|
On July 07 2011 10:50 cfoy3 wrote:
Why was she found not guilty? The prosection could not definetively state how the baby died. In our system you are innocent until proven guilty. She said the baby died in the pool, the prosecution could not prove that did not happen, that is reasonable doubt-she is aquitted. They also could not establish a proper timeline of death, nor could they establish that her car was actually at the scene. Do I think she did it, yeh, do I think the prosecution proved their case-NO!
Actually, she still hasn't said shit about what happened aside from the lies about the babysitter. It was her lawyer that made up the pool story to show an alternative "possibility" of what happened, as well as the molestation accusations against her father and brother.
I really do hope they at least end up charging her with criminal negligence for her child or something. This is pretty disgusting that she's just allowed to walk free.
|
On July 07 2011 11:00 teamsolid wrote:
Actually, she still hasn't said shit about what happened aside from the lies about the babysitter.
And she never will, nor is she required to.
|
On July 07 2011 11:00 teamsolid wrote:I really do hope they at least end up charging her with criminal negligence for her child or something. This is pretty disgusting that she's just allowed to walk free.
Child abuse charges were included in the trial, and she was unanimously found innocent of them as well. I find this to be the most questionable part, but there you have it.
|
On July 07 2011 11:04 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 11:00 teamsolid wrote:I really do hope they at least end up charging her with criminal negligence for her child or something. This is pretty disgusting that she's just allowed to walk free. Child abuse charges were included in the trial, and she was unanimously found innocent of them as well. I find this to be the most questionable part, but there you have it.
Because the prosecution didn't care. They wanted the first degree murder charge. if she was guilty of murder, 1st, then she would have automatically been guilty of child abuse. I promise you they probably spent a total of 5 minutes talking about child abuse to the jury.
|
On July 07 2011 11:11 MozzarellaL wrote:Because the prosecution didn't care. They wanted the first degree murder charge. if she was guilty of murder, 1st, then she would have automatically been guilty of child abuse. I promise you they probably spent a total of 5 minutes talking about child abuse to the jury.
I agree. The point, however, is that they have already attempted those charges and cannot do so again due to double jeapordy rules.
|
This made me sick to my stomach!!
|
On July 07 2011 11:04 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 11:00 teamsolid wrote:I really do hope they at least end up charging her with criminal negligence for her child or something. This is pretty disgusting that she's just allowed to walk free. Child abuse charges were included in the trial, and she was unanimously found innocent of them as well. I find this to be the most questionable part, but there you have it.
She was found "not guilty," not "innocent". Though it can happen, courts very, very rarely declare someone to be innocent, and when it does happen it usually (always?) results from a proceeding taking place after a criminal trial.
|
This entire fiasco really underscores how out of touch people are with respect to what is possible from science and criminal investigations. Jurors want it be just like CSI, where the most irrefutable scientific and genetic evidence ties the suspect to the killing. And then they want shiny computer-generated graphics to lay it all out for them in a format they can quickly and easily digest before they are willing to deliver a guilty verdict.
It's like advances in forensic science have actually made it HARDER to send murderers to jail. Totally ridiculous.
|
On July 07 2011 11:35 Rybka wrote:
This entire fiasco really underscores how out of touch people are with respect to what is possible from science and criminal investigations. Jurors want it be just like CSI, where the most irrefutable scientific and genetic evidence ties the suspect to the killing. And then they want shiny computer-generated graphics to lay it all out for them in a format they can quickly and easily digest before they are willing to deliver a guilty verdict.
This entire post really underscores how morons can make wild speculative conclusions based on events without conducting research into how the event took place, why it happened, or the use of definitive evidence to establish support for the conclusion. It's almost as if this poster decided a defendant was guilty just because he wanted her to be guilty, and didn't even bother to consult the evidence, instead relying on a random hypothesis he didn't bother to test.
|
On July 07 2011 11:44 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 11:35 Rybka wrote:
This entire fiasco really underscores how out of touch people are with respect to what is possible from science and criminal investigations. Jurors want it be just like CSI, where the most irrefutable scientific and genetic evidence ties the suspect to the killing. And then they want shiny computer-generated graphics to lay it all out for them in a format they can quickly and easily digest before they are willing to deliver a guilty verdict. This entire post really underscores how morons can make wild speculative conclusions based on events without conducting research into how the event took place, why it happened, or the use of definitive evidence to establish support for the conclusion. It's almost as if this poster decided a defendant was guilty just because he wanted her to be guilty, and didn't even bother to consult the evidence, instead relying on a random hypothesis he didn't bother to test.
You have a really disrespectful attitude, disparraging people by quoting them in one post prior to yours without having the common decency to actually refer to them, instead of demeaning and undermining them based on conclusions you draw without even bothering to actually talk to the person that your casting such negative judgement on.
I guess what I am trying to say, is that if you are attempting to claim the intellectual high ground you would do better to not simultaneously act in a a way befitting a petulant child
|
On July 07 2011 11:56 XeliN wrote:
You have a really disrespectful attitude, disparraging people by quoting them in one post prior to yours without having the common decency to actually refer to them, instead of demeaning and undermining them based on conclusions you draw without even bothering to actually talk to the person that your casting such negative judgement on.
