Anyone following the Casey Anthony trial

[TheJim]

Most people think Casey was guilty of at least some negligence in her daughter's death? Most people feel that an average mother could have/would have averted this death?

What are the possible ways that death could have happened?

1) Drowning.
2) Deliberate asphyxiation
3) Murder by parent
4) Murder by Casey
5) Automobile accident
6) Accident
7) Death by animal

Of these, plausibly only a deliberate murder (2,3 or 4) would explain the cover-up.

You can add in 1,5, 6 and maybe even 7. There has been enough not saying a lot but enough cases where the parent has been arrested tried and convicted of manslaughter in accidental deaths where covering up an accident might seem like a good idea at the time especially if she told her father an ex cop and he remembers a few of them.

 

[TheNooch]

You can add in 1,5, 6 and maybe even 7. There has been enough not saying a lot but enough cases where the parent has been arrested tried and convicted of manslaughter in accidental deaths where covering up an accident might seem like a good idea at the time especially if she told her father an ex cop and he remembers a few of them.

Don't fear the comma, nor thy period.

 

[Almo]

Well, maybe not. Let's assume the child did drown in the pool. She knew about it, and covered it up. She let both the police and neighbors conduct the searches. She led them on a wild goose chase with the nanny story. In plain dollars, she cost the state and the community good money -- and knew full well it was all a lie.

I have no problem, since she WAS charged with 4 counts of giving false information to police, with her being charged for the costs of the investigation. If she had NOT been found guilty of lying to the police, then I would feel as you do.

Ok, that makes more sense. I had just heard the sound bite on CNN. Thanks for that.

 

[lane99]

Most people think Casey was guilty of at least some negligence in her daughter's death? Most people feel that an average mother could have/would have averted this death?...

It's a good thing "Most People" don't decide the verdict or the sentence in our system. We have decided that 12 people get to do this...

I wouldn't be suprised if many of the 12 on the jury are amongst the "most people" that Justinian2 describes.

...It may not be a perfect system, but it's probably the one I would chose to be tried in if I were to be charged with a crime...

Indeed. And even more so if, in reality, you happened to be as guilty as hell.

 

[quadraginta]

And for some real "Breaking News" ...


Just in at the Orlando Sentinel,

Lightning strikes tree near site where Caylee's remains were found

A tall tree in the same area where Caylee Marie Anthony's remains were found was struck by lightning this afternoon.

The strong storm passing over east Orange County this afternoon sparked the electricity that hit the tree. It is not impeding the spectators from visiting the impromptu memorial sight a few dozen feet into the woods off of Suburban Drive, a sheriff's spokeswoman confirmed.

"Near" as in the tallest tree immediately in front of where the remains were found.

The woos are already having a field day with this.

 

[NotJesus]

God has spoken. It was the tree that killed her.

 

[pipelineaudio]

I think you forgot the smilie. Because otherwise, you have just posted one of the most demonstrably false statements I've ever seen in these forums.

Evidence?

 

[Justinian2]

It's a good thing "Most People" don't decide the verdict or the sentence in our system. We have decided that 12 people get to do this and we give them front row seats, and in this case, hotel rooms with no outside information. Had she been tried for this in Saudi Arabia...wait, there wouldn't even have been a trial, just a stoning.

It may not be a perfect system, but it's probably the one I would chose to be tried in if I were to be charged with a crime.
Oh, and her release date is next Wednesday.

Casey To Be Released On July 13

http://www.wftv.com/news/28470548/detail.html

People that compare this system with perfection or suggest that it is better than any other I find usually work for government in one capacity or another. Do government dollars directly or indirectly pay your salary or that of any member of your family?
It is true that I would rather this system than others, but remember that mistakes are just as frequently made that put innocent people behind bars. It is the errors we don't want. If we are on trial for murder we want the same judicial reliability that we get when we fly a commercial airline.

 

[Justinian2]

You can add in 1,5, 6 and maybe even 7. There has been enough not saying a lot but enough cases where the parent has been arrested tried and convicted of manslaughter in accidental deaths where covering up an accident might seem like a good idea at the time especially if she told her father an ex cop and he remembers a few of them.

The father is an ex cop?

Many people have been found guilty of 1st degree murder just from placing them at the murder scene at the time of death. A putrid smell in Casey's car trunk does just that. The child being in Casey's custody also suggests strongly that she was at the murder scene at the time of death - unless she has an alibi.

Did Casey have an alibi?

 

[Dumb All Over]

Did Casey have an alibi?

No.

