PDA

View Full Version : Casey Anthony trial



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68

taf2002
07-05-2011, 03:18 AM
To me the fact that Caylee was missing for almost a month while Casey lied about her whereabouts seals the deal. If she didn't kill Caylee, why didn't she immediately tell anyone about her missing child?

cruisin
07-05-2011, 04:21 AM
I want to take whatever you are taking! Goodness gracious. I think Casey will never be free again. The only question for me is will she get the death penalty, or life in prison.

I don't know. We asked that question today. I think she will get murder 1. All of the lawyers in the room said exactly what silver 98 said.

AxelAnnie
07-05-2011, 04:48 AM
^ interesting. I got up at 5:15 both yesterday and today to watch the closing arguments.
My husband (who is an attorney and very skeptical by nature) watched it as recorded. He said that he thought the prosecution did not prove murder one. He thought manslaughter was the most they would get. After Jeff Ashton this AM, he thought well, maybe more than that, and by the time he listened to Linda D.B. he felt the prosecution proved murder with aggravated child assault. Cruisin, where are you that you asked the question?

I think the entire process is utterly fascinating. Can't wait to see how this unfolds. No matter what happens, someone is responsible for the death of that child.

cruisin
07-05-2011, 02:00 PM
^ interesting. I got up at 5:15 both yesterday and today to watch the closing arguments.
My husband (who is an attorney and very skeptical by nature) watched it as recorded. He said that he thought the prosecution did not prove murder one. He thought manslaughter was the most they would get. After Jeff Ashton this AM, he thought well, maybe more than that, and by the time he listened to Linda D.B. he felt the prosecution proved murder with aggravated child assault. Cruisin, where are you that you asked the question?

I think the entire process is utterly fascinating. Can't wait to see how this unfolds. No matter what happens, someone is responsible for the death of that child.

Not sure what you mean by where, but I am in NJ, and was at a 4th celebration, several people there, were lawyers/law students (two of which just finished crimlaw). I should say that their opinion on what the jury might find, is not necessarily what they believe they should find. I think we all believe Casey killed her. The issue is that they don't believe they proved their case beyond circumstantial. The closings and rebuttal, were certainly emotional and compelling, but were they factual? There was an awful lot of speculation and embellishment.

The other thing we talked about was whether an accidental killing could, under the right circumstances, be considered murder. As in: if the ladder were left up and the child drowned in the pool, due to negligence, that would not be murder. But, if the child were given chloroform to knock her out and tape put over her mouth (only, not her nose) to keep her quiet, and she aspirated vomit, would that be murder? That was debated with no real answer. It involved a long conversation on the degree to which the person's lack of concern for the outcome caused the death.

danceronice
07-05-2011, 02:31 PM
The problem is that air-testing evidence. That's a bit out there. The circumstantial evidence would certainly be enough for me on a jury. (But then I have taken courses in forensic anthropology and my father is a lawyer, though not criminal law, meaning between the two the odds are I'd never be selected for a jury anyway.)


The other thing we talked about was whether an accidental killing could, under the right circumstances, be considered murder. As in: if the ladder were left up and the child drowned in the pool, due to negligence, that would not be murder. But, if the child were given chloroform to knock her out and tape put over her mouth (only, not her nose) to keep her quiet, and she aspirated vomit, would that be murder? That was debated with no real answer. It involved a long conversation on the degree to which the person's lack of concern for the outcome caused the death.

If she was given choloroform, duct taped, and choked on her own vomit, I can't see how that wouldn't be voluntary manslaughter at the BARE minimum. For absolute certain it's assault (any kind of willful drugging of another person is), and if the victim dies from it it certainly shows reckless disregard if not assault with intent to kill.

She either deliberately killed her daughter, or assaulted her and didn't care whether or not she died. Were I a juror and thought it was trending towards an out and out acquital, I'd deliberately hang it so the prosecution could have another crack at the murder charges. I could probably be persuaded to opt for felony murder with life without parole (not that that REALLY exists, hence a preference for the death penalty for psychotics like Casey--they're not fixable, there's no point in keeping them alive.)

attyfan
07-05-2011, 02:45 PM
... If she was given choloroform, duct taped, and choked on her own vomit, I can't see how that wouldn't be voluntary manslaughter at the BARE minimum. For absolute certain it's assault (any kind of willful drugging of another person is), and if the victim dies from it it certainly shows reckless disregard if not assault with intent to kill.
...


