On July 08 2011 02:10 Kaitlin wrote: I've been trying to find out. What exactly is the damning evidence ?
She lied about her daughter being missing, so she obviously committed first degree murder.
And that sums up 80% of this evidence that is so 'damning'.
people arguing against the verdict really don't understand how the court system works. The quote above is a perfect example. Lying about your daughter missing most certaintly DOES NOT prove you commited murder. You can't convict someone because you "think" or are "pretty sure" they did something. To convict someone in US court you have to prove your case "beyond a reasonable doubt" and without hard evidence there's always going to be reasonable doubt. Especially when the prosecution is seeking the death penalty. If I was a juror, no way would I ever sentence someone to death without hard evidence.
Do I think Casey Anthony murdered her daughter? Of course I do. Most people would assume based on the circumstantial evidence that she did it. Again though, circumstantial evidence is NOT proof. The prosecution was seeking the death penalty, yet they couldnt even prove cause of death or motive. It's all speculation. The not guilty verdict is clearly the right verdict in this case, regardless of wether she did it or not. The reason prosecutors are required to prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt" is to protect innocent citizens from being wrongfully incarcirated or god forbid sentenced to death. It's the only way to be sure, and sometimes because of this high burden of proof people who are actually guilty get off. The system isn't perfect, but no system will ever be perfect. It's better to let someone off who is guilty than convict someone who is innocent, so this is the way it has to be. It's a horrible injustice, because it's very likely she is guilty, but the verdict was still the right one.
Politically correct eh? Everyone with common sense realizes she did it. She's a dumb bitch who didn't consider things like that googling 'how to make chloroform' WILL indeed be discovered (wonders of technology, hell yeah). Yeah, she just happened to panic after her daughter accidentally drowned and decided to bury her in the woods. I mean..
While I'm glad justice system is very thorough when it comes down to blaming something for a murder, this politically correct BS pisses me off.
On July 07 2011 13:46 MozzarellaL wrote: A litigation attorney is not a 'trial attorney'. Many litigation attorneys never step foot into a court room their entire careers.
It's pretty much unheard of for a litigator to never step foot into a court room. Maybe never participate in a trial, but that's pretty rare, too, over an entire career.
But regardless, there certainly are attorneys who specialize in trial practice (though yes, there is often a distinction between civil and criminal trial attorneys). Some attorneys and firms are specifically hired because of their trial experience and there is anticipation the case will head to trial. One famous example is E.B. Williams. Another is Clarence Darrow, of Scopes trial fame. A more recent example is the pairing of David Boies (a well-experienced trial lawyer) and Ted Olsen (a well-experience appellate lawyer) to litigate the Prop 8 constitutional fight.
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.
It's like advances in forensic science have actually made it HARDER to send murderers to jail. Totally ridiculous.
Actually, experience in the state of Victoria, Australia shows that the so-called "CSI effect" can and does produce results completely the opposite to those which you argue. See the case of Mr Jama, who was sentenced to six years imprisonment for a rape he did not commit, purely on the basis of DNA evidence which was completely uncorroborated and was afforded an "almost mystical infallibility" by the jury which convicted him. Mr Jama ended up spending 14 months in gaol before being completely exonerated.
See the report ordered into Mr Jama's case and associated DNA practices here:
How is that opposite of what he was arguing? He's arguing that it's harder to send people to prison without "CSI-esque evidence" and you posted a case where they sent a man to prison on the strong belief in DNA evidence. If anything it supports his theory or at least doesn't speak against it.
He's saying that the existence of this "CSI-effect" makes it harder to secure a conviction because people expect or possibly only accept such evidence.
But that same expectation/acceptance can actually make it easier to secure a conviction (wrongly in Mr Jama's case).
In other words, this reliance on technology theoretically both assists and inhibits convictions. Im not aware of any known examples or studies backing up his contention however. If there are any, I'd be interested in reading about them.
That's still not the opposite of what he said unless you are trying to argue the poster you responded to doesn't realize that there are people that get convicted on mostly DNA evidence. He's just of the opinion that the system suffers in all cases where you don't have "CSI evidence" which is a fair share of them.
I'm quite sure I've seen people in law enforcement claim that it's gotten harder to convict people in cases that are built on evidence that doesn't involve DNA and such but I don't think I have seen any studies on it. I suppose it's quite hard to take all factors into consideration to make such a comparison valid. You have to in some way measure how much this factor influences the jury and how large portion the possible changes to laws/routines/police work/etc have changed over time.
