Casey Anthony Not Guilty!

Evo

Mentor
22,867
2,343
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Too many unknowns - coupled with evidence that was not peer-reviewed - the prosecution dropped the ball.
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

Homework Helper
2,266
0
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.
The father never saw the body; he just inferred that it existed because he thought Casey's car smelt like human decomposition. I also don't see why the father's suicide note gives any evidence that's more reliable than his court testimony. All we know is that he wrote this note before the day he claimed that he attempted suicide. Even if we believe that he did want to commit suicide, nothing was forcing him to be honest in the note, and certainly nothing was forcing him to write down his darkest secrets.

As for Casey's behavior, I agree that it's despicable and irresponsible, but that doesn't make her a murderer. Not all humans behave the same way. Some people, like me, behave in completely bizarre and puzzling ways, but that doesn't make them criminals.
 
1,675
3
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.
Seriously. This is the very essence of an open-and-shut case. Now this creature having been found innocent will become rich off of it.

Oh yea. No son-of-Sam law to block any book deals. Not only has this incompetent jury turned loose a baby killer, but they've handed her a licence to get rich off of it.

Excuse me, I'm going to go puke now.
 

ideasrule

Homework Helper
2,266
0
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.
 
1,120
7
After hearing Dr. Werner Spitz{ my Grad school mentor} testify, I knew they would have to find her not guilty. The autopsy was not up to standards, very haphazard, in a case of this type.
The jury made the correct choice, given the evidence and followed the letter of law to perfection.
The personal Mother in me, feels differently. She reeks of guilt.
 
1,675
3
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.
Cry me a river over poor Casey's rights.

Her job prospects? She'll be rich before the year is out.

All the other murderers that get off? Don't worry; I don't know the details but I'm executing them all in my mind.

The real problem is that murdering scum, whether they're getting press or not are being let go by juries that can't reason their way out of a paper bag.
 
848
4
Cry me a river over poor Casey's rights.
I think that while in the Karmic sense of the word, I don't feel bad for her getting bad publicity. But I do feel that it is bad for the legal system as a whole. The vast majority of people assume someone is guilty the second they are charged with a crime.

Our legal system shouldn't be based entirely on common sense. Common sense is susceptible to so many human factors, judgments, and emotions. There should be some guidance by a more concrete process (as we have). I absolutely cringe when I hear people say "well just use common sense!".
 

Pythagorean

Gold Member
4,133
253
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
 
2,080
79
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
Just because there's no cause of death, no time of death, no fingerprints, no DNA, no identified weapon and the location of the actual crime scene is unknown doesn't mean there's no solid evidence.
 
Last edited:

D H

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
15,329
681
Today, the jury found that she was not guilty. She's not just presumptively innocent of murder; she's legally innocent.
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.
 

MATLABdude

Science Advisor
1,646
4
People get convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence all the time. You don't even need to have the corpse to do it.

I have lost all faith in our present jury system. We either need professional jurors or we need to lower the standards of evidence to prove guilt.

I would rather send 10 innocent people to jail in order convict just one Casey Anthony. There will be more dead children at the hands of sociopaths like her who make the calculation that they'll only get a few years and no chair if they're caught.

I repeat; the jury system does not work and should be replaced by a jury of "engineers"; analytical, educated, well-paid professional jurors who rule based on common sense.

If I were the sole juror she'd be heading for the electric chair. Why? Because any fool can see she's a pathological liar and sociopath and that she deliberately killed her child. Any other conclusion flies in the face of all reason.
Why appeal to the protection of innocents when you say that you're perfectly willing to throw many other innocents under the bus (into the noose, under the chopping block, etc.) in the previous sentence? You should appeal to vengeance instead--innocents, bread thieves, and white whales be damned.

Having an engineering degree myself, I strongly agree with your sentiment that we should have juries comprised of " analytical, educated, well-paid professional jurors". Then, they should rule from the gut, based on the character and impressions of the guilty--even a fool would do the same!


Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith said:
Darth Sidious: [Vader's new mechanical body arises from the steam] Lord Vader... can you hear me?
Darth Vader: Yes, Master.
Darth Vader: [Vader looks at Sidious] Where is Padme? Is she safe? Is she all right?
Darth Sidious: It seems in your anger, you killed her.
Darth Vader: I...? I couldn't have! She was alive... I felt it!
[Vader growls, and his Dark Side strength crushes everything around him in the room. He frees himself from the metal stretcher, and steps off. Palpatine has a smirk on his face]
Darth Vader: Nooooooooooooooooooo!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0121766/quotes?qt=qt0489806
 
Last edited:
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.
There is plenty of room for argument in the viability of circumstantial evidence. On one hand it seems horribly unfair to convict someone on it and on the other it seems horribly unjust to ignore it. Would you really want to convict a woman of murdering her own child without knowing she did it? If you really try to be impartial it becomes quite a quandary. Just how much and what sort of circumstantial evidence does it take? I'm not particularly intimate on the details here, and have no real desire to be, so I do not really know just how damning the evidence was (though from what little I have heard it was pretty bad). But I can see where the jury was coming from to some extent. You are right, perhaps the prosecution dropped the ball on this one.
 

