Casey Anthony found Not Guilty

[megamatt]

Link to story: http://www.secaucusnewjersey.org/casey-anthony-found-not-guilty-2046.html

 

Casey Anthony has been found not guilty of killing her daughter, Caylee Anthony, in the final verdict of the six-week trial case. A jury of twelve people, consisting of seven women and five men, found Casey Anthony not guilty of murdering her daughter. However, she was found guilty of giving wrong misinformation in a court of law.

 

 

Edited to fix the derpy link.

[cooksta77]

Personally I think the lawyers for the state of Florida are to blame for this since in America we all know you are innocent until proven guilty (*cough* O.J. Simpson) and it seems they just didn't put it all there even if they say they gave all evidence they had. No one will know what happened so a poor 2 YEAR OLD girl's murder remains unsolved. On a different not however I found it hilarious that Kim Kardashian was outraged by the verdict......guess she forgot her father's job to play to the cameras.

-Cookie

[AllenA07]

I'm glad the jury came back with a not guilty. The State left loose ends in their case, it was not as clean as it should have been. I don't think that the defense did that wonderful of a job, however the State left enough holes in their case that some doubt remained.

 

Unlike the rest of the world I don't think this proves that our justice system is broken, rather I think it proves that it works!

[davisal771]

Is anyone really that shocked about the verdict? There really wasn't any evidence against her, all of it was circumstantial and not direct evidence.

 

The thing that pisses me off about the case is that Nancy Grace and Jane Velez-Mitchell screamed on TV about for 3 years about how horrible Casey Anthony was. I guarantee had the media made Casey out to be the good guy, everybody would be cheering right now.

 

I also think that this just proves that our justice system works.

The jury couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty. I don't understand why some people find that so hard to believe.

[ajc47]

I'm glad the jury came back with a not guilty. The State left loose ends in their case, it was not as clean as it should have been. I don't think that the defense did that wonderful of a job, however the State left enough holes in their case that some doubt remained.

 

Unlike the rest of the world I don't think this proves that our justice system is broken, rather I think it proves that it works!

 

Agreed. The prosecutors didn't really prove their case and there was no smoking gun here. The jury could only do one thing.

[BeemerBoy]

It's great to know that common sense once again took a vacation......on all sides of the law.

[VinTheAttendant]

Initially, I was P.O.ed, but then I watched a news report on how biased the media has been and then it hit me that I did not see many news reports on Anthony's side of the story. Yes, there are a lot of unanswered questions, but the jury didn't come to a conclusion by guessing.

[mcjaco]

It's great to know that common sense once again took a vacation......on all sides of the law.

 

Scott, normally I'd agree with you, but the case was presented so poorly, they had to come back with the verdict they did. The prosecution really screwed the pooch on this one. You can't find someone guilty on circumstantial evidence.

[ginzo]

Unlike the rest of the world I don't think this proves that our justice system is broken, rather I think it proves that it works!

 

The medical examiner was correct in saying this was a homicide. The idea that an accidental death was doctored up to look like a homicide is absurd.

 

I guess you could say the system "worked" in that it did was it was designed to do: Set a very high standard for evidence. But, in a larger sense it failed miserably because we have a clear cut case of homicide and nobody is likely to ever be convicted for it. It also failed in that a lying defense attorney who threw out irrelevant red herring after irrelevant red herring now gets to be "brilliant".

[AllenA07]

Circumstantial evidence isn't really all that big of a deal, but for whatever reason it has become this huge thing that freaks out jurors. Whenever I pick a jury (or help another lawyer pick a jury) I always make sure to cover the differences between direct and circumstantial evidence. I have worked on several cases (some of which were extremely serious charges) where there was only circumstantial evidence, and it was still fairly easy to convict. One of the things I have helped on is the prosecution of crimes against children. In those cases we more often then not were dealing with cases where we had nothing other than circumstantial evidence. In cases like that the person who is being accused is going to control the place and time of the crime, which will generally eliminate the hope of any direct evidence.

 

In my opinion the death blow in this case was that the State played things loose and sloppy. There was too much focus placed on how Casey acted after the alleged murder. Just because she has a wild side, and partied it up, and lied to police doesn't mean she is a killer. Her attorney frankly didn't do that good of a job (actually he did a rather terrible job), he promised several things during his opening that he failed to produce. However that is the great thing about being a defense attorney, we don't have to prove innocence, we just have to instill a reasonable doubt.

