Posted on 07/06/2011 8:04:09 AM PDT by Clive
LOS ANGELESM - The not guilty verdict for Casey Anthony on Tuesday also can be seen as a victory for the U.S. justice system, despite strong public opinion that she killed her 2 year-old daughter, legal experts said.
A Florida jury cleared Anthony of the murder charge she faced in the 2008 death of her daughter, Caylee, but found her guilty of lying to police about the incident.
A number of media commentators had expected Anthony to be found guilty of murder in the case, even though prosecutors were forced to rely largely on circumstantial evidence.
Doug Berman, a criminal law professor at Ohio State University, said popular opinion came to the conclusion the 25 year-old Anthony was guilty, but that jurors must hold to a higher standard than the average citizen watching on TV.
That standard is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
"In some sense, it's a sign that the system worked well," Berman said. "The job of the system is not to turn this into a Hollywood ending, but to have all the
actors in the system do the job to the best of their ability."
Josh Niewoehner, a Chicago attorney who worked on the successful defence of R&B singer R. Kelly against charges of child pornography, said he welcomed the Anthony verdict.
"I commend the jurors for listening to the evidence and not listening to the media," Niewoehner said.
"It's a good day for justice in the sense that you have to prove every element of every crime beyond a reasonable doubt," he added.
The case against Anthony, who had faced the possibility of the death penalty if found guilty of murdering her daughter, was short on forensic evidence, such as Caylee's time or manner of death, Berman said.
[...]
(Excerpt) Read more at cnews.canoe.ca ...
Hey, think Casey will file charges against her dad for molesting her all those years? I mean her counsel without being required to present any evidence accused George of being the ‘devil’ himself.
You mean "The Mob"?
Why should the jury have to face anybody?
Susan Smith cracked under questioning. Scott Peterson admitted to and was seen fishing in the same aree where his wife’s body was found, used the same homemade concrete anchors, was seen loading what looked like a body in to the boat.
While I believe that Casey was involved, why insn’t anyone questioning why the PD didn’t push on pops harder. Maybe because he is/was one for 20 years or so. It is plausible that he used his knowledge of crime scene to think that he was involved in a cover up as was her mother. Who had more to lose, Casey or her parents if there was an accident under their care.
The way the cops took this thing so non chalantly at first, then contaminated the crime scene shows just how inept their invesigation was. The prosecutor was on the Today show this morning and said that thier case was built on hope that when the jury saw the pictures of the body that they would come to the conclusion that she died of violence.
Two things are for certain in this case, the innocent child is dead and the is is one screwed up family...
I realize that manslaughter was a potential charge, but they didn’t focus on that element. They pursued capital murder. Mistake.
That’s why I’m thinking the whole trial was in reality “rigged”...I blame the judge.
Not always, but most of the time.
I'm just saying all she had to do was lie, because there was no video of her doing it. Without actual prints, they had nothing but circumstantial evidence. If circumstantial evidence no longer matters, as in the Anthony case, they would have had nothing on her even though they knew beyond a reasonable doubt she did it. She's be out partying today.
That $1,000,000,000,00.00 life insurance policy your wife had? That's motive, but not "proof."
She was divorcing you? That's not "proof" either.
She was last seen with you? That doesn't "prove" anything.
They found the gun near your house? So? No prints. That means the killer must have put it there.
The foot prints near her shallow grave are just like your slipper print. Maybe the butler borrowed your slippers. That doesn't "prove" it was you who pulled the trigger, right? Maybe it was the butler!
Of course, all fingers point to you. All actions point to you. Reason says you did it, but that doesn't count anymore. Enjoy your new, "wonderful life."
I wonder if OJ is still looking for the real killer.
“strong evidence because of the cement etc”
Which is what differentiates the Anthony case from Peterson’s.
“... how many people have “dodged” jury duty when they’ve been called for it?”
I, for one, have not dodged jury duty. Granted, I haven’t been thrilled when called but never dodged it. In fact, the last time I went (about 18 months ago), I came down with a stomach flu. I took Tylenol for my fever and waited seven hours before being dismissed. Now, I will admit if I am ever called to be on an extended, sequestered one... I wouldn’t be thrilled. Not because of not wanting to do my civic duty but because I don’t have anyone to take care of our kids (unless they allow my husband that time off to do so?). Just a thought.
“To summarize Marsha Clark: DAMN JURIES!”
To be more accurate...
“Damn stupid juries”
Does anyone know how hard it is to make chloroform? (I'm not going to have that search on MY computer, thankyouverymuch) Was Casey even smart enough?
That’s probably true, but she didn’t.
Someone framing you for a crime? Do you want the jury to rely on circumstantial evidence for their decision? Do you want to have to prove you did not do something?
That's right. "Pointing" to his guilt. There was plenty of evidence "pointing" to Anthony's guilt, too.
No one actually "proved" he killed and tossed his wife into the water. It's the missing link, but they convicted him anyway, because everything "pointed" to his guilt.
I rest my case.
Why do people here on FR want to give the state more power to convict?
Great question.
I’m amazed by the number of people that take the jury system for granted.
God forbid any of them need an impartial jury someday, they will want that jury to hold a high standard for proof.
I agree and the troubling fact such a short time to arrive at their decision makes one wonder what did they actually consider.
There were over 300 pieces of evidence and 90 witnesses. How are you going to arrive at a fair conclusion without at least calling some of this into question and requesting examination of.
I find it humorous some people are saying that "it's God's place to Judge.".... Even two of the Jurors stated this before they were appointed, so just exactly what did they expect they were called to do?.
.. But people have chosen to forget, or simply ignorant that God has 'appointed man' to make Judgements for centuries....I don't see where He changed that..... "When ye Judge Judge righteously"..... But He will hold man accountable for 'how' he has made Judgements, as well as refusing to do so, concerning his fellow man.
We make Judgements every day concerning our families, work and a host of other things. How to best keep our children safe and weighing the people and kids they would be safe with, as an example. And there's no guarantee they will be. We also make Judgements concerning who our children not associate with, or places to go.
So people using the excuse that it's God's place to Judge ,when He has given us that responsibity to do so, are just too lazy to make that call and or not.. are afraid to do so.
I have not even got to 'where' I place blame. I see this case as a 'flash' image of the deterioration of our society nationwide. I see the majority of Americans willingly becoming minds and spines of mush.
I am reminded of what liberals accused the 'right' of being back when the legalization of abortion was given by the Supremes. The liberals accused the 'right' of only being for a child getting born, but could care less what happens to that child once born. Any person 40 or older ought to be taking note what is on the minds and intentions of our children and grandchildren.
What strikes me is that I am becoming cauterized of emotion of wanting to participate in the 'social' sphere of this world, because to have and expect a higher standard brings out the same mentality of those afflicted with the mental and spinal mush of accusing things that never entered my mind. 'lynch mob' by some on here is just like the devil's own calling card to accuse, lie, distort, and destroy.
Who said he sexually abused Casey? She did. She's always been truthful about everything. (/s).
She not only killed her little girl. She destroyed her family's life, too.
Now she's a free, childless single woman who can party like it's 2011. And not only that, but she'll be rich, rich, rich from all those wonderful book deals and movie contracts.
Ah yes. It's a wonderful life, isn't it Casie? Too bad Caylee isn't around to share it.
....for that matter how about the times she actually took Caley to these night parties, of which her friends complained about. Most people obtain babysitters for such occassions and wouldn't think of taking their 2 yr. old child. But of course Casey was never one to turn down an occassion to party either.
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.