Char. Limit

Gold Member
1,198
12
Wow. The willingness of some of these people in this read to destroy innocent lives just so that they can convict one more guilty person... it's kind of sickening.
 

rhody

Gold Member
629
3
After hearing Dr. Werner Spitz{ my Grad school mentor} testify, I knew they would have to find her not guilty. The autopsy was not up to standards, very haphazard, in a case of this type.
The jury made the correct choice, given the evidence and followed the letter of law to perfection.
The personal Mother in me, feels differently. She reeks of guilt.
hypathia,

I suspect you are correct, one thing no one has mentioned yet, not that I am the bastion of original thought, could we see a scenario similar to this play itself out in the future, assuming Anthony has another child in the future ? I shudder to think this may happen again, but suspect it may be possible. Is she now destined to live an O.J. Simpson like existence ?

Your thoughts ?

Rhody...
 
854
16
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.
So a person is innocent until found not guilty?
 

ideasrule

Homework Helper
2,266
0
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.
I agree, but this is just a matter of semantics. Since the jury found her not guilty, she now has the same rights and responsibilities as an innocent person who was never charged in the first place. Under the law, she's innocent in all but name.
 
1,028
2
Give it some time for the media frenzy to pass and she will be pushing out books and hosting 80's videos on VH1 in no time. I think this whole trial would have been better off if it were not in the eye of the public. Innocent or not, nobody deserves to make money on this.
 
So a person is innocent until found not guilty?
I agree, but this is just a matter of semantics. Since the jury found her not guilty, she now has the same rights and responsibilities as an innocent person who was never charged in the first place. Under the law, she's innocent in all but name.
Technically a person is presumed innocent until proven otherwise, they are not considered to actually be innocent because there would be no need for a trial then right? Even found "not guilty" a person may still go to court again on the same matter and be found guilty/liable (see OJ) so long as it does not constitute double jeopardy.
 

BobG

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
110
80
Give it some time for the media frenzy to pass and she will be pushing out books and hosting 80's videos on VH1 in no time. I think this whole trial would have been better off if it were not in the eye of the public. Innocent or not, nobody deserves to make money on this.
I wonder how good of a defense she would have had if the case hadn't been so much in the public eye?

In the case of OJ Simpson, you knew he'd have the best legal team possible and the trial would get a lot of coverage just because of who he was. In the case of Casey Anthony, the attention the media paid to the case made it possible to attract a legal team I don't think she would have been able to afford on her own.
 
107
0
I wonder how good of a defense she would have had if the case hadn't been so much in the public eye?

In the case of OJ Simpson, you knew he'd have the best legal team possible and the trial would get a lot of coverage just because of who he was. In the case of Casey Anthony, the attention the media paid to the case made it possible to attract a legal team I don't think she would have been able to afford on her own.
I agree - her defense might have been a court appointed lawyer if it weren't for the media coverage.
 
They were broadcasting the sentencing on the radio on my way home from work this morning. The defense is currently attempting to mitigate the sentence on the charges of lying to police officers by pointing to a court decision that could indicate the lies all being told in a single interview constitute a single criminal act and the multiple charges violate double jeopardy. The prosecution is arguing that the individual lies may be seen as individual criminal episodes in a single criminal incident and charged as such similar to multiple sex acts committed during a single rape or multiple shots fired when a firearm is illegally discharged.

One way or another it apparently looks as though she will just be credited with time served and released.
 

rhody

Gold Member
629
3
hypathia,

I suspect you are correct, one thing no one has mentioned yet, not that I am the bastion of original thought, could we see a scenario similar to this play itself out in the future, assuming Anthony has another child in the future ? I shudder to think this may happen again, but suspect it may be possible. Is she now destined to live an O.J. Simpson like existence ?

Your thoughts ?

Rhody...
OMG! http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey-anthony-children/story?id=14009375" [Broken]
On the eve of her sentencing that could set her free for the first time in nearly three years, a look back at Casey Anthony's jailhouse letters show that the 25-year-old may have more children upon her release.

"I had a dream not too long ago that I was pregnant," wrote Casey Anthony in one of more than 50 letters she sent to fellow inmate Robyn Adams between 2008 and 2009 when the two were housed in the Orlando County Jail in Florida.
Say it isn't possible, sadly, it IS... (bangs head against wall)

Rhody... :eek:

P.S. And be subject to endless civil lawsuits to recover court costs, etc... eerily similar to O.J.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pretty disgusting but the jury made the right decision. Unlike in the Chandra Levy trial the decision was not made by emotions but rather by the correct methods.
 

MATLABdude

Science Advisor
1,646
4
Pretty disgusting but the jury made the right decision. Unlike in the Chandra Levy trial the decision was not made by emotions but rather by the correct methods.
If you're talking about Gary Condit, he was never on trial nor considered a serious suspect by the authorities. He was just crucified in the media by people certain of his guilt, and there are people that to this day assume he was guilty / in prison.

If you're talking about the guy who DID eventually get arrested and sentenced for the murder of Chandra Levy (Ingmar Guandique), the evidence isn't exactly CSI but the aggregate of circumstantial evidence (and informants) seems to be what did him in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra_Levy

Maybe this is a Politics OT, but I find it rich that when you Google for "Gary Condit crucified", the first site that comes up is a Breitbart site excoriating the press for their sensationalism, failure to investigate, and public crucifixion. Then again, maybe he and O'Keefe do what they do as latter-day Kaufmann's?
 

Related Threads for: Casey Anthony Not Guilty!

Replies
2
Views
233
  • Posted
2
Replies
46
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
299
Replies
81
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
2K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top