Anyone following the Casey Anthony trial

[Simmins]

This was just part of the mistake, they continued to underestimate the defense team and stuck to their original charges. With the normal defense in death peanilty cases this was a great stratgey with the research suggesting that DP juries more likely to convict and older juries more likely to convict so this was a dream jury for the SA.

The problem came in when the defense was ready to fight and because they had the murder 1 and 2 charges along with the manslaughter it ended up backfiring. Because of the headline charges where so bogus given the evidence this forced the jury to look skeptically and at more depth on the child abuse and manslaughter charge.

If the SA dropped the murder charges and stuck with manslaughter they probably could have won because the jury now is not primed to look at skeptically at the charge.

True. And she cannot be tried for this case any more. I think public opinion is too much like a mob mentality in most cases like this combined with the media looking for juicy angles. Show images of a person on trial smiling and to many that means they are guilty. At least as far as few people willing to come forward at least with some explanations that people react differently to stress. Given the nature of the crime any public opinion and even media stories are bound to be negative.

 

[lane99]

Mikey T,

Good comment (message #593). Do you think that the evidence would have supported a charge of involuntary manslaughter?

Forget about involuntary manslaughter.

If one reads the actual instructions the jury were working from, it's extremely difficult to see how she is not, at minimum, guilty of "aggrevated manslaughter of a child" (one of the charges she faced; which carries, I believe, a possible 30 year sentence).

She's guilty of that even if one accepts the defense's BS drowning story. Unless, that is, one is willing to argue that it's "reasonable care" for a mother (who is not a doctor qualified to pronounce death) not to seek immediate medical attention when being presented by the apparently lifeless body of their child.

 

[Justinian2]

This was just part of the mistake, they continued to underestimate the defense team and stuck to their original charges. With the normal defense in death peanilty cases this was a great stratgey with the research suggesting that DP juries more likely to convict and older juries more likely to convict so this was a dream jury for the SA.

The problem came in when the defense was ready to fight and because they had the murder 1 and 2 charges along with the manslaughter it ended up backfiring. Because of the headline charges where so bogus given the evidence this forced the jury to look skeptically and at more depth on the child abuse and manslaughter charge.

If the SA dropped the murder charges and stuck with manslaughter they probably could have won because the jury now is not primed to look at skeptically at the charge.

From the great Wiki:

Negligent Homicide is a lesser included offense to first and second degree murder, in the sense that someone guilty of this offense can expect a more lenient sentence, often with imprisonment time comparable to manslaughter. U.S. states all define negligent homicide by statute. In some, the offense includes the killing of another while driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Examples of such cases include the crash of Aeroperu Flight 603 near Lima, Peru. The accident was caused by a piece of duct tape that was accidentally left over the static ports (on the bottom side of the fuselage) after cleaning the aircraft, which led to the crash. Employee Eleuterio Chacaliaza left the tape on by accident and was charged with negligent homicide.

I agree that trying for 1st degree murder in a DP state may have made the prosecution team look ridiculous - like Mignini in Amanda's trial.

Had the prosecution stuck to Negligent homicide, they could have built a fact based case. I agree that the evidence wasn't there for 1st or 2nd degree murder.

 

[triforcharity]

Yes, obviously they did.

"We the jury find the defendant, not guilty."

Why is this sailing over your head so many times?

I guess we don't need an appellate court if all of the lower courts are always correct.

It doesn't matter with a jury trial where the defendant is found not guilty. No appeal can be filed on that matter. Not that I ever made that claim, but hey, I will let it slide.

Many and perhaps most of us would rather live life without ANY government intervention than to have an all knowing government. So just debate the issues and spare us the government is always right argument.

Why is this sailing over your head so many times?

Who else should run the court system? You? Me? Not hardly.

I never made the claim that the government is always right. Strawman argument.

And the GOVERNMENT didn't reach this decision. A jury made up of normal citizens from a neighboring county did.

False dillema logica fallacy noted.

 

[triforcharity]

Any predictions on how soon Casey Anthony conducts an interview, if ever?

