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 ...
I think we should hang every prisoner in this country. Trials? We don’t need no stinking trials!
“This is not a time to celebrate of our justice system. It’s a time to mourn over it’s occasional flaws.”
Well said.
This was a lazy arsed jury that asked for zero tapes to review key evidence....ZERO.
There was clear evidence in this case and absolutely desperate attempts by the Defense to confuse the jury with ridiculous allegations against the grandfather and including stunning perjury by the grandmother to implicate herself - a mere ruse to confuse this jury.
This Jury would be confused by a stop sign. They are just the tip of the spear of the Confederacy of Dunces we are becoming.
Interesting speculation. Do you have any evidence besides a differing opinion on the verdict?
And you call people who voted for Obama irrational?
Peterson was convicted on circumstantial evidence as well. No one witnessed the murder, nor did they witness him putting her body in the lake. There was evidence pointing to his guilt - strong evidence because of the cement etc., but how do we really know he did it? Maybe it was a co worker, or some other person who worked around cement. He had motive. He was the last to be with her. He would have received some type of reward through her death - just like C. Anthony. He was found guilty beyond a "reasonable" doubt, just as Anthony should have been.
There is no reason to celebrate our judicial system right now. An uninformed jury is a flaw. Circumstantial evidence is all we've had to work with in millions of cases since this country's founding. If we do away with it like the jury did yesterday, no one will ever be convicted of any crime without a video clip.
hello Susan confessed
Problem is the evidence that the prosecution put on was more like suggested theory and none of the so called factual evidence was supported. I think she had something to do with the death but I could see nothing solid. This convicting on circumstantial evidence has been responsible for thousands of innocent being sent to prison only to be found later they did not do it. Judgment is now in the hands of God. That is if you truly believe in our system of law which is not perfect.
Relativism is alive and active on FR...
Isn’t it supposed to boil down to the jurors?
Yeah, and then go after the ones that look and talk different...
At one time I was a 100% supporter of our legal system. I was convinced it was the most fair, most honest, system in the world.
As I got older, I got a little wiser. I have read stories where prosecutors knowingly bring charges against innocent people. I have read stories where investigators knowingly lied to a jury. I have read stories where forensic experts fudge the data or lie about it.
I no longer trust our legal system to be fair and honest.
The burden of proof remains the responsibility of the state. The accused does not have to prove their innocents. In fact the accused does not even have to tell the police anything (of course we all know how they can get around that little constitutional protection don’t we).
There was a long time between the last time anyone seen Cayley alive and they found her body. Since they could not establish a time of death, they could not prove that Casey was in fact the last person to see the baby alive, only that she was the last person another person had seen Cayley.
The so called forensic was to me laughable. Months after the fact they somehow found traces of Chloroform in the trunk of the car. It is like a finger print, perhaps it was in fact Chloroform and not something left over from another product. However, as far I know, they never proved that Casey bought the material to make chloroform or if she indeed had made it, so it was just speculation on the part of the prosecutor. Even if it was Chloroform, there is no evidence when it was in the car. Only speculation.
The police botched the investigation when the child was found but the police did not want to get their feet wet just ignored the report. If they had discovered the body when it was first found perhaps more evidence would have been available.
I did not follow this case closely, but from what I did hear and see it appeared that the mob in the streets convicted Casey before the trail and now are upset because those that did in fact sit through the entire trial determined that the state did not prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
Further, I think the prosecutor over reached with a first degree murder charge with the prospect of execution of Casey. Since the cause of death could not be determined, who could be sure it was in fact murder, and not simply an accident of some sort?
I do not know what happened, but based on what I have read I have reasonable doubt on who was responsible for Caylee’s death.
Does this mean a possible murderer goes free? Yes, that is one of the hard lessons of living under a system where we presume someone is innocent until PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW and not by television reporters.
I agree with those that say these types of trials should not be televised. Allow reporters in the court room but not television cameras.
It is only reasonable doubt if the jury is brain dead. This verdict is the logical consequence of the government indoctrination centers(aka public schools) creating little 0bamatrons who know more about American Idol and Lady Gaga than they do about the Constitution and American history. We are headed toward the society depicted in the movie “Idiocracy.”
Isn’t a confession absolute, beyond a shadow of a doubt, proof?
The Confederacy of Dunces doesn’t miss FR.
We have our Dunces as well...every bit as stupid and without the ability to reason properly as this jury.
This was nothing more and nothing less than an incapable lazy jury that did not see fit to see any reasonable motivation or possibility of crime with a sociopath....and to do the most basic the of the evidence that should have occurred.
They requested ZERO Evidence to review. A pox on their house, every last one of them.
There was evidence pointing to his guilt -
(Lead-in) “The not guilty verdict for Casey Anthony on Tuesday also can be seen as a victory for the U.S. justice system ...”
“also”? The OJ Simpson verdict was a *great* victory (for the ... blah blah blah) ?
Please cite the specific evidence that the prosecution presented to the jury of “child abuse”, or even “neglect”(for which she was not even charged)
And by this question, I’m asking for the SPECIFIC evidence the prosecution allegedly presented to the jury....NOT your personal interpretations, or opinions. Please post the factual evidence that was presented that “beyond a reasonable doubt” showed “child abuse”.
Lastly, before you reply, allowing someone else to have care of your child is not “abuse”, nor is not reporting that your child is deceased, evidence of “child abuse”
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.