 

[TheNooch]

People that compare this system with perfection or suggest that it is better than any other I find usually work for government in one capacity or another. Do government dollars directly or indirectly pay your salary or that of any member of your family?

I can safely assume that you are asking me, I think.

When I was locked up, I guess you could say I was living "on the dole", but that would be a real stretch.

You fail at psychic 101.

 

[TheNooch]

The father is an ex cop?

Many people have been found guilty of 1st degree murder just from placing them at the murder scene at the time of death. A putrid smell in Casey's car trunk does just that. The child being in Casey's custody also suggests strongly that she was at the murder scene at the time of death - unless she has an alibi.

Did Casey have an alibi?

Go on...why don't you read up on the case before posting this tripe. There is no murder scene, there was no alibi, but yes, her car stunk, with zero evidence (DNA) of Caylee ever having been in the trunk.

 

[Justinian2]

I can safely assume that you are asking me, I think.

When I was locked up, I guess you could say I was living "on the dole", but that would be a real stretch.

You fail at psychic 101.

You were locked up? That suggests the Stockholm Syndrome in which you have become sympathetic with your captors.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Whenever people see what they perceive is an injustice, they often start petitioning for a new law to deal with it, and this is no exception.

Or a change in the law. Reminds me of a case here when after several men got off a rape charge there was outcry by certain sectors who knew information that had been suppressed during the trial, and so wanted suppression laws revoked.

It turned out that two of the three had already been convicted of a similar offense, and those making the outcry believed that had the jury known that they would have been found guilty of the second as well.

They couldn't seem to understand that the case had to be tried on the facts involving it, and not other cases, and that introducing the suppressed information would have been predjudical, even pointing out that the very reason they wanted it in, to have changed the verdict, is the very meaning of prejudical didn't seem to get through.

 

[Justinian2]

Go on...why don't you read up on the case before posting this tripe.

It's sometimes fun to communicate. The fun part depends with whom I communicate.

 

[Justinian2]

Or a change in the law. Reminds me of a case here when after several men got off a rape charge there was outcry by certain sectors who knew information that had been suppressed during the trial, and so wanted suppression laws revoked.

It turned out that two of the three had already been convicted of a similar offense, and those making the outcry believed that had the jury known that they would have been found guilty of the second as well.

They couldn't seem to understand that the case had to be tried on the facts involving it, and not other cases, and that introducing the suppressed information would have been predjudical, even pointing out that the very reason they wanted it in, to have changed the verdict, is the very meaning of prejudical didn't seem to get through.

Engineers can bring facts from below the level of noise by using ALL the data. The jury needs first decide on the most recent data and then they need to combine ALL the data. The judge can then decide to use ALL the data or not.

The judge has access to all the data - the criminal history - I believe.

 

[William Parcher]

Restaurant Bans Casey Anthony Jurors

Skyline Chili in Clearwater, Florida has banned jurors from the recent Casey Anthony trial via a handwritten sign on the door to the restaurant.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Engineers can bring facts from below the level of noise by using ALL the data. The jury needs first decide on the most recent data and then they need to combine ALL the data. The judge can then decide to use ALL the data or not.

The judge has access to all the data - the criminal history - I believe.

The difference between engineering and a trial however, is that when determining the result of a trial, the Prosecution has to use evidence directly related to the current crime they are prosecuting. They can't say "But this person has done all of these things, so he must be guilty," which is what introducing previous criminal history is doing. It's a form of poisoning the well. "See he's a bad man, he must have done this too."

This is why things like previous history are suppressed, because things like poisoning the well, and ad hominem attacks are, unfortunately, often persuasive to those uneducated in debate and logical fallacies, otherwise people wouldn't resort to them so often. Allowing that sort of poor logic into the court system will result in failures to gain justice. After all, for example, just because the defendant has a record of holding up KFC's, doesn't actually mean that it was actually him that held up the KFC he's currently been charged with robbing. It's up to the prosecution to prove that independent of his past.

The fact that some people who wanted suppression removed so that certain verdicts would have been different, can't understand that this sort of information is suppressed precisely because it has such an ability to change verdicts when other evidence of a crime isn't there, all while claiming that the jury would be clever enough to determine what was relevant and what wasn't, just reeks of irony or perhaps idiocy.

 

[TheNooch]

You were locked up?

I think you got this one right because I told you.

That suggests the Stockholm Syndrome in which you have become sympathetic with your captors.

Psychic failure again.

 

[lionking]

I think you got this one right because I told you.



Psychic failure again.

You are now experiencing standard operating procedures on the Amanda Knox thread.