I would agree that by the end of the week, we will see something from her. There is cetainly money to be made, and she will need alot of it based on the pending lawsuits she has against her.

I think that kind of money is an offer she can't refuse, but the interview questions will be highly scrutinized by her attorneys beforehand. I think she will probably stick to the claim that was in the opening arguments that she and her father were involved in a cover up of an accident, but if she does that, she will never reconcile with her family.

I think that ship has already sailed, with the exception of maybe Lee. He (IMO) is the only level-headed, sane person in the entire family.

But if she doesn't stick to that story, it would reflect poorly on the man who saved her butt, Jose Baez.

Yeah, that is true. She must stick to that story to save face at least.

I would like to see her at least take full responsibility of the cover up of an accident, but I doubt she will, because she had 3 years to do that and never did. The bottom line you won't believe a word she says anyway.

Well, she could now. If she did before, while she was in jail, that would have been found and admitted into evidence.

She gets out on Sunday, July 17th. I predict we will hear from her later that same week, probably no later than Friday the 22nd, she needs to strike while the iron is hot. I know this case is sensationalistic, but I am facsinated with her mindset and would love to hear her explain why she didn't report it for 31 days, minus the whole babysitter kidnapping BS.

I too am facsinated by her actions. Kinda like watching a train wreck that takes years to develop.

 

[triforcharity]

Which is why the courts should/must assume innocence and place the burden of proof on the prosecution.

Is there an instance in the US where this has not been the case?

Yet the courts of law sometimes circumvent your principle. When that, or a stupid judge, happens, we don't get the idea of innocence before being proven guilty.

Citation needed.

Don't forget, some courts screw up. Courts of law in the USA aren't as reliable as an airline.

True, some courts do screw up.

Citation needed.

 

[caniswalensis]

One does not "just invent a plausible chain of logic and convict them on that."
One does NOT invent a chain of logic. The facts are their and they are connected logically. That's the way logic works. Logic is like a mathematical formula. You plug in the data and the results are calculated.

Without logic, the prosecution cannot hope to prove guilt.

Well, not to keep repeating myself, but you have invented the chain of logic below. It is plausible, but it in no way the only way to look at the facts. That said, my main point was that the defense does not have to prove that the defendent did not commit a crime. No matter how logical a story the prosecution can conjure up, it is only a story unless they can prove it with facts & evidence. The defense does not have any obligation to disprove made-up stories.

The fact the death wasn't reported for a month and that various stupid excuses were used like: "She was with a nanny called zanny" is evidence that Casey didn't want the crime revealed. Why? If it was an accident, she would never have gone to jail? If it was extreme negligence or murder, she would have gone to jail. Therefore the logical assumption is that she was guilty of negligence or murder. The defense should have had to disprove that logic. Did they?

It seems to me that you are arguing both sides here. You seem to be saying in other posts that a defendent should be innocent until proven guilty, but in the post I quote above, you clearly claim that your logic alone is enough to send the defendent to jail unless they disprove it. I don't think you can have it both ways, my friend.

Regards, Canis

 

[triforcharity]

I suggested that it seems like Anthony is guilty. I'm hearing why people think the court thinks she was not.

Not the court, the jury. Some of the jury said that she is most likely not innocent, but that the state did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think she was guilty of negligent homicide because of the cover-up and lack of a logical explaination for the death.

Most likely yes. However, she was never charged with that, so they could not convict her on that.

 

[Justinian2]

Originally Posted by Justinian2
Which is why the courts should/must assume innocence and place the burden of proof on the prosecution.

Is there an instance in the US where this has not been the case?

There are many such laws. Statute of Limitations prevent any guilt or innocent findings in some cases. I cite your memory for other laws. In the USA only 1/1000 cases are heard by the appelate court and only 1/10,000 by the SJC. If you don't get justice and no points of law were violated, you don't get justice. My point is that these are courts of law and not justice and the matter of innocence or guilt is totally irrelevent let alone presumed innocent before guilt.

