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 ...
This is your second time posting this silly comment; “Even if they couldn’t prove murder, they proved abuse...”
The first time was over here...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2744616/posts?page=40#40
...where I asked you to substantiate you assertion. To which you provided no reply. So, let’s try this again, as I repost the same question to you...
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”
Actually, yes, many children go missing and no one calls the cops until much later. The wife was a case worker with the county. She found case after case of parents missing a kid and not wanting to call the cops. People do not trust the cops. The cops only point the finger at the parents and blame them. Of course, in most of those cases the parent was negligent, such as being drunk or stoned off their ass and the child wandered off. However, calling the police means to them exactly what you just said: Have a missing kid means you’re GUILTY! No one wants to call the cops only to have to happen. Not everyone lives in a pristine suburban world as you do.
This is complete BS... the meter reader told the police 3 or 4 times where the body was but the cops felt their job was to yell at him for laughing when one of the porkers fell into some mud, instead of searching for the body.
Had the cops listens to the meter reader the first time the body would have been collected into evidence 4 months earlier.
Blame the arrogant and stupid cops for that one...
NOTE: To everyone who thinks Casey was guilty, yet celebrates this as a case where “the system worked”...
Because of our legal system, it is unavoidable that guilty people will go free. I would rather see guilty people go free than innocent people convicted.
But this is not a cause for celebration, and not a fact to be accepted gladly.
It is a tragic and unfortunate reality. Caylee is still dead.
If justice was denied for Caylee (as I believe it was in this case), it is certainly not a “good” thing. If the murderer went free, the system did NOT work. It’s just that we have no better alternative system of justice.
This is the best system that’s ever been devised.
Maybe it’s not time to rejoice as much as accept the solemn fact that sometimes murderers go free.
“The O.J. trial had DNA and the dumb-ass jury still relied on what THEY definded as ressonable doubt....with that jury, ONLY a video of him killing Nicole could have convicted...they were guilty, as was the jury in the Anthony case, of leaning on ANY doubt...not resonable doubt.”
####
With the racist pigs on the Simpson jury, I doubt whether even THAT would have sufficed: “Too dark. Too grainy. Looks like George Bush holding the knife”.
Besides, Johnny Cochrane just made up another toddler level rhyme that tickles our Flipper-level intellect.
You are exactly right. The jury is not there to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Their job is to determine if the state has made its case beyond a reasonable doubt. I’ve been on several juries (nothing as serious as this) where I knew the defendant was probably guilty but the prosecutor just didn’t get get it done and we aquitted. Burden of proof means something.
The problem is reasonable doubt as to what? As the prosecutor said, someone in that house killed Kaylee, but they never really proved who or how, or whether it was first degree murder, negligent homicide, manslaughter, or something else.
They went for first degree murder with the death penalty. When you seek the high bar, you better makes sure you can clear it. They didn’t. Manslaughter or something lighter they may have got.
As I said, she is guilty, but the prosecution didn’t prove first degree murder. They should have either lowered the charges, made a deal, or put together a better case.
I live in Decatur, Ga. Look it up.
I’ve also been a juror and acquitted folks because the state just simply didn’t have the goods on them. This case was very simple to me. The nutzo did it.
The case “came apart” because the jury came from public schools that no longer teach critical thinking and from watching too many CSI shows. As a result, they assumed that every case is solved by DNA and no one should ever be convicted on circumstantial evidence, no matter how overwhelming.
A few years back Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering his pregnant wife, Lacey Peterson. There existed less evidence in that trial than in the Anthony case.
He is now on death row in California.
Good point.
To me, inane statements like that are indicators that 40 years of brainwashing people to be "nonjudgmental" has taken hold, much to the detriment of us all. Being "nonjudgmental" has become a crutch and a way to avoid responsibility for making tough decisions.
We see the results in jury trials like this and in the thoughtless "zero-tolerance" policies in schools. Too many people no longer have the ability to discriminate between good and bad, truth and lies, harmless and harmful.
One of the jurors even said she didn't like judging others and did not want to serve on the jury. But the judge would not allow her to be discharged. How can a person like that be trusted to make a fair and responsible evaluation of guilt or innocence?
What would be the motive for 12 independent strangers to conspire to acquit? Not race like some accused in the OJ trial. Not opponents of the death penalty, because they had to be approved by the prosecution as death penalty qualified. Not idiots, seem to be productive members of society. Could it possibly be that the prosecution did a lousy job from beginning to end? They should have never made it a death penalty case, even Susan Smith didn’t get the death penalty. Never had cause of death. And their biggest mistake was Mr. Crunk and George Anthony. Casey Anthony was attacked, rightfully so, for her actions while her daughter was missing, but what about George Anthony. He sleeps around with the volunteers that are looking for his missing granddaughter. WTF is that about. If the best you have is circumstantial evidence you better have extremely credible witnesses. Prosecution should have known better and went for aggravated manslaughter. It would have been a sealed deal rather then an acquittal.
The prosecution has to prove she killed the child beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond the shadow of a doubt. Casey’s behavior in that month where she would not even admit that Caylee was missing and went out of her way to deny that Caylee was missing does it for me. I don’t think Casey’s parents had a thing to do with the murder, but because the defense attorney was able to accuse the father in court, the idiots on the jury felt they had all they needed to vote not guilty. I’m not saying Casey killed her child with premeditation or even on purpose, but she is responsible for the Caylee’s death and disposal.
The jury had the option of finding her guilty of the manslaughter charge but came back with a verdict of not guilty.
>>The O.J. trial had DNA <<
but the fact that the defense showed that over 3cc’s of OJ’s blood sample was MISSING - and the DNA evidence was not collected in the first week after the crime -
there is a reasonable doubt
I ditto your comments and add that the government officials responsible for prosecuting this case did a lousy job.
If anyone is angry because they believe Casey is guilty then they should be angry at those that failed to convince a jury. Just saying Casey was a lousy mother and attempting to get a conviction on emotion is not something I want in my justice system.
As another poster said, the DA could have relaxed and monitored Casey for proof of guilt through wiretaps and other means instead of jumping to random circumstantial evidence needing an emotional jury for conviction.
I, for one, am proud of that jury for not succumbing to emotion and, instead, relying on presented evidence that was horribly lacking. The LE and DA in this case did a lousy job and wasted not only tax payer monies on this joke of a trial but wasted what might have been justice for the little girl, Caylee.
The judge did his part in presenting an impartial courtroom with a proper decorum. The defense did their part in refuting the prosecution’s case. The prosecution did a horrible job in that they both failed to wait for trail until proper evidence could be presented for conviction and in presenting terrible evidence. The prosecution’s presentations on the party habits of the mother have no bearing in deciding if she killed her child. That was simply relying on emotion for conviction.
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.