 

I wonder if the prosecutor has cleaned out his desk yet? I can bet you almost anything that Casey Anthony will just happen to be his final case on the prosecution side of things. Depending on his age he is either going to "resign" to pursue other projects, or if he is old enough he will "retire." You don't lose a case like this however and expect to have a job the next morning.

 

Also as a last note both sides played very dirty at times, and from what I understand both will be getting a call from the State Bar.

[ginzo]

^In the absence of a forensic smoking gun, what should the prosecutor have hammered on instead of Casey Anthony's questionable character?

[BeemerBoy]

The medical examiner was correct in saying this was a homicide. The idea that an accidental death was doctored up to look like a homicide is absurd.

 

I guess you could say the system "worked" in that it did was it was designed to do: Set a very high standard for evidence. But, in a larger sense it failed miserably because we have a clear cut case of homicide and nobody is likely to ever be convicted for it. It also failed in that a lying defense attorney who threw out irrelevant red herring after irrelevant red herring now gets to be "brilliant".

Completely agree, especially since I have enormous disdain for defense attorneys who willingly accept the role of defending obvious criminals....and end up receiving praise for it. And what's even worse is the sickening result of this family of dbags eventually cashing in on their story. Side bets on when that inevitable Playboy spread happens?

 

Again, from the outset, when you break things down to simplest terms, there was absolutely no need to cover up an "accident." How the entire family walks from this is despicable. Ray Charles could see through this poop.....and he's blind....and dead.

[AllenA07]

^In the absence of a forensic smoking gun, what should the prosecutor have hammered on instead of Casey Anthony's questionable character?

 

It is hard for me to say anything right there without knowing more about the evidence. However I was a little surprised that they didn't end up cutting her a deal that would have spared her life in return for life in prison. I don't even think a plea to a 2nd degree felony would have been so out of the question here. If it were me I would have tried to work the angle of motive harder. While it's not an element of the crime and you don't need to prove it, the jury sure likes it. The lack of forensic evidence was a killer here, modern day jury's eat the stuff up and it is getting very hard to convict without it (Google The CSI Effect). Personally knowing what I know now about the evidence the State actually held I don't think I would have pushed this as a capital case. Being a prosecutor is a very political job, and as such, things like elections can cloud judgment, which likely lead to this case being forced through as a capital case. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the evidence just wasn't there to begin with. This case should have never been brought with such insufficent evidence, and it especially should not have been brought as a capital case.

 

Completely agree, especially since I have enormous disdain for defense attorneys who willingly accept the role of defending obvious criminals....and end up receiving praise for it.

 

I get this comment all the time. The "how can you defend the guilty?" Well the answer is that everybody deserves a fair trial. Sometimes my job is nothing more than just making sure that the prosecution meets its burden and that the punishment fits the crime. A lot of attorneys will tell you that defending the guilty is the easy part, defending the innocent is where things get a whole lot more complex. Finally Jose Baez shouldn't really be getting any praise here. The State lost this case far more than Jose Baez won it.

[BeemerBoy]

I get this comment all the time. The "how can you defend the guilty?" Well the answer is that everybody deserves a fair trial. Sometimes my job is nothing more than just making sure that the prosecution meets its burden and that the punishment fits the crime. A lot of attorneys will tell you that defending the guilty is the easy part, defending the innocent is where things get a whole lot more complex.

To be fair, a good portion of my sentiment comes from personal experience; that which doesn't need to be aired on the boards. I'll hit you up on pm.

[SharkTums]

Can we at least agree that this woman should be sterilized? The fact that she's going around telling people she can't wait to get pregnant and have another child is terrifying!

[mcjaco]

^ Yes. I agree with that.

 

Do it now.

[Brandy524]

Can we at least agree that this woman should be sterilized? The fact that she's going around telling people she can't wait to get pregnant and have another child is terrifying!

 

Totally agree! How about doing it without anesthesia?

[doublestufforeo]

Can we at least agree that this woman should be sterilized? The fact that she's going around telling people she can't wait to get pregnant and have another child is terrifying!

 

Sterilize her with some cyanide!

[Airtime&Gravity]

Can we at least agree that this woman should be sterilized? The fact that she's going around telling people she can't wait to get pregnant and have another child is terrifying!

 

Sterilize her with some cyanide!

 

Why must we kill people who kill people to show people killing people is wrong?

