- #1
- 8,142
- 1,755
Wow, I thought she was going to hang for sure!
turbo-1 said:What about the duct tape? Is there any reason that a dead child (presumed drowning victim) should have duct-tape on her face? I have a problem with the jury in this one. This verdict does not pass the straight-face test for me. Someone killed that toddler IMO and someone covered it up.
leroyjenkens said:Someone definitely killed her. No reason to put duct tape on the face of a child that's already dead.
TheStatutoryApe said:They were discussing it on the radio earlier. Basically the evidence was all circumstantial and the defense seems to have been able to spin that into reasonable doubt, at least in the minds of the jurors. There's no question that some crime was commit, just whether or not it was her.
Char. Limit said:Who is Casey Anthony and why should I care?
WhoWee said:Reasonable doubt of who killed the child and when - maybe? But, it took 30 days for her to report the child missing, in the interim there is proof she was out partying, the mother called the police and said her car smelled like death, then the child is found in a swamp with duct tape about her mouth and head - (given this evidence) all the jury convicted her of was telling lies to the police - shame on the prosecution (again) - IMO.
Having followed the trial, I do blame the jury, there was enough to convict, IMO.KingNothing said:Not surprised by the result, and I don't blame the jury at all. There are hundreds of cases every year where someone gets away with murder because of unsubstantial evidence. Our justice system is based on the idea that it is better to let a true criminal go free than to convict an innocent person.
Jimmy Snyder said:She never said that she would spend the rest of her life looking for the real killer. That's pretty suspicious to me.
BobG said:(By the way - have you considered just adding "IMO" to your signature line. :rofl:)
Evo said:Having followed the trial, I do blame the jury, there was enough to convict, IMO.
What mother doesn't go nuts if their child that age is missing for even an hour?
No, it would be better to list the actual evidence. I'd add bias as a mother. The evidence was rather overwhelming, especially the testimony from her father and his suicide note. She didn't report her daughter as missing. After her daughter was dead and no one knew it, she was out partying.KingNothing said:I didn't follow that closely, I just had heard that the evidence was underwhelming. Could you perhaps give us some info on what evidence was presented? I would appreciate hearing it from you more than a news website.
Antiphon said:I would rather send 10 innocent people to jail in order convict just one Casey Anthony.
Evo said:A juror was just on tv and said that they voted not guilty because there was no definite cause of death given, not that she wasn't guilty of murder.
WHAT?
KingNothing said:I think you are hyperbolizing, but if not, that's pretty awful.
Yeah, the only evidence was that the dead baby had been in her car until it started stinking and the grandmother complained about the stench.WhoWee said:Did they ever prove when the baby died, how the baby died, where the baby died, who was present when the baby died, who knew the baby died, who put duct tape and bags on the baby, who put the baby in the car, when duct tape was placed on the baby, when the baby was taken to the swamp, who transported the baby to the swamp, who placed the baby in the swamp, who cleaned the car, and who had a real motive?
Too many unknowns - coupled with evidence that was not peer-reviewed - the prosecution dropped the ball.
Evo said:No, it would be better to list the actual evidence. I'd add bias as a mother. The evidence was rather overwhelming, especially the testimony from her father and his suicide note. She didn't report her daughter as missing. After her daughter was dead and no one knew it, she was out partying.
Evo said:Yeah, the only evidence was that the dead baby had been in her car until it started stinking and the grandmother complained about the stench.
ideasrule said:For a summary of the evidence, see here: http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/07/05/florida.casey.anthony.trial/index.html
I think the real injustice in this case is the trial by television that's been going on for 3 years. Rewind to any time before today's verdict. A presumptively innocent woman was the top celebrity in America, with half the population knowing exactly what she looked like and assuming, contrary to the legal protections of every democratic country, that she was guilty. Even at this stage, before any verdict was reached, her job prospects and ability to function as a normal member of society had all but disappeared.
Today, the jury found that she was not guilty. She's not just presumptively innocent of murder; she's legally innocent. Yet half of America is still assuming she's guilty and crying out for her blood. No matter how you put it, it isn't justice for a legally innocent woman to have her life destroyed by public opinion, especially public opinion formed by a sensationalist media that has decided to focus on this one case.
Let's suppose that the jury made a mistake, and that Casey is in fact guilty. Every year, many people in the US are tried and acquitted for murder due to lack of solid physical evidence. Why is public opinion not lynching these people? How is it justice for public opinion to focus on the one case that the media has decided to sensationalize, but not the many other cases that the media wasn't interested in? The punishment that society dishes out to offenders shouldn't depend on whether the media happened to pick up on the case.
If I were the dictator of the country, I would ban all news coverage of criminal arrests and trials until after a verdict has been reached. Many reporters in Europe follow this guideline voluntarily, even though they're not legally obliged to, and I think it definitely improves the fairness of the justice system.
Antiphon said:Cry me a river over poor Casey's rights.
Pythagorean said:We all know she was somehow involved, by there's really no evidence how.
It feels like she's guilty, but I don't really see solid evidence
The first sentence is correct. The second is not. The legal system doesn't make judgments on guilt versus innocence. It makes judgments of guilty or not guilty. ¬found guilty ≠ innocent. Not guilty means that wasn't enough evidence to find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not mean she is innocent.ideasrule said:Today, the jury found that she was not guilty. She's not just presumptively innocent of murder; she's legally innocent.
The Casey Anthony case involved the disappearance and death of 2-year-old Caylee Anthony in 2008. Casey Anthony, the child's mother, was charged with first-degree murder but was ultimately acquitted in 2011.
Yes, there have been several other high-profile missing baby cases that have gained media attention, such as the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in 2007 and the case of Baby Lisa Irwin in 2011.
The commonalities between these cases include the young age of the missing child, the involvement of the child's parent(s) as suspects, and the extensive media coverage and public interest surrounding the cases.
The Casey Anthony case is the only one of these three cases that has been officially resolved, with Anthony being acquitted of all charges. The other cases remain unsolved, with ongoing investigations and searches for answers.
As a scientist, I am not an expert in law enforcement or child protection. However, some potential measures that could help prevent similar cases include improving child welfare systems, increasing public awareness and education about child safety, and implementing stricter protocols for missing child investigations.