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 ...
It all comes down to this: no one knows or can prove how Caylee died. Though I don’t agree with the decision, I do understand how that can raise reasonable doubt.
I also am a firm believer in the natural order of things. If Casey Anthony murdered Caylee, she will not go free of it regardless of what the jury decided.
Yes, you are correct, but how did they not connect the dots on the child neglect charge when a two year old was not reported missing for an entire month? How is there any doubt with those facts? Anyone with an ounce of common sense could see that not reporting your two year old missing for a month is being neglectful. Our society has become pathetically dumbed down. Meanwhile, the narcissist-sociopath Anthony runs free, will be financially rewarded with movie and book deals, and will probably never have to work another day in her life. What a country!
Reasonable people know full well that accidental deaths are NOT covered up by bagging a body, hauling said body around in a trunk of a car and then dumping the said body in the local pet cemetery. This mother or as a infamous radio mouth once described a mother as the biological leg spreader, successfully lied and stole and killed her offspring for the good life. AND the state presented the evidence that only and Casey alone by her own words was the last person to have in her custody that child.
That word ‘reasonable’ has been perverted to have meanings like many words before ‘marriage’, ‘gay’, ‘choice’, ‘natural’, and on and on it goes.
The other circumstances... letting a month pass before alerting Police, partying nightly, misleading family as to her exact whereabouts left me with the feeling that the child was neglected... and that means Manslaughter.
Yet, liberal excuse-ism (aka "it's not my fault") have twisted the basics of law to allow responsibility to be set aside. And that was exacerbated when abortion not only became legal for extreme cases, but became acceptable as a 'family planning' option. Life wasn't so much important when it became inconvenient. We're so far off the beaten path, I wonder if we'll ever find our way back.
No more than there was in the OJ trial. This was a case of an unformed and/or biased jury.
For example, OJ was taking arthritis medicine, and leather shrinks and hardens when it gets wet. Facts.
Because the infamous gloves were blood soaked, and there could have easily been an arthritis condition during the trial, this "evidence" should have been thrown out, but it wasn't. It was the so called "proof" that OJ couldn't have done it. In this case, it was the "proof" set a guilty man free.
(Bias is another flaw, but we have what we have.)
You are exactly right.
The jury has already received death threats, which is why they didn’t want to address the media.
Nancy Grace was already smearing them last night, delving into their criminal records. Shameful.
And many FReepers called the jury “cowards”.
God forbid any of them ever needs a jury, I hope they get a fair, open-minded jury.
Yes, as it has always been.
The ultimate definer of doubt, and reasonable, and proven when the government puts you on trial for terrorism (you Tea Party scoundrel!) will be 12 of your fellow citizens in a sealed room.
ROFL. There’s nothing like insinuation to further your argument, eh?
The jury obviously didn't understand the concept of circumstantial evidence and the validity of it. They thought they were actors in a CSI episode, and felt they actually had to see film footage of the incident put up on you tube in order to convict her.
Thank you.
I agree. Had they gone after Involuntary Manslaughter as the top charge, and spent more time on that, they would have had a better chance.
Death penalty murder was way too ambitious, and because manslaughter was the fall-back charge, not enough attention was given to it.
It was a complicated case, no matter what Nancy Grace says.
Was that even presented to the jury as an option? I was a juror once on a criminal case in which the defendant faced an array of charges stemming from one specific act. We had the options of finding him guilty on the most serious charge, on any of the several lesser charges, or acquitting him entirely.
Exactly!
For evryone who says the prosecution didn’t prove she did it (murder one), what about the neglect, irresponsibility, etc of partying while the child was missing?
She was charged with felony neglect (a lesser charge) and they STILL didn’t find against her...even when her defense team admitted she was culpable!
This is justice?
Susan confessed. Ah, well, one can never account for honesty. That certainly isn’t a fault of Casey’s.
Excellent read regarding the verdict written my Marcia Clark, OJ prosecutor.
Exactly!
In a pre-Valium dosing moment, I couldn’t agree with you more...
Couldn’t agree more. Ironic, isn’t it, that we learn about Atlanta’s cheating cabal at just about the same time. And it’s not just that, it’s the whole don’t-make-waves, don’t-contest syndrome that’s being inculcated throughout public school systems.
It's the same type of circumstance. Caycee is free because she lied. Had Susan done the same, she could be out partying as a child free woman today, too. See how easy this case has made it? No one could have ever "proved", absolutely, through forensics evidence only lacking prints, she actually pushed the car. It must have been someone else, right? There would have been nothing but circumstances pointing to her.
Andrea Yates - She could have blamed it on a fictional baby sitter. She could be a free woman today, too. There was no film footage - only circumstances that pointed to her.
Without circumstantial evidence, very few would ever be punished for a crime. All they'd have to do is plan a little in advance and lie, no matter how many things pointed directly to them and there's no doubt they did it.
Common sense and reason are absolutely necessary in a trial. Even so called "proof" and "experts" can be bought and paid for.
So convict on a lesser charge!
We KNOW she was guilty of at least criminal neglect - the 31 days...
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.