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

bek
07-07-2011, 03:15 AM
Perez Hilton just posted this in response to one of the jurors giving a quote:



I don't understand all the horrible things being said about the jurors. They did their job and they made a very hard decision with the evidence they had. I don't think she was innocent and I doubt most of them, or any of them, thought she was. However, if the evidence simply wasn't there then what could they do? It seems to have all come down to the fact that they couldn't prove Caylee was even murdered and that is a pretty big problem in a MURDER trial.

I find blaming the jurors to be ridiculous too. I don't know a lot about this case but it doesn't sound like there was this air tight case. There are plenty of people who have been convicted who jurors thought was obviously guilty, and it turns out said person was innocent.

The onus is on the prosecution as well, to have a strong case before they go to trial, especially in a murder trial. There is no statute of limitations for murder, so they could have taken more time to build their case. Perhaps too if they had gone with a lesser charge like manslaughter, it would have been easier for them to prove (if they put all of their efforts into that)

redonthehead
07-07-2011, 03:27 AM
But you say that like it's a good thing... I think a lot more innocent people went to jail before DNA and other scientific advances.


I don't think it was 100% a good thing because I agree, and it's been proven by DNA, that innocent people have spent a lot of time in prison. But in this case it probably would have been a good thing.The prosecution could have juset proved that Casey was the last to see Caylee alive and she would have went to jail.

But my question that no one else answered still stands: Did science fail Caylee?

Are things so advanced now that they helped Casey get away with murder?

bek
07-07-2011, 03:34 AM
I don't think it was 100% a good thing because I agree, and it's been proven by DNA, that innocent people have spent a lot of time in prison. But in this case it probably would have been a good thing.The prosecution could have juset proved that Casey was the last to see Caylee alive and she would have went to jail.

But my question that no one else answered still stands: Did science fail Caylee?

Are things so advanced now that they helped Casey get away with murder?

I'm not sure how we can prove the mom was the last to see Casey alive, we don't even know what day Casey died. Look obviously this mother lied but we don't know why she lied about her daughter being dead. She could have been scared/terrified that she'd be charged. Perhaps she was scared of someone. We are talking about an uneducated girl and if her daughter was dead, her daughter was dead.

I'm not excusing at all her actions, and I think she deserves some jail time for lying to the police. But the state was talking about the death penalty here/life in prison. And if she was innocent that would have been unacceptable. I think you need some pretty good prove at least some solid circumstantial evidence (don't know enough about this case to see how solid it was evidence wise.)

It doesn't seem to me that science failed her. Part of the issue was her body decomposed for so long it was hard to get forensic evidence.

The prosecution should have gone for something like manslaughter, even involuntary manslaughter. Oh sure manslaugher was an option, but its not like they were focusing on that option. They choose to focus on one charge that they couldn't prove (and focusing on both manslaughter/involuntary would only make things more confused) instead of really focusing on something they could have. They would have less jurors to prove the case too as well etc. It wall would have been an easier thing to prove for them. Some of it too was they wanted a death penalty/qualfied jury.

I thought this blogger had a good point of what the prosecution SHOULD have done


First the legal matter. I think this is fairly simple: The prosecution over-charged the crime. The state would have you believe that Casey deliberately killed her daughter, Caylee. The evidence for that mainly being Casey’s lies and her actions after the child’s death, combined with a lot of circumstantial evidence involving duct tape, chloroform and the “smell” of death in Casey’s car. That’s asking for a lot from very little. The second is motive. As Parker told Stan in Murder Most Holy, while motive is not a legal element of the crime, juries want to hear one. It was obvious from the evidence presented that Casey didn’t need to kill Caylee to live a life of parties and fun . . . she was already doing that. And if she wanted more freedom all she needed to do was to turn to her overly indulgent parents and they would have gladly cared for the little girl. The un-contradicted testimony was that Casey was not a bad mother. So why would she deliberately kill when that was so unnecessary?Then what happened? I think the scenario that could have won the jury was a simple accident that went something like this: Casey used the chloroform to put Caylee to sleep and accidently overdosed her, then panicked. That was the “terrible accident that snowballed out of control.” The use of that theory, chloroform used to induce sleep, coupled with Casey’s failure report her child missing for so long, could easily support a charge of aggravated child abuse or manslaughter. It would have been simple and easily understood; not the convoluted story of suppositions that the state presented. Again, as Parker has more than once opined: The simplest story that answers all the questions is probably the right one. Had that simple theory been the state’s theory, Casey Anthony could have been sentenced to a lot more time behind bars than the little more than “time served” that she’ll actually get. But then that’s just my opinion.

http://mikemanno.blogspot.com/2011/07/why-did-casey-anthony-walk.html

BigB08822
07-07-2011, 04:14 AM
All the people pointing fingers at the jurors are ignorant. They did their job and they acted on impartial and honest feelings. I don't get it. Perez is an asshole..and that message sounds borderline threatening to me.

Exactly! He made it really read like a threat and that is really hypocritical coming from someone like Perez who preaches no violence...

