Posted on 07/07/2011 1:45:03 PM PDT by kathsua
The Casey Anthony jury reached the correct verdict. The question put to the jury wasn't did Casey Anthony kill her daughter Caylee Anthony, but did she deliberately carry out a plan to murder Caylee by suffocating her with duct tape.
The jury didn't buy the prosecutor's claim of premeditated murder and its easy to understand why they might have rejected it. When I first heard of what the prosecution was attempting to do I thought they had a difficult, if not impossible, task before them.
I could believe that Casey got frustrated because she couldn't get her daughter to shut up and covered Caylee's mouth with duct tape to keep her quiet rather than to kill her. Casey might have positioned the tape carelessly or the child might have had a stopped nose with the end result that Caylee was unable to breathe and died. I have difficulty accepting the claim that Casey is mentally capable of planning to kill her daughter by using duct tape to suffocate her.
Casey was unable to accept responsibility for her action and tried to cover it up. Perhaps she had difficulty admitting to herself what she had done.
American prosecutors suffer from a "disease" which causes them to try to present every wrongful death as premeditated murder. Perhaps prosecutors feel they get better publicity if they convict an evil killer then if they convict someone for doing something stupid.
I don't know if Casey Anthony caused her daughter's death or not, but it would be unfortunate if she will go unpunished for the death because prosecutors made the mistake of trying to turn a tragedy into something sinister.
The writer is yet another member of the Andrea Yates fan club.
I really do not understand why so many people think it is excusable for a mother to murder her child. That point of view is just plain demonic. These people are ignoring the plain facts of the case, even labeling her "a good mother." By what possible standard?
It is the worst betrayal possible in the world. The center of a child's existence is the mother. For that mother to bring about the death of a child takes a real special level of evil. To approve of it is to become complicit in it.
I guess you are ignorant to the fact that the jury WAS given a choice of a lesser charge of manslaughter, which requires no pre meditation. The author fails to make that point clear. You now stand informed.
Would you still respect them if they, the jury, had been given the choice of aggravated manslaughter which requires no premeditation?
A lot of Freepers are looking real stupid, you including:
Count One: First Degree Murder Count Two: Aggravated Child Abuse Count Three: Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child Count Four: False Information
Aliens from the planet Zarnac 7,
Even if the slut had made a video of her trashing the kid a moron like you would think it was doctored. Such stupidity on Free Republic......
And people generally believe that?
“From the evidence, it was possible Caylee died accidentally.”
Flawed reasoning. There was NO evidence presented by the defense that she died accidentally, only conjecture. Since when is a “possibility” grounds for reasonable doubt.
“Flawed reasoning. There was NO evidence presented by the defense that she died accidentally, only conjecture. Since when is a “possibility” grounds for reasonable doubt.”
WELL SAID....it is alarming how many people in this nation cannot understand the meaning of “reasonable.”
For the lazy jury in this trial, reasonable was ANY DOUBT at all...and you are so right that conjecture and “possibilty” with NO EVIDENCE to support it is NOT resonable doubt....it is just an excuse by a lazy cowardly jury to not make the tough decsion that they were given to make.
The defense does not have the burden to prove anything. The jury sat through the entire trial, heard the evidence, deliberated, and found reasonable doubt.
I couldn’t possibly answer as to what “people generally believe”.
Right now in Boston we have a leader of organized crime on trial for the murder of 19 people. All of the bodies that were dug up are skeletons. There already is motive and witness testimony. No scientific cause of death can be determined, no exact time no weapon and no place with exception of witness testimony.
I'm afraid of this man going in front of a Casey Anthony type jury.
Just to show you how broke the system is Casey Anthony can birth another child and kill the child in the same way and get away with it again using the same evidence. This is only if she can be in front of the same type of brain dead
people.
>>A lot of Freepers are looking real stupid, you including:<<
You’re right. Although I would like to call it “ignorant”. Now that you have educated me, It would be “stupid” for me to stay with my position without evidence to support it.
I did not follow counts two and three, but I did hear she was found guilty of count four.
That said, count three is similar to count 1 in that the burden of proof was on the prosecutor to prove she is the one that killed her daughter. Count 2 would only apply to anything she did before the child died. You can’t be convicted of child abuse because of what you did to a dead body. Locking a live child in the trunk would be abuse. Locking a dead body in the trunk would not.
As you can see, I’m applying pure black and white thinking to this as much as possible.
Count two has me puzzled though. I’ve only been following this case for the last week or so, so my information is all “post verdict” with the exception of a brief entrance into a thread a couple of weeks ago, when I first heard about this case.
For those of us who have followed the case from the beginning this is a nauseating experience. I cannot tell you how much of an abortion of justice this has been. It is even worse than the OJ trial in may ways.
You watched the trial through the eyes of the media.
Why do you think its okay to judge her from what is said on TV shows?
Or maybe you sat around all day everyday and watched every minute of the trial?
Wow! You just showed your total ignorance.
The burden of proof is ONLY on the state. Didn’t you know that?
The defendent is innocent until proven guilty by the state.
The defendent doesn’t have to prove anything to anyone.
I think you flunked American Justice system 101.
Wrong. The article starts right off with a false premise. The question really was did she kill her daughter?
Premeditation was required in only one of three possible charges. No specific theory involving duct tape, or anything else, had to be accepted. Only that she was the person that caused the death.
and she could have caused that death through neglect that allowed an accidental drowning to happen. still guilty. she had a chance to put up a defense, she didn’t. she had a lawyer that was good and smoke and mirrors.
My wife tivo’d it for me so I saw about 75% of the trial. The only question I thought the jury had to consider was whether to find her guilty of manslaughter or murder. It was a no brainer she caused the death it was only a question of degree. The jury verdict was the biggest miscarriage of justice since OJ. It is an outrage. If you have questions let me know I pretty much am up on it,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.