I'm not gonna post you studies, but I can tell you that I have met at least a dozen Crown Prosecutors that have unanimously echoed the chorus that the CSI effect has made their job a lot more difficult (it was, and is, my go-to discussion topic when i'm trying to make conversation with criminal lawyers I meet at all these events I have to go to). We even did a section in my Criminal Law course that, although not a particularly huge part of the curriculum, dealt with it and the increased difficulty it provides to prosecutors. (my professor is known as one of the best crown prosecutors in Alberta - I've even heard multiple judges speak praises of him, and he believes its a benefit to the accused)
For whatever reason I haven't met with many defense lawyers...
But at any rate there is little doubt in my mind, and I believe there is little doubt in the mind of any of the prosecutors I've talked to, that this effect benefits the accused the vast majority of the time.
While there may be an instance where it biases the jury in favour of the prosecutors, the impression I've gotten is usually that is not the case.
Not that that's a bad thing, necessarily, if you believe it is better to let 100 criminals go free than to lock up 1 innocent person.
I think that it's sad that people are looking upon this case and saying it's a joke that she got off, and that she should have been jailed. People are looking at this like the problem was the verdict, when indeed it is not. There was reasonable doubt that she committed the murder, and thus she got off. The US legal system played exactly how it should, and this is the result that should not only have been expected, but it is the most plausible. People shouldn't be angry about the verdict, they should be angry about the legal system once again and its failure.
The fact that it is obvious that ONE of the members of that family clearly knew what happened, and yet they all got off free, shows that our legal system is completely fucked in some regard. In the US, whoever has the most money to spend on lawyers can get away with murder. Someone who gets fucked on a defense attorney can be put to death and be completely innocent of a crime. This a symptom of the US legal system, not poor jury decisions.
When I turn on the television and I see things like CNN or Nancy Grace or whoever the fuck attempt to try to turn things like this into some kind of reality television sitcom, it fucking sickens me. America is so dead in the way of culture and is so apathetic and ignorant in the way of real issues that it's almost heartbreaking. God damn I really wish I can one day move to somewhere nice in Europe if things continue this way.
On July 08 2011 06:22 Gnial wrote:I'm not gonna post you studies, but I can tell you that I have met at least a dozen Crown Prosecutors that have unanimously echoed the chorus that the CSI effect has made their job a lot more difficult (it was, and is, my go-to discussion topic when i'm trying to make conversation with criminal lawyers I meet at all these events I have to go to). We even did a section in my Criminal Law course that, although not a particularly huge part of the curriculum, dealt with it and the increased difficulty it provides to prosecutors. (my professor is known as one of the best crown prosecutors in Alberta - I've even heard multiple judges speak praises of him, and he believes its a benefit to the accused)
I'm sure I don't need to point out the inherent biases of anecdotal evidence from prosecutors only.
On July 08 2011 08:51 -Trippin- wrote: The fact that it is obvious that ONE of the members of that family clearly knew what happened, and yet they all got off free, shows that our legal system is completely fucked in some regard.
And what would you have the system do? Divide up a life sentence among three people since one of them is covering up? Torture them until they talk? -_-
You can't complain about a legal system that does the best that it possibly can.
On July 08 2011 08:51 -Trippin- wrote: In the US, whoever has the most money to spend on lawyers can get away with murder. Someone who gets fucked on a defense attorney can be put to death and be completely innocent of a crime.
You may not be aware of this, but Casey Anthony's family isn't wealthy.
On July 08 2011 02:10 Kaitlin wrote: I've been trying to find out. What exactly is the damning evidence ?
She lied about her daughter being missing, so she obviously committed first degree murder.
And that sums up 80% of this evidence that is so 'damning'.
people arguing against the verdict really don't understand how the court system works. The quote above is a perfect example. Lying about your daughter missing most certaintly DOES NOT prove you commited murder. You can't convict someone because you "think" or are "pretty sure" they did something. To convict someone in US court you have to prove your case "beyond a reasonable doubt" and without hard evidence there's always going to be reasonable doubt. Especially when the prosecution is seeking the death penalty. If I was a juror, no way would I ever sentence someone to death without hard evidence.
