Posted on 07/05/2011 5:08:33 PM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
Casey Anthony smiled with delight as she was today sensationally cleared of the murder of her two-year-old daughter Caylee in one of the most controversial verdicts since the OJ Simpson case.
Crowds gasped outside the courtroom as the 25-year-old mother was found not guilty of drugging her young daughter, suffocating her and dumping her body in overgrown woodland after a compelling six-week trial, which has seen a family torn apart by accusations of rape and incest.
Stunned Anthony hugged defence attorney Jose Baez when the jury's verdict was read after only ten hours of deliberation. As the jury left, a relieved Anthony, who had been facing the death penalty burst into tears of delight.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
So yes, a mother can do that.
But I am a firm believer in the government's burden of proof and as to the felony murder charges the government did not prove them. Death by negligence may have been a worthwhile pursuit with the swimming pool story being an issue at trial, but the state put it's case in a neat little box that excluded anything but intentional murder, and even though such a charge existed on paper the issue wasn't tried.
I didn't have the time or inclination to sit through the weeks of live trial coverage but based on what I heard in the various after action reports, the jury's verdict was, while not right or just in the emotional sense, nonetheless correct.
And another day of judgment will come.
So yes, a mother can do that.
But I am a firm believer in the government's burden of proof and as to the felony murder charges the government did not prove them. Death by negligence may have been a worthwhile pursuit with the swimming pool story being an issue at trial, but the state put it's case in a neat little box that excluded anything but intentional murder, and even though such a charge existed on paper the issue wasn't tried.
I didn't have the time or inclination to sit through the weeks of live trial coverage but based on what I heard in the various after action reports, the jury's verdict was, while not right or just in the emotional sense, nonetheless correct.
And another day of judgment will come.
Hypocrisy, anyone?
COUGH!COUGH!COUGH!BS!COUGH!COUGH!
The judge specifically told the jury that they did NOT have to omit their common sense.
That jury was loaded with stupid and/or dishonest people. I’ll never again give ANY excuse to shirk my jury duties.
Her legal status is “Not Guilty”. “Innocence” is a moral concept, not a legal one.
Thanks for the clarification.
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.