Originally Posted by Justinian2
Yet the courts of law sometimes circumvent your principle. When that, or a stupid judge, happens, we don't get the idea of innocence before being proven guilty.

Citation needed.

Originally Posted by Justinian2
Don't forget, some courts screw up. Courts of law in the USA aren't as reliable as an airline.

True, some courts do screw up.

Citation needed.

 

[Justinian2]

Well, not to keep repeating myself, but you have invented the chain of logic below. It is plausible, but it in no way the only way to look at the facts. That said, my main point was that the defense does not have to prove that the defendent did not commit a crime. No matter how logical a story the prosecution can conjure up, it is only a story unless they can prove it with facts & evidence. The defense does not have any obligation to disprove made-up stories.

I don't believe that there are many ways to prove that a defendant did NOT commit a crime which is why the burden of proof should be on the prosecution. In this case negligence of someone is proven by the death of the child. All the defense should have to do is prove that the child was in the custody of Casey when the negligence occurred. The smell in the car would be almost enough. Since a dead body oozes stuff and sheds skin and hair, it seems like the forensic people should have found something in the trunk.

It seems to me that you are arguing both sides here. You seem to be saying in other posts that a defendent should be innocent until proven guilty, but in the post I quote above, you clearly claim that your logic alone is enough to send the defendent to jail unless they disprove it. I don't think you can have it both ways, my friend.

The prosecution would have to prove that the child was in the custody of Casey when she died. Usually just proving that the victim was in the vicinity of the defendent at the TOD seems to be sufficient for proof of guilt.

My argument about the presumption of innocence before guilt is that it is neither always true or always even part of the legal process. Much of American law, like appeals and motions, are argued only on points of law and have nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

 

[caniswalensis]

My argument about the presumption of innocence before guilt is that it is neither always true or always even part of the legal process. Much of American law, like appeals and motions, are argued only on points of law and have nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

There are miscarrages of justice if that is what you mean, sure.

Points of law are extremely important, though.

Prosecutors must prove guilt, and they must follow the rules while they do it. Both are important. It is point of law that helps to protect defendants from being railroaded by unscrupulous practicioners of the law.

 

[TheJim]

I would agree that by the end of the week, we will see something from her. There is cetainly money to be made, and she will need alot of it based on the pending lawsuits she has against her.

What lawsuits against her?

 

[TheNooch]

Holy Crap! This Casey Anthony thread has some serious potential to knock the Foxy Knoxy thread off the front page. Justinian2 is even quoting herself (see #649) in order to keep the posts rolling in. After a while you will be asking yourselves, "Amanda Who"?

Keep up the good fight you mighty warriors!

 

[lionking]

I don't believe that there are many ways to prove that a defendant did NOT commit a crime which is why the burden of proof should be on the prosecution. In this case negligence of someone is proven by the death of the child. All the defense should have to do is prove that the child was in the custody of Casey when the negligence occurred. The smell in the car would be almost enough. Since a dead body oozes stuff and sheds skin and hair, it seems like the forensic people should have found something in the trunk.

I really don't know why the US wastes so much money on the justice system. You declared that you were 90% certain that Anthony was guilty, even when you admitted you knew little about this case. If you did a bit more research, this would have gone up to 100%+. This puts Sylvia Browne well into the shade.

All contentious court cases should go to Justinian2 and his fellow internet sleuths. Why spend so much time on trials and juries where evidence and stuff is examined and considered over many weeks?

 

[TheNooch]

I was just curious if anybody in this thread has an opinion about that Scott Peterson case and verdict? There is a thread here but it only has one page of comments, would anyone like to share their opinions about that case? Here's a link to the appropriate thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30855

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a few names to google

True, some courts do screw up.

Citation needed.

Cameron Todd Willingham, Gary Leiterman, the Norfolk Four, etc.

 

[quadraginta]

What lawsuits against her?

So far there's the defamation suit being pursued by a Zaneida Gonzales who wasn't the nanny. That one is more of a celebrity nuisance suit than anything else, since Anthony never fingered her as THE Zaneida Gonzales, her description and background didn't match the details Anthony had provided about her Zaneida, and when shown a photo of her Anthony said, "Nope, that's not the one.". Somebody might be responsible for defaming her character, but it'll be tough to prove it was Casey.

