Posted on 07/06/2011 12:09:07 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour
On Tuesday, the jury acquitted Anthony, 25, of murdering her child in June 2008.
The reason, legal analysts and court watchers said, is that despite the seemingly endless hype surrounding the investigation and trial, the prosecution's case simply didn't hold up. There was no forensic evidence such as DNA or fingerprints directly linking Anthony to her daughter's death. In fact, the precise cause of the girl's death was unclear.
"The prosecution put out a lot of dots, but they couldn't connect them,"
(Excerpt) Read more at 13wmaz.com ...
Check out Cheney Mason’s remarks on this case as a “talking head” prior to his joining the defense team:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er2G0OszXEk
“The prosecution proved the case”
OK, then, since you paid attention: Please give one concrete example of a piece of evidence that proves she killed her child.
>>But another, more secondary topic that has been just as hotly debated in the wake of the verdict has been the media’s role in this case.<<
I happened on this case a week or two ago through a FR thread. I was surprised to find out an office mate knew about it. He said the news inundated you with it.
That explains it. I haven’t had TV since 1997. I just started following this. I’m getting the feeling that the jury got it right, at least based on the evidence they were exposed to. This woman may be guilty of the crime, but it looks like the prosecution did not make the case.
Proved it to me...
“common sense” should mean a lot more than a bunch of crap experts come up with. What part of common sense says that she didn’t kill the girl?
“Basically, in your opinion 90% of murderers should never be convicted.”
#####
Coming soon, to a society near you.
If we don’t get a handle soon on the jury problem, the only convictions that will be solidly assured, will be those involving “rich” white males.
Casey Anthony was convicted of four counts of lying to the police. What kind of questions did she lie about? If they were questions about the whereabouts of her child and she lied then why? Obviously to cover up what she did to her. Jurors can’t find her not guilty of murder when they then convicted her of lying about what happened. It’s just not logical. No wonder they call it Flori-duh.
Even if they couldn’t prove murder, they proved abuse, but the 12 idiots couldn’t grasp that
Part of the other problem the prosecution had is that no one in the family was willing to help them. The grandparents and the brother didn't assist the police. The father of the child is unknown. The child essentially died alone with no one caring about avenging the child's death.
The murderer got away with it because of her lies that delayed the finding of the body and her parents were not willing to help the police.
This isn't the first time I have seen a cold blooded murderer escape justice.
That is easy. The jury never saw Nancy Grace or any other talking heads spewing their crap.
“Not sure why they charged her, knowing they had only circumstantial evidence.”
Are you serious? Lacking an eyewitness all cases are circumstantial. Considering that eyewitnesses are often mistaken a good circumstantial case is usually a better indicator of guilt.
To me, if you have sole custody of your child, said child goes missing and you do not call the police, then same child turns up dead. YOU’RE GUILTY!
I do not need a video tape.
“the Jury was thinking “Me following legaleeze. Me be smart juror” instead of asking “Did that woman kill her child?””
If the jury was asking “Did that woman kill her child?” then they were following “legaleeze”. I sure as Hell don’t want to be judged by a jury that simple asks, “Do I emotionally feel the defendant is guilty?” I want the prosecution to prove its case, and not rely on the liberal mentality of emotion.
Before he went insane, Vincent Bugliosi (the Charlie Manson prosecutor) could be relied on for some pretty insightful analysis. In his book, "Outrage" about the Simpson trial he wrote an excellent summation of how a prosecutorial team needs to present circumstantial evidence and a pretty strong analysis on the meaning of, 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'
Bugliosi contends that most citizens, and by extension, most jurors, view the evidence of a case as a chain, such that if one link is broken or discredited, the case falls apart. To the contrary, he argues that a better analogy is a rope in which the individual pieces of evidence should be regarded as strands, so that if one is broken, or undone, the strength of the remaining, unimpeached evidence may yet carry the weight of the case.
Now, in full disclosure, I did not follow this case closely enough to give an informed opinion as to how the prosecution failed to adequately present what they had, or if they simply didn't have enough...perhaps they just didn't have enough remaining strands to hold things together.
IMO Casey did a masterful job of diverting the investigation with her month of avoiding family and then another couple of months claiming a kidnapping. All the smoke and mirrors allowed the body to become so decomposed that there was no chance to prove how she died. Then her lawyer could come out and suggest a pool drowning with no evidence to back it up. It was a brilliant strategy.
As an attorney, I do have a problem with defense counsel throwing around lies in opening statements, stating “this is what the evidence will show” and then never presenting any evidence of those assertions. But, once again, it was a brilliant strategy.
I couldn't disagree with you more. I think the problem is that "reasonable doubt" has come to mean "the slightest fantasy of a doubt." Add to that what William F. Buckley said a couple decades ago: The most serious problem in America today is that people lack confidence in their own common sense. The Anthony jury verdict and the sickening attorneyspeak (from lawyers who love the legal chess game more than justice) I'm hearing in the wake of the verdict is proof of that.
I agree with your statement.
The state presented what evidence existed.
What part of “circumstantial” didn’t these jurors understand?
It seems they were afraid to make a judgment call without a smoking gun and a notarized 8 X 10 glossy of Casey wrapping the baby in duct tape.
Based on the conduct of all concerned there is only one reasonable conclusion to be reached - Casey murdered Caylee.
If Caylee died accidentally in the backyard pool why would the defense spend so much time trying to portray the father and brother as molesters of Casey? What would that have to do with a drowning scenario?
Justice was not served in this case - Casey got off on slimy, unethical legal tactics.
“then same child turns up dead. YOU’RE GUILTY!
“
Well, then, you would be convicting hundreds, perhaps thousands, of parents that have found their children missing and then dead. What kind of retarded emotional vengance is that you just made? Anger is exactly what we want to be kept out of the courtroom.
There was no accidental drowning, nobody puts duct tape over the nose and mouth of a drowning victim. It was a murder. Casey repeatedly lied to her family and police about where her daughter was. Casey clearly had a guilty knowledge not displayed by her parents and brother. Even if circumstantial, there was sufficient evidence for conviction.
but I totally understand the jury....I totally agree that despite some damning personal behaviour, there was little else .....
believe me, Casey knows what happened..I think...she might have been on a huge drunk....but she at least has to know where she last saw her baby...
I think the DA gambled on going for the death penalty...I'll bet he thought she would crack and want a plea bargin...jokes on him....sociopaths don't admit to anything....
its been a joy though, seeing Nancy Grace's head explode...
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.