In CA, reckless disregard could be second degree murder, but if no intent to kill, then no assault with intent. There is no death penalty in such a case.

danceronice
07-05-2011, 02:54 PM
Sadly in my state there's no death penalty at all. They could probably get her on first-degree murder here, though, even though the odds of keeping her in forever aren't great. Duct taping resulting in death, here that would probably get you voluntary manslaughter for sure, MAYBE second-degree murder if you could show a pattern of reckless behavior.

I didn't see the pictures and am kind of wondering how skeletonized the remains were--it shouldn't be THAT hard, even with a kid skull, to see if the duct tape was obstructing the mouth AND nose, if it remained attached, but that would seem to imply there was soft tissue left underneath it (that would explain the skull being held together, though, kid remains can be a PITA because nothing's fused, practically, they tend to fall apart, without a DNA test it's hard to call the sex, and the skull is part that tends to end up in pieces as the sutures aren't anywhere near fused yet.) Though I'd think with standard-width duct tape and an average-size child for her age you'd have to make an effort NOT to cover both.

Plus...if she choloroformed her just to keep her quiet, why add duct tape? She's out. The only reason to tape her is if she were transporting and/or leaving her somewhere and didn't want her to make noise when the drug wore off.

cruisin
07-05-2011, 02:56 PM
In CA, reckless disregard could be second degree murder, but if no intent to kill, then no assault with intent. There is no death penalty in such a case.

Yes, some of that law varies, state to state. My son and husband were saying (yesterday) that there really is no second degree murder anymore. There are various other manslaughter/reckless endangerment types of verdicts which would carry no death penalty.

I think this is exactly why this whole thing is so confusing. I think most people believe she did it, but was there intent to kill. Even if there was disregard, if she didn't plan to kill her can it be murder 1? I also think that a scenario (which, granted I am fabricating) like one I described above, would explain her covering it up. It really wasn't a total accident, but it wasn't intentional either. Regardless, she should go to jail for the rest of her life.

ks777
07-05-2011, 04:41 PM
If they find her guilty of first digree murder, are they going to use the guillotine?

AxelAnnie
07-05-2011, 04:42 PM
^ no they are going to use duct tape and triple bagging !

cruisin
07-05-2011, 04:51 PM
If they find her guilty of first digree murder, are they going to use the guillotine?

Keep in mind, that even if they find her guilty of first degree murder, the jury can decline the death penalty. I really think that there is too much uncertainty on the intent for them to ask for the death penalty. Unfortunately, real life trials aren't neatly wrapped up with the accused breaking down and confessing, like they depict it on TV. I believe the anthony family will carry whatever truth they know to their graves. It is up to the jury how long that will be for Casey.

Someone who knows Florida law might be able to answer this. If the jury waives the death penalty, can the judge overrule and invoke it?

milanessa
07-05-2011, 05:33 PM
Someone who knows Florida law might be able to answer this. If the jury waives the death penalty, can the judge overrule and invoke it?

The jury only recommends, the judge decides.

Christina
07-05-2011, 05:43 PM
I had a wonderful post, and then my internet crapped out. Anyway, in Florida first degree murder can be premeditated or felony murder. That means if she duct taped the child (felony child abuse) and the child died, it's first degree murder (killing as the by-product of the commission of a felony). If she planned it (premeditated) it is also first degree murder. The jury doesn't have to agree on *why* they think it is first degree murder, just that they all do.

If they buy the drowning story (which there was no evidence presented to support it), they could find that she neglected to supervise the child properly (felony child neglect) as well.

Keep in mind she can be found guilty of the lesser included charges (manslaughter, etc) as well.

Florida statute says the jury makes the death penalty recommendation, but the Judge does the sentencing. So yes, he can overrule them, if I'm reading FS 921.141(3) http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0900-0999/0921/Sections/0921.141.html correctly.

Christina
07-05-2011, 05:49 PM
Oh, and in Florida we have first, second and third degree murder, as well as manslaughter.

We like to cover all the bases down here :shuffle:

cruisin
07-05-2011, 05:49 PM
Thank you, for that information, milanessa and Christina.