People earn respect, one way to not gain respect is to make wild unsubstantiated assumptions and present them as fact.
I guess what I am trying to say, is that if you are attempting to claim the intellectual high ground you would do better to not simultaneously act in a a way befitting a petulant child
I'm doing no such thing. If I wanted to claim the intellectual high ground, I would have been more direct and less incisively mocking.
|
Personally, I don't feel this case deserves the attention it is currently receiving. I am especially dismayed by the comments suggesting that the legal system has failed on the basis that a single person was not convicted. Simply because one individual failed to be convicted does not signal a systematic failure of the system. If someone could tie the analysis utilized in this case to thousands of other cases to demonstrate how faulty reasoning pervades the decision-making of juries, I would be interested.
In terms of legal or political significance, this case had little to no significance at all. Rather, it was simply grounds for tabloid fodder and mock outrage. I don't think we should be making any assumptions off a case that was hyped out of control and had a jury that was probably influenced by the significant media coverage of the case.
|
On July 07 2011 12:11 TranceStorm wrote:
Personally, I don't feel this case deserves the attention it is currently receiving. I am especially dismayed by the comments suggesting that the legal system has failed on the basis that a single person was not convicted. Simply because one individual failed to be convicted does not signal a systematic failure of the system. If someone could tie the analysis utilized in this case to thousands of other cases to demonstrate how faulty reasoning pervades the decision-making of juries, I would be interested.
In terms of legal or political significance, this case had little to no significance at all. Rather, it was simply grounds for tabloid fodder and mock outrage. I don't think we should be making any assumptions off a case that was hyped out of control and had a jury that was probably influenced by the significant media coverage of the case.
the system is always right. Highest incarceration rate in the world CANT BE WRONG!
|
On July 07 2011 12:19 VPCursed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 12:11 TranceStorm wrote:
Personally, I don't feel this case deserves the attention it is currently receiving. I am especially dismayed by the comments suggesting that the legal system has failed on the basis that a single person was not convicted. Simply because one individual failed to be convicted does not signal a systematic failure of the system. If someone could tie the analysis utilized in this case to thousands of other cases to demonstrate how faulty reasoning pervades the decision-making of juries, I would be interested.
In terms of legal or political significance, this case had little to no significance at all. Rather, it was simply grounds for tabloid fodder and mock outrage. I don't think we should be making any assumptions off a case that was hyped out of control and had a jury that was probably influenced by the significant media coverage of the case. the system is always right. Highest incarceration rate in the world CANT BE WRONG!
Sure thats a criticism that you can make of the American justice system, but did the Casey Anthony case do anything to help reveal that? No.
|
On July 06 2011 03:45 Dalguno wrote:
Whaaat? I thought she had absolutely no supportive evidence and a guilty verdict was pretty much guaranteed ?
You don't know much about how a trial works do you. She doesn't need to have any evidence at all. The only thing that matters is the complete lack of substantial evidence produced by the prosecution to get a guilty verdict on the charges they laid.
|
Can someone that knows something about the trial law explain if there was something the prosecution could have done differently with the evidence they had?
|
On July 07 2011 12:41 Defacer wrote:
Can someone that knows something about the trial law explain if there was something the prosecution could have done differently with the evidence they had?
wtf is 'trial law'?
|
On July 07 2011 12:42 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 12:41 Defacer wrote:
Can someone that knows something about the trial law explain if there was something the prosecution could have done differently with the evidence they had? wtf is 'trial law'?
Okaaaaay. 
Is there a trial lawyer, or someone else that knows a lot about the case, jury trials and how this was prosecuted, that can explain if there was something the prosecution could have done differently?
Is there fault with the prosecution, or was the sheer lack of evidence too much to overcome?
|
On July 07 2011 12:41 Defacer wrote:
Can someone that knows something about the trial law explain if there was something the prosecution could have done differently with the evidence they had?
They should not have dropped the child neglect charge, nor should they have pushed for the a murder charge (with death penalty, no less), on the basis of mere circumstantial evidence.
By focusing on aggravated child neglect and the four counts of providing false information to police officers, she would have much more likely to have been found guilty of all five counts, resulting in up to 19 years under Florida law. More likely, her attorney would have agreed to a plea bargain for some lesser amount in that case, perhaps 7 years (leaving her 4 to serve given that she's spent almost 3 years awaiting trial).
However, the highly publicized nature of the case incentivizes the State Attorney's Office to try to make an example out of her, partially to minimize backlash for 'going easy' on her that can result from media frenzies like this one. There's extreme political pressure on Attorney Generals (which, lest we forget, are elected officials) to appear 'tough on crime', particularly in Republican-dominated states such as current Florida.
|
On July 07 2011 12:49 Defacer wrote:
Is there a trial lawyer, or someone else that knows a lot about the case, jury trials and how this was prosecuted, that can explain if there was something the prosecution could have done differently?
Focus their attentions on proving 2nd degree murder, or manslaughter, instead of wasting weeks trying to establish premeditation.
Is there fault with the prosecution, or was the sheer lack of evidence too much to overcome?
Entirely with the prosecution.
I am still wondering what 'trial law' is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
