Anyone following the Casey Anthony trial

[TheJim]

^This will be forgotten about before the next election like every other high profile case except maybe the OJ case. Some bozo is going to introduce a Caley's Law and it will probably pass but no one will really care.

 

[NoahFence]

Capitalizing on the ratings bonanza that Grace’s coverage of the Casey Anthony’s trial brought to it, CNN sister channel HLN will be broadcasting a virtual orgy of Nancy Grace-Casey Anthony programing, consisting of no fewer than 26 hours of televised outrage.

Oh dear. I think I'm going to vomit. What has happened to my country!?!

 

[caniswalensis]

UGH! Nancy Grace is the worst. I hate that screeching harpy. If I ever see her on the street, I will be hard pressed to keep myself from punching her unconsious & curbing her teeth.

 

[triforcharity]

Nancy Grace's problem is simple. She is just like the truthers. Appeal to emotion. That is her ONLY mantra. Can't do anything else, just appeal to that emotion.

 

[William Parcher]

Clearance Sale

 

[Simmins]

I think the problem from the beginning is the case was a capital crime and you need a hell of a lot to convince a jury in those cases. Then again i dont know what other manslaughter conviction etc. could have been found that would not have involved the death penalty.

Even still with what they had to go on there does seem to be room for lingering doubt that maybe she did not commit a murder and we were not there the whole time like the jury was.

Could have also been an accident with extenuating circumstances and snow balled from there 'cause today they (people in general\the press) look to hang you for almost anything...but it is always best to be honest.

Look at Amanda Knox case and how DNA on her own house hold knife has two people convicted. Because honestly as far as i can tell thats all they had there except for a truckload of real evidence that someone else did it.

 

[NoahFence]

Clearance Sale

Splendid. Right on the rack next to the New England Patriots 19-0 season shirts!

(that one stung)

 

[triforcharity]

LOL!! That one is funny!

 

[Mikey T]

Mikey T,

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

I'm not a laywer so the specific charges I'm not sure about. What we know about this case is that Casey Anthony was the last person to see her daughter alive. Taking this into account if the State of Florida wanted to get at least some charges to stick they could have gone this route:

1. Child Neglect leading to the death of a child under 18
2. Illegally disposing of a body
3. Not alerting authorities to a death in a timly manner
4. Providing false statements to law enforcement officers
5. Obstruction of justice

I just put these things in layman's terms of things a jury probably would have convicted her of. Some of my examples may not even be illegal, fit this case, or overlap in some way. Maybe someone with more of a law backround could comment because I don't know if this constitutes any form of manslaughter, but I don't think it does.

The problem was the State of Florida went for the whole enchilada of a murder one conviction. In hindsight, if the prosecutors would have just went for these lesser charges, something they knew they convict her of, there would have been a revolt in the community who believed she was guilty of murder. The prosecution office would have been in a pickle if they would have gone for the lesser charges and they knew it. They felt they had enough to convict her of the greater charges, but once that failed they were unable to go back and say, "But we can get her on these lesser charges", hence Casey walks away.

There is an unbelievable amount of stupidity out there from people upset with the jury's decision. What they don't understand is the State "went for it all" and failed. This is not the jury's fault. If I were on that jury and they were asking for the death penalty based on their evidence, I would have voted the same way.

 

[Justinian2]

Brainwashed? No, it is absolute fact.

What the rest has to do with this case, I am not real sure. Care to elaborate?

If you don't understand what I say, study it a little more. Each word has a purpose. Conventional wisdom is usually a joke and the conventional wisdom that we are innocent until proven guilty is no exception.

Innocent until proven guilty is the mantra we hear all our lives on TV and in the movies. It is the ONLY way to determine guilt or innocence. Any justice system that doesn't determine justice that way is horrible indeed.

Supreme Court justices have said that we don't have a "justice system", we have courts of law. If we have courts of law and that law circumvents the requirement that we be presumed innocent before being proven guilty, then that requirement will be circumvented. About half the time I've seen justice circumvented by law or stupid judges..

 

[Justinian2]

Yes, obviously they did.

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

Why is this sailing over your head so many times?[/QUOTE]

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

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?

 

[Mikey T]

Any predictions on how soon Casey Anthony conducts an interview, if ever? There are rumors that ABC is offering her 2-3 million dollars to be interviewed by Barbara Walters, now my source is HLN, so that is sketchy in itself. So far I'm 2 for 2 in predictions for this case, not posted but my girlfriend can attest that I predicted the jury would be back the first afternoon which they were, and that she would be found not guilty. (pats own back).

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

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.

 

[Justinian2]

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?

That is not how our court system works. People's lives, money, or freedom are on the line, so you can not just invent a plausible chain of logic and convict them on that.

They are innocent until proven guilty, and the prosecution must prove their guilt with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Any assumption, no matter how logical, is not enough on its own.

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.

 

[lionking]

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.

You admitted that you know little about this case, and your posts demonstrate this, yet your "logic" confirms Anthony's guilt? Explain.

 

[I Am The Scum]

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.

I believe the key word here was "plausible." The prosecution's just is more than showing that guilt is more likely than innocence.

 

[TheJim]

I think the problem from the beginning is the case was a capital crime and you need a hell of a lot to convince a jury in those cases. Then again i dont know what other manslaughter conviction etc. could have been found that would not have involved the death penalty.

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.

 

[Justinian2]

It has nothing to do with brainwashing, in the majority of the western world's courts the suspect is assumed innocent until proven guilty. This is a fundamental plank of the law.

Investigation and trial are not the same thing.

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

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

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.

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

 

[Justinian2]

You admitted that you know little about this case, and your posts demonstrate this, yet your "logic" confirms Anthony's guilt? Explain.

It's like Alpha-beta pruning. A chess program doesn't know the answer, but follows certain rules in order to find the correct answer.

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

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

 

[TheNooch]

You admitted that you know little about this case, and your posts demonstrate this, yet your "logic" confirms Anthony's guilt? Explain.

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.

 

[Mikey T]

Originally Posted by Mikey T
The continued lie after the child was reported missing were a self-defense mechanism to keep the fantasy alive and avoid having to face the wrath and disappointment of her mother and to avoid her feelings of guilt.

Your drowning scenario makes scence expept for the fact that it appeared to me that rather then not wanting to disappoint her parents she had contempt for them. In the recorded conversations with her parents from prison she is nasty, complaining and doesn't seem to care the slightest bit about them.

Ok, maybe disappointment is the wrong word, that's why i put her mother's wrath in there is a well. Casey's mother was verbally abusive to her long before the child went missing, so there is no surprise that she showed contempt for her mother and father during these early stages. Casey's mother belittled her long before this all went down and she was fighting back in this opportunity. Either way, this was a dysfunctional family and Casey didn't want to admit what she had done, whether it was an innocent accident, an accident cause by Casey, or a deliberate murderous act.