The state of Florida has filed a motion seeking reimbursement for the costs of investigation and prosecution, I guess on the theory that they wouldn't have spent so much if she hadn't lied to them. That's a bit more intimidating if only because it has the machinery of the state behind it.

In another wrinkle, even if the Z. Gonzales suit ultimately fails they still get to depose her under oath prior to the case being heard. Since she's already been found not guilty of murder and child abuse charges she can't plead the Fifth, and Florida is very lenient about the relevance of questioning in depositions for a civil suit. They can ask her pretty much anything they want, and if she refuses to answer she could end up in court because of that. This is scheduled for as soon as she gets out of jail.

Stay tuned. The soap opera ain't over yet.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Weren't you the one warning me about the Knoxy posters migrating to this thread? I have glanced over at that thread, and you were correct. It's almost as if this thread has all the same avatars as the other.

-------------------------

As far as Casey giving interviews for money goes, I believe she has signed a contract with her lawyer. They said as much on the HLN (COURT TV) today, and that they have hired a booking agent.

I would assume he wants to get paid for three years of his life, it's not like he was able to do much else during this time. If I were him, I would have her on every paying gig they can find, after he is paid off, it should be her money. It's not like she can go down to the mall and get a job at Abercrombie & Fitch.

Geez, what is your obsession with the Amanda Knox people? Almost every post you make contains some dig about the people who post both there and here. If you really analyzed it closely you would see how many were on this thread to begin with and how few fall into your "migrating" theory.
---------------------------
I would hope she doesn't give any interviews until after the pending civil suits are over.

Holy Crap! This Casey Anthony thread has some serious potential to knock the Foxy Knoxy thread off the front page. Justinian2 is even quoting herself (see #649) in order to keep the posts rolling in. After a while you will be asking yourselves, "Amanda Who"?

Keep up the good fight you mighty warriors!

I rest my case.

 

[TheJim]

So far there's the defamation suit being pursued by a Zaneida Gonzales who wasn't the nanny. That one is more of a celebrity nuisance suit than anything else, since Anthony never fingered her as THE Zaneida Gonzales, her description and background didn't match the details Anthony had provided about her Zaneida, and when shown a photo of her Anthony said, "Nope, that's not the one.". Somebody might be responsible for defaming her character, but it'll be tough to prove it was Casey.

The state of Florida has filed a motion seeking reimbursement for the costs of investigation and prosecution, I guess on the theory that they wouldn't have spent so much if she hadn't lied to them. That's a bit more intimidating if only because it has the machinery of the state behind it.

In another wrinkle, even if the Z. Gonzales suit ultimately fails they still get to depose her under oath prior to the case being heard. Since she's already been found not guilty of murder and child abuse charges she can't plead the Fifth, and Florida is very lenient about the relevance of questioning in depositions for a civil suit. They can ask her pretty much anything they want, and if she refuses to answer she could end up in court because of that. This is scheduled for as soon as she gets out of jail.

Stay tuned. The soap opera ain't over yet.

Thanks, I either did not hear of forgot about the Gonzales one. The suit from the state is a joke though they should give her a rebate for how bad they botched that one.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

arson

"Innocent until proven guilty" is an official standard to be applied when someone is being tried in a court of law. It can also serve as something of a guideline for the treatment of someone who might be suspected of having committed a crime, but it has no practical or statutory application for the investigation of a crime. This distinction can be confusing at times.

In the absence of any other compelling, immediate evidence investigators may have little else to start from than the odds that a person in a certain relationship with a victim might be responsible. In the case of a child's death the mother is high on that list of odds. This has nothing to do with the legal doctrine of presumption of innocence, nor should it.

Quadraginta,

Well said. My comment about arson arose partly from reading about a case in which the investigators said that the motive for arson was insurance money of the deceased, ignoring the fact that the cost of the funeral exceeded the insurance payout.