Is There Another Missing Baby Case Like Casey Anthony's?

[~christina~]

So when the prosecution says "there's a 1 in 4 billion chance that the DNA match is coincidental", what they actually mean is "there's a 1 in 3 chance that the stupid intern contaminated the crime scene DNA with the reference and made the two match". I'm definitely not saying that DNA evidence should be thrown out, just that it's ironic for a greater demand for evidence to lead to more false positives.

The "chance" that is described is all dependant on how it is looked at. It depends on the group (is it the 1/x chance that DNA sample would match someone of x nationality who is female/male in a x location) that is looked at. Sometimes I think they look at all the probabilities and pick the outlier of the group just to make their case look stronger (no one really asks how they get that number).

I'm definitely not saying that DNA evidence should be thrown out, just that it's ironic for a greater demand for evidence to lead to more false positives.

I'd disagree with the conclusion that "greater demand for evidence" is what is leading to false positives. It's probably due to the lack of actual forensic scientists who actually collect evidence at crime scenes. They just train normal police to do that job which increases the chance for problems.

 

[Evo]

Being found not guilty in our justice system means exactly that, that you are not guilty. You may have committed the crime, but you are not guilty of the crime.

If everyone is so convinced of her guilt, why not take her life yourself instead of relying on a group of your incompetent peers to do the dirty deed for you. At least the trial way justice could be served for you and someone else can worry about living with their unreasonable or reasonable doubts about her innocence.

To avoid these kinds of unpopular verdicts I propose that we implement a text message based voting system to determine guilt. That way we can handle these things in a more efficient matter. We already have the publicly televised, play-by-play trials so really just setting up the server (jury) wouldn't even be the hard part.

The way that the American people have behaved with this trial has actually embarrassed me.
As far as I'm concerned this tragedy is between God, the State, Casey and her family. It should have nothing to do with the American mass that reached a verdict before the trial even started. That is why we as a society and culture have decided that a jury of our peers sequestered from public opinion is trusted with determining guilt.

I think there are still countries where you could get away with mob trials and executions. Maybe we should ask them how we should change our trial system to avoid unpopular trial verdicts.

If the jury was confused and aquitted her due to not fully understanding their choices, then it was a miscarriage of justice.

The jury believed she was guilty but thought that the prosecution had to say exactly HOW she was killed. That's false.

Casey Anthony jurors explain their thinking

One of the jurors who acquitted Casey Anthony on charges of murdering her daughter, Caylee, says he wishes the panel could have found her guilty.

Another juror, 32-year-old nursing student Jennifer Ford, who'd been known as No. 3, expressed similar thoughts to ABC News, saying in a portion of the interview aired Wednesday night, "If you're going to charge someone with murder, don't you have to know how they killed someone or why they might have killed someone or have something where, when, why, how? Those are important questions. They were not answered."

No, you don't, you can get a conviction with only a skeleton and not knowing if they had been cut and bled to death, were smothered, etc... you don't even need a body. You don't need a confession.

"I did not say she was innocent," she (another juror) said. "I just said here was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."

Jurors don't decide punishment, they decide innocent or guilty. This jury did not believe that she was innocent of the crime, the jury was confused about what to do, based on what they've said.

more

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/07/earlyshow/main20077457.shtml

This goes back to the earlier posts saying that jurors today expect *miraculous, and even non-existant* means of showing who murdered someone and why. That kind of thing just isn't going to happen in most cases.

 

[BobG]

"I did not say she was innocent," she (another juror) said. "I just said here was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."

This is essentially another way of saying they thought Casey Anthony was guilty of something, but were unable to figure out what she was guilty of.

She could have carefully planned out how to murder her daughter and then did it.

She could have stuffed her in the closet with duct tape over her mouth so she wouldn't have to listen to her and left her in there too long. (This might be murder, but not premeditated murder, and maybe just manslaughter or negligent homicide?)

There's a lot of other ways she could be responsible for her daughter's death, but not guilty of premeditated murder.

I think she should at least have been found guilty for her daughter's death in some way, even if it was a lesser charge, since there wasn't enough evidence to know how the death occurred. That could still be a hard verdict to get to if they just went down each count and asked "Did they prove this charge beyond a reasonable doubt?". To find her guilty, they would almost have to all decide she was responsible for her daughter's death and then agree to pick whichever charge they could agree on.

 

[MATLABdude]

There seems to be another twist in this saga, the State of Florida wants Casey Anthony to reimburse them $500,000 for the failed prosecution against her!
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...imburse-state-for-its-failed-case-against-her

They don't even do that for people who're found guilty!

EDIT: Stolen from FARK

 

[WhoWee]

They don't even do that for people who're found guilty!

She was convicted of lying - the act of lying caused extra expenses.

 

[Newai]

She was convicted of lying - the act of lying caused extra expenses.

I think one is a criminal case (now closed), and this new one a civil case. I believe that's how O.J. Simpson was found not guilty in one trial and sued in another.

 

[WhoWee]

I think one is a criminal case (now closed), and this new one a civil case. I believe that's how O.J. Simpson was found not guilty in one trial and sued in another.

Yes - she was found guilty of lying in the criminal case. Now - because she is guilty of lying and causing the Government to incur (additional) costs due to her actions (lying) - they will attempt to make her pay for those additional costs. If she hadn't lied to investigators - some of the costs would not have been incurred. It's fair - IMO.

 

[Newai]

Yes - she was found guilty of lying in the criminal case. Now - because she is guilty of lying and causing the Government to incur (additional) costs due to her actions (lying) - they will attempt to make her pay for those additional costs. If she hadn't lied to investigators - some of the costs would not have been incurred. It's fair - IMO.

I don't believe either would matter. I gave the O.J. Simpson results as an example. Even if Anthony had been not convicted of lying, the state would still be able to take her to court in a civil trial for lying. But yeah, it's fair.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't believe either would matter. I gave the O.J. Simpson results as an example. Even if Anthony had been not convicted of lying, the state would still be able to take her to court in a civil trial for lying. But yeah, it's fair.

OJ was taken to civil court by the families of the deceased and found "liable" for their deaths. More or less found guilty of the crime that he had been acquitted on.

 

[Newai]

OJ was taken to civil court by the families of the deceased and found "liable" for their deaths. More or less found guilty of the crime that he had been acquitted on.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

 

[rhody]

Oh no, say it is not happening again, this time with a ten month old:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/17/us-baby-missing-idUSTRE79F06D20111017"

Lisa has been missing since Jeremy Irwin reported her gone from the family's Kansas City home at 4 am on October 4 when he returned from work. Police have questioned the parents at length but have not identified them or anyone else as suspects.

Rhody...