 

 

I was surprised with the verdict at first, but after learning how weak the prosecution's case was, the correct verdict came back. Both sides were horrible during the trial, but since the prosecution couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt, there was no choice for the jury. You can't base a case on just circumstantial evidence, and even if everyone is saying Casey's guilty, the jury could only listen to the evidence, which was weak. As has been said, it looks like the prosecution focused on making Casey look crazy, which she might be, but that doesn't by itself make her a killer. It would just make her a bad parent.

[AllenA07]

You can't base a case on just circumstantial evidence, and even if everyone is saying Casey's guilty, the jury could only listen to the evidence, which was weak.

 

You can absolutely base a case on nothing but circumstantial evidence. It happens every single day and there is nothing at all wrong with that. Circumstantial evidence is, technically, no better or worse then direct (eye witness) evidence. It's just a different type of evidence. In fact I can tell you that given my options I may actually take a case of all circumstantial evidence over a case of all direct evidence.

 

I've seen this example in the past (and have used it in court) and I think it works well. Look at it this way: While home alone with your young daughter one day you decide to make a chocolate cake (so clearly Brandy is the person we're talking about here ). When the cake is finished baking you put the frosting on and then leave it out on the counter. You walk into another room and 10 minutes later come back into the kitchen. Much to your shock the cake has gone missing. It's then you notice the little chocolate hand prints on the counter, followed by the little chocolate foot prints on the floor. Mustering your best detective skills you follow the chocolate foot prints into the living room. The footprints lead you to the corner of the living room where you find your 4 year old daughter. She is covered in what appears to be chocolate cake as she smiles back at you. On the other side of the room you see the battered remains of your cake.

 

Who ate the cake? Of course the little girl did. However because you personally did not witness it, nor did anybody else tell you about what they witnessed, you're going to base your conclusion that your kid ate the cake on nothing more then circumstantial evidence. is it possible that somebody broke into the house, ate the cake and then set up an elaborate scene to frame your innocent daughter? Sure it is, but we all know it's not very likely. In that case without any direct evidence and only circumstantial evidence to go on you're going to be reasonably sure who ate the cake.

 

I'm just saying guys don't get too hung up on the fact that the case was based wholly on circumstantial evidence. It really isn't that big of a deal and frankly gets way more attention then it deserves.

[ginzo]

^Ha! My wife works in a court room and she just told me like 20 minutes ago the judge she used to work for used that EXACT example to clarify circumstantial vs. direct evidence in her courtroom.

[the ghost]

Again, from the outset, when you break things down to simplest terms, there was absolutely no need to cover up an "accident." How the entire family walks from this is despicable. Ray Charles could see through this poop.....and he's blind....and dead.

This was the part that disturbed me the most of everything. All that bullcrap and the whole "party lifestyle" thing really pissed me off. The point is a 2 year old was murdered and someone got away from punishment... like it or not, if any killer got away the system is broken, no one will be punished for this and to me that is wrong.

 

Also I am voting Elissa for president in the next election... brilliant idea!

[Airtime&Gravity]

You can't base a case on just circumstantial evidence, and even if everyone is saying Casey's guilty, the jury could only listen to the evidence, which was weak.

 

You can absolutely base a case on nothing but circumstantial evidence. It happens every single day and there is nothing at all wrong with that. Circumstantial evidence is, technically, no better or worse then direct (eye witness) evidence. It's just a different type of evidence. In fact I can tell you that given my options I may actually take a case of all circumstantial evidence over a case of all direct evidence.

 

 

I know you can base a case off of circumstantial evidence, I was just under the impression that it was more difficult. I was under the impression that the prosecutors had a strong case until I heard more of what had gone on after Casey was found not guilty. I thought there was direct evidence presented, and I thought the circumstantial evidence was incriminating enough to get a guilty verdict. However, because it was all circumstantial evidence, the defense was able to give reasonable doubt.

[mightbeawannabe]

^^^^I hate you. Now I'm really REALLY hungry for chocolate cake.

[Across_the_Universe]

People's reaction to this just shows how much media biases the general population. People like Nancy Grace that state she's guilty as if she herself saw Casey killing her daughter do little more than create propaganda for the prosecution.

 

This case, at minimum, proves that the justice system DOES work. The prosecution was unable to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt; thus, the jury found her not guilty. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? Everybody is given the right to a free trial and is innocent until proven guilty. And, once she is found not guilty; in the eyes of the law, she didn't do it. No matter if she actually did do it, she can never be tried again for this crime.

 

Now, what do you think she'll get for the one charge she was found guilty of?

Personally, I think she'll get off with time served. She has been in prison for 3 years, after all.