Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Casey Anthony found not guilty
- Thread starter Eric Perry
- Start date
Being a local, it changes my views because it's so close to home. In my views, karma gets everyone, murderers are no exception. Our courts are known for failing on more than one occasion, but that doesn't matter. There's a higher universal order that puts everyone in their place. If she's innocent, then she got her way. If she's guilty, karma's gonna make her life hell.
Time served (3 years I believe).
But this judge is a tough cookie. He sentenced an observer, who clandestinely gave the bird to a prosecuter, to 6 days and a fine. So she could still get a little time.
For a note at just how bad the prosecution was on this one...
The prosecution were never even able to come up with a cause of death. Might have been drowning, chloroform, suffocation.... it was a case built almost entirely on circumstantial evidence, and those are ALWAYS difficult to prove.
The prosecution were never even able to come up with a cause of death. Might have been drowning, chloroform, suffocation.... it was a case built almost entirely on circumstantial evidence, and those are ALWAYS difficult to prove.
Yep. Like it or not, the jury followed the "reasonable doubt" instruction, and lack of cause of death (which means you can't even say with 100% certainty it was murder) trumped "bizarre and suspicious behavior" on the part of the accused.
Also note that generally even if the jury believed she was guilty of some lesser crime (Murder II, Manslaughter, etc.) - they don't decide what she is charged with and can't charge her with a lesser crime.
If the jury believed she was guilty of murder 2, but she was being charged with murder 1 - their only moral action is to find her innocent of murder 1.
The choice of charges is also something that can be layed at the feet of the prosecution.
Does talking about the outcome mean we don't care about anything else? Head over to the bass forum and ask someone trying to decide between a Lakland or Fender the same question.
Mr. Self-righteous-high-horse-rider.
-Mike
I cannot answer that, because from what I read/saw/reviewed the prosecution did prove beyond a reasonable doubt she was guilty.
I will say this. I was a juror on a minor drug possession trial about six months back. The prosecution could not prove *beyond all reasonable doubt* that this little scumbag was the one in possession of the heroin. His multiple past convictions and his being seated in the back seat of a car with three other documented addicts and criminals was enough for me. I felt very strongly he should have been sent to jail, and made that clear in the jury room. I was outnumbered by a great many bleeding hearts, and ultimately just conceded. I wasn't going to let a loser druggie ruin my dinner reservations, knowing it's only a matter of time before he's on trial again and most likely sent to jail. Where he belongs.
That explains a lot. You are willing to ignore the facts for what your gut tells you. It's a good thing there were more people present to ensure your personal feelings about the situation didn't override the facts in evidence.
Exactly. Without a known cause of death, it was bold and maybe even unwise to try her for Murder 1. I think they could have made a lesser charge stick.
You're right. I'm a horrible person for wanting well documented addicts (of hard-core drugs) and felons off the street. I'm lucky there were more clear-thinking people in the room to set me straight.
</sarcasm>
Count 3 was Aggravated Manslaughter. They found her not guilty on that one as well.
Conjures up memories of the O.J. trial. While the jury was deliberating, comedian Buddy Hackett was a guest on the Tonight Show. When asked what verdict he believed the jury would return, Buddy replied:
"I think the jury will come back and say, 'We find the murderer not guilty'..."
Does talking about the outcome mean we don't care about anything else? Head over to the bass forum and ask someone trying to decide between a Lakland or Fender the same question.
Mr. Self-righteous-high-horse-rider.
-Mike
Shh! You shouldn't call me by my real name
The thing that really persuaded me to post my first bit was Facebook, believe it or not. Once the verdict was out my wall exploded with outrage from hundreds of people.
I just thought it was interesting how much people were emotionally invested in this case even though they have never met Mrs. Anthony or her deceased daughter. Even more so, I just thought it was interesting that people would be more outraged about this than [insert any serious governmental or environmental issue].
So in other words you're willing to break the law to convict someone for something they may or may not be guilty of - because of their past actions.
Well, I really hope in the future you let the lawyers know during voir dire proceedings that you are unable to uphold the jurors oath and act in an impartial manner. That way they can strike you for cause before your inability to render a fair and impartial verdict taints the justice process.
Your job as a juror is to be as impartial an observer as you can be of the evidence presented by both sides of the case, the prosecution, and the defense.
The only thing that even made the prosecution of this case against her possible was the fact that she was the little girl's mother. There was nothing tying her to the crime beyond anything more than circumstantial evidence. Convicting people on circumstantial evidence is one of the reasons so many Death Row convictions were overturned with the advent of DNA, or why so many people were lynched in the early part of the 20th century, because people KNEW that this person was guilty of this crime, regardless of whether or not anything tied them to it.
I got a little sick at work today with the verdict... Everyone in my department gathered around the television to see the results, and it was just upsetting. There's obviously something wrong, especially when a person can go out and party every night while their child has gone missing.
:scowl:
:scowl:
In this case, they could have. The judge instructed the jury that if they decided she wasn't guilty of first-degree premeditated murder, they could decide whether to convict her of second-degree murder, manslaughter or third-degree felony murder. They passed on all of them. Plus aggravated manslaughter of a child.