IceAlisa
07-07-2011, 04:20 AM
This is a very interesting slant....seems to explain a lot, if accurate.

http://www.patriotledger.com/mobile/x898079778/WENDY-J-MURPHY-Casey-Anthony-trial-an-exercise-in-absurdity

Hmmm. Do people know anything about this site? Sounds interesting and plausible. The chloroform thing for one. I didn't know about this use of it. :fragile:

Andrushka
07-07-2011, 04:25 AM
I think she did it but I don't blame the jurors they did their job.

Anita18
07-07-2011, 04:46 AM
I don't think it was 100% a good thing because I agree, and it's been proven by DNA, that innocent people have spent a lot of time in prison. But in this case it probably would have been a good thing.The prosecution could have juset proved that Casey was the last to see Caylee alive and she would have went to jail.

But my question that no one else answered still stands: Did science fail Caylee?

Are things so advanced now that they helped Casey get away with murder?
I did read that the CSI could have been done better. Like, you can pinpoint where someone drowned by taking a sample of the victim's bone marrow and examining the makeup of diatoms within and match them to the body of water. Diatoms are single-celled algae. When you drown, apparently they get into your lungs and into your bone marrow. I was skeeved when I was told about this, the things you learn...:lol:

They didn't do that for Caylee, for whatever reason.

And decomposition is the lowest-tech and most surefire way to get away with murder, depending on the manner of death. If she had been shot in the head or severely beaten, it would show in the bones. But if she had bled to death, or been drugged, no way to tell just from bones. Doesn't take much smarts to get away with that, they were just mostly unlucky and partially incompetent.

heckles
07-07-2011, 05:13 AM
I think I'll ask Casey out on a date. I love a woman who'll do nasty things in the trunk.

BaileyCatts
07-07-2011, 05:16 AM
Looks like the money is stating to role in for Casey already. I just saw some photos and home videos of Caylee that I have never seen before in all the time this has been going on. Baez interviewed by Barbara Walters on Nightline just now. Oh but it was a "licensing fee" for the photos. :rolleyes: cha-ching cha-ching.

Jenna
07-07-2011, 05:20 AM
OK - here's a question for you all: Do you support the creation of the Facebook group "F*ck Casey Anthony" and many similar ones or is it too much? I saw this one and I was kind of taken aback. The comments are also appalling. It's amazing how many people think she's guilty without any questions asked.

FigureSpins
07-07-2011, 05:45 AM
I think Casey is a bottom-dweller, regardless of the trial outcome. I think the groups that are speaking out about boycotting media outlets that will support her are brilliant. I don't think the ones that are ranting and raving about retribution and vigilantism should continue. Odds are, the more vocal organizers will move on after a short time anyway.

julieann
07-07-2011, 06:07 AM
I was wondering what people think about Scott Peterson too - there seemed to be much less evidence against him, all circumstantial, the only forensic evidence a single hair with no nuclear DNA, no cause of death, and he got the death penalty.

For those who say they would need more proof, what amount of proof would you need to convict? What DNA evidence, where?

One bright light in this mess is that it's been so entertaining watching Nancy Grace's head explode!

I would have loved to see Nancy Grace's head explode!

But Scott Peterson was a whole different case. He was cheating on her, so did he want to be married to her? Did he want to be a father? Doubtful.

I didn't see the prosecutor in this case bring in a string of character witnesses against Casey saying she was sick of being a mother and wanted to dump her daughter somewhere. All the photos and videos I saw showed a pretty good mom. Now I understand not everything is as it appears, but when everyone found out she was missing, how many of her friends and family came forward against Casey and said she was a bad mother and abused her daughter and was mean to her and said she didn't want to be a mom any more?

The prosecution went for the jugular because they thought they could tug at the jurors' heart strings and they would forget all about the facts; they were able to see beyond that. Hopefully other lawyers will learn from his mistake.

BaileyCatts
07-07-2011, 06:09 AM
I'm hearing people say that Casey is going to change her name, but even if she does ... we all found out Jeff Gilloolly changed his name to Jeff Stone. Doesn't it seem that we would all know her new name, even if she changed it? I've never changed my name, so I have no clue how confidential that is. But how did we all know about Jeff's name change? Did he release it? Did someone leak it? Is it public record?

I'm also hearing she and Cindy may go live with an Aunt in Houston. Does she really think she can go anywhere and it not get out? If I found out she was living next door to me, even if it was with my best friend, I would be banging on the media's doors so fast it would make her head spin, just to drive her outta my neighborhood.

Cachoo
07-07-2011, 07:27 AM
She really needs to change her name and move out of the US altogether to avoid recognition and even then she may still be on someone's radar. My suggestion: Iceland. Of course I don't know what she will be free to do once she is out of prison--that is if her sentence includes prison time.

KHenry14
07-07-2011, 07:38 AM
Casey could disappear, cut and dye her hair, change her name to the most common name you could think of, like Susan Smith....oh wait