Do I think Casey Anthony murdered her daughter? Of course I do. Most people would assume based on the circumstantial evidence that she did it. Again though, circumstantial evidence is NOT proof. The prosecution was seeking the death penalty, yet they couldnt even prove cause of death or motive. It's all speculation. The not guilty verdict is clearly the right verdict in this case, regardless of wether she did it or not. The reason prosecutors are required to prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt" is to protect innocent citizens from being wrongfully incarcirated or god forbid sentenced to death. It's the only way to be sure, and sometimes because of this high burden of proof people who are actually guilty get off. The system isn't perfect, but no system will ever be perfect. It's better to let someone off who is guilty than convict someone who is innocent, so this is the way it has to be. It's a horrible injustice, because it's very likely she is guilty, but the verdict was still the right one.
Politically correct eh? Everyone with common sense realizes she did it. She's a dumb bitch who didn't consider things like that googling 'how to make chloroform' WILL indeed be discovered (wonders of technology, hell yeah). Yeah, she just happened to panic after her daughter accidentally drowned and decided to bury her in the woods. I mean..
While I'm glad justice system is very thorough when it comes down to blaming something for a murder, this politically correct BS pisses me off.
If being "politically correct" means following the core guidelines and princples of our justice system, then I would hope all jurors would be "politically correct" for the sake of our court system. Are you suggesting the jurors should just ignore the guidelines of our justice system and just render verdicts based on their gut feelings? Sorry but that undermines everything our justice system is based on, and if all jurors rendered verdicts this way our justice system would be even worse off than it is now. You obviously missed the entire point of my post..
Sweet, now we just need a serial rapist to get off scott-free from a high-profile case due to lack of substantial evidence, despite overwhelming public opinion of their guilt, and we complete the meme trifecta!
On July 09 2011 03:04 Bibdy wrote: Sweet, now we just need a serial rapist to get off scott-free from a high-profile case due to lack of substantial evidence, despite overwhelming public opinion of their guilt, and we complete the meme trifecta!
For whatever reason reading this post reminded me of that movie Tom Cruise was in, where he is coaching a woman who claims to have an affair with her boss, and he asks her "How long is his penis?" and she doesn't know how to answer the question because she is lying about fucking her boss.
On July 09 2011 03:04 Bibdy wrote: Sweet, now we just need a serial rapist to get off scott-free from a high-profile case due to lack of substantial evidence, despite overwhelming public opinion of their guilt, and we complete the meme trifecta!
For whatever reason reading this post reminded me of that movie Tom Cruise was in, where he is coaching a woman who claims to have an affair with her boss, and he asks her "How long is his penis?" and she doesn't know how to answer the question because she is lying about fucking her boss.
I read an article on tmz that there have been talks about Casey Anthony getting into the porn business lol MILF now has a new definition: Murderer I'd Like to Fuck
I think some people in this thread are being ridiculous. NO ONE wants to let guilty people go. That's stupid. Remember, this is not some compassionate bureaucratic or some out of touch politician, these are people!!! The founding fathers explicitly expressed that common people would decide. They would be the best at lending compassion to the system while simultaneous upholding the principals that our justice system is based on. Do you think they wanted to let her go-many have said no, but it was not proven. Someone told me that to clear up confusion they should change it from guilty/not guilty to proven/not proven. That would really underscore the guiding philosophies of the system. You need proof!! Many of you claim that it was because she got an expansive lawyer and that this shows that you can get off with money. This is wrong, she didn't have an expensive lawyer she had a lawyer who went to a local community college near my house. He wasn't some expensive big shot. There may be cases where the rich get away with crimes, but this wasn't it. It was a case where a panel of jurios, 7 of which where woman and 5 mothers. Had to do something they didn't want to, because as badly as they wanted to send her to jail, they could not risk the possibility of sentencing someone to death who may be Innocent. I want everyone in this thread to step back and seriously think about that. You are sentencing some TO DEATH! there is no going back and you have to be sure. Absolutely sure. Their was insufficient evidence. They could not say how the baby died, when the baby died, connect her car to the location of the scene, or even show that Casey Anthony actually wanted to kill the baby. Those are some serious holes, and you can argue some stuff about the CSI effect and forensic evidence all you want, but if your gonna send some one to death you better damn be sure. I know of the serious problems in concerning the witness process and how "flexible" our memories can be. I would want the strictest of standards be held if I was in the defense chair, because believe it or not-SHIT HAPPENS. there are coincidences and I would not want to be sent to jail if I was innocent. WOULD YOU? This case says much about us, about what kind of people we Americans are. That is it teaches the prosecution a lesson, that we are not mindless idiots. That it will take a lot more than outrage for us to sentence someone to death. That we are not brainwashed idiots of the media. It speaks to the world that we the people are willing to make unpopular decisions, and possibly face the wrath of our communities in the defense of the rights of a person that you don't even like. It speaks volumes of the greatness of our system that an individual will be judged based on the merits of evidence. So please you can be outraged by the decision, and you should be. I know I am. But direct your anger at the appropriate source. Not the juriors, not the defense lawyer. But the prosecution, who so completely failed at their job. At the police who messed up in several ways.
