strongly believe her guilty.

It's sad to see people state that a system that releases murderers... works.

Her guilt can't be proven. There is no legal or logical justification for calling her a murderer based on the available information. That would be like saying you strongly believe I'm a 450 lb welfare recipient because I mentioned I'm pretty low-income and somebody else told you I like to eat chocolate cake. You're making assumptions that aren't actually corroborated.
 
Perhaps. If it has the media going nuts, the jury must have been onto something.
 
Perhaps. If it has the media going nuts, the jury must have been onto something.

It was a riot last night. First the media blamed themselves, then the jury, then the prosecution, then the jury again.
 
Her guilt can't be proven. There is no legal or logical justification for calling her a murderer based on the available information. That would be like saying you strongly believe I'm a 450 lb welfare recipient because I mentioned I'm pretty low-income and somebody else told you I like to eat chocolate cake. You're making assumptions that aren't actually corroborated.

Being presumed not guilty doesn't equal innocent.

If you're naive enough to believe "not guilty" is "innocent", you disappoint me.
 
It was a riot last night. First the media blamed themselves, then the jury, then the prosecution, then the jury again.

I didn't know what to think when I heard commentator after commentator hoist up the little girl to promote the next segment.
 
Being presumed not guilty doesn't equal innocent.

If you're naive enough to believe "not guilty" is "innocent", you disappoint me.

I never said that. Not once. I said "her guilt can't be proven".

And quite frankly, I don't care about whether or not I disappoint you. I'm not living and breathing to gain your approval.
 
Back
Top Bottom