On July 10 2011 14:44 cfoy3 wrote: I think some people in this thread are being ridiculous. NO ONE wants to let guilty people go. That's stupid. Remember, this is not some compassionate bureaucratic or some out of touch politician, these are people!!! The founding fathers explicitly expressed that common people would decide. They would be the best at lending compassion to the system while simultaneous upholding the principals that our justice system is based on. Do you think they wanted to let her go-many have said no, but it was not proven. Someone told me that to clear up confusion they should change it from guilty/not guilty to proven/not proven. That would really underscore the guiding philosophies of the system. You need proof!! Many of you claim that it was because she got an expansive lawyer and that this shows that you can get off with money. This is wrong, she didn't have an expensive lawyer she had a lawyer who went to a local community college near my house. He wasn't some expensive big shot. There may be cases where the rich get away with crimes, but this wasn't it. It was a case where a panel of jurios, 7 of which where woman and 5 mothers. Had to do something they didn't want to, because as badly as they wanted to send her to jail, they could not risk the possibility of sentencing someone to death who may be Innocent. I want everyone in this thread to step back and seriously think about that. You are sentencing some TO DEATH! there is no going back and you have to be sure. Absolutely sure. Their was insufficient evidence. They could not say how the baby died, when the baby died, connect her car to the location of the scene, or even show that Casey Anthony actually wanted to kill the baby. Those are some serious holes, and you can argue some stuff about the CSI effect and forensic evidence all you want, but if your gonna send some one to death you better damn be sure. I know of the serious problems in concerning the witness process and how "flexible" our memories can be. I would want the strictest of standards be held if I was in the defense chair, because believe it or not-SHIT HAPPENS. there are coincidences and I would not want to be sent to jail if I was innocent. WOULD YOU? This case says much about us, about what kind of people we Americans are. That is it teaches the prosecution a lesson, that we are not mindless idiots. That it will take a lot more than outrage for us to sentence someone to death. That we are not brainwashed idiots of the media. It speaks to the world that we the people are willing to make unpopular decisions, and possibly face the wrath of our communities in the defense of the rights of a person that you don't even like. It speaks volumes of the greatness of our system that an individual will be judged based on the merits of evidence.Please you can be outraged by the decision, and you should be. I know I am. But direct your anger at the appropriate source. Not the juriors, not the defense lawyer. But the prosecution, who so completely failed at their job. At the police who messed up in several ways.
Please put some paragraphs in, or at least make the effort to organize your writing somehow. I'm not sure anyone can feasibly read and discern what you clearly just spent a great deal of time writing.
can you please link to an article? It was my understanding that baez was just a lucky attorney who was only barely competant. He has filed for bankruptcy before and has had to file for bankruptcy.
On July 09 2011 03:04 Bibdy wrote: Sweet, now we just need a serial rapist to get off scott-free from a high-profile case due to lack of substantial evidence, despite overwhelming public opinion of their guilt, and we complete the meme trifecta!
Public opinion does not matter at all. Do I think that she was guilty? Doesn't matter at all. The US media gets people so emotional over something that doesn't matter to drive up their ratings. Everyone gets so involved in things and angry because the way the media portrays the situation in a certain way. Evidence is what drives our courts, if public opinion mattered any high profile case would be found guilty no matter how innocent somebody was. + Show Spoiler +
Hopefully I didn't come off as one of those people who sit in their basement searching for conspiracies, but me and my dad were just talking about this.
In my opinion weather a child was murdered (by her mother or not) years ago does not deserve to be the spotlight of our news. I know that it deserves mentioning but why is her case so important?
can you please link to an article? It was my understanding that baez was just a lucky attorney who was only barely competant. He has filed for bankruptcy before and has had to file for bankruptcy.
Yep he has. Don't have an article unfortunately. Heard it said multiple times on multiple news channels, odd though how I can't find an article supporting it. I'll withdraw it for the time being.
Casey got paid $200,000 through a deal made by Baez with ABC for licensing of photos. Safe to say most of that went to her defense, since she didn't work at all for two years, and probably will go to paying the State for leading them on a wild goose chase.
EPT![[image loading]](http://tosh.comedycentral.com/blog/files/2011/07/casey-and-oj.jpg)
