Casey Anthony is just another example that being a bad mother can have little to no ramifications.
This is an example of a prosecutor over charging the defendant in order to appease the Nancy Grace's in the media that wanted nothing less than blood. I agree that Casey was an awful mother, and was in many ways negligent. But...I don't see how, based on the evidence (or lack of) the prosecutor would charge her with murder 1.
Unless there is something new... this case is over for me. Weather justice was done, we may never know.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
This is an example of a prosecutor over charging the defendant in order to appease the Nancy Grace's in the media that wanted nothing less than blood. I agree that Casey was an awful mother, and was in many ways negligent. But...I don't see how, based on the evidence (or lack of) the prosecutor would charge her with murder 1.
Wrong. Casey was not over-charged. The Jury had a choice of Manslaughter 1 and chose to ignore it. The cops in the first Rodney King case were overcharged. Their jury was NOT given the option to come back with a reduced verdict like Caseys jury was.
Scott Peterson is sitting in jail, convicted for two counts of murder 1 for much LESS evidence than Casey had. His trial had no DNA, no cause of death, no murder weapon. All they had was a bag of cement and the fact he was up-current from when the bodies were found the day the victims were last seen.
She got away with murder and like OJ, time will reveal the truth.
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
Scott Peterson is sitting in jail, convicted for two counts of murder 1 for much LESS evidence than Casey had. His trial had no DNA, no cause of death, no murder weapon. All they had was a bag of cement and the fact he was up-current from when the bodies were found the day the victims were last seen.
You are arguing that LESS evidence in a murder 1 conviction is a good thing?
This MAY have been a gross miscarriage of justice, we'll never know. But to say she got away with pre-meditated murder based on the evidence is a stretch. The prosecution argued that Casey's motive to kill her own child was to win over a boyfriend. In my mind, that's a little weak. My opinion is that this was an accidental death that was covered up by the whole family.
This is an example of a prosecutor over charging the defendant in order to appease the Nancy Grace's in the media that wanted nothing less than blood. I agree that Casey was an awful mother, and was in many ways negligent. But...I don't see how, based on the evidence (or lack of) the prosecutor would charge her with murder 1.
Yes I agree. There was not enough hard evidence (a smell test?) to convict.
This case pulls on the heartstrings of every mother who's worst nightmare is the disappearance of their child. Although not abuse, it is the worst case of neglect on record.
We see schools spend more of their budget taking care of administrators and teachers retirements than they do actually educating children. We see the deterioration of families and family values, then a missing toddler is not reported to authorities by her own mother. Our society has placed greater value on protecting neglected animals than they do neglected children.
You are arguing that LESS evidence in a murder 1 conviction is a good thing?
This MAY have been a gross miscarriage of justice, we'll never know. But to say she got away with pre-meditated murder based on the evidence is a stretch. The prosecution argued that Casey's motive was to win over a boyfriend. In my mind, that's a little weak. My opinion is that this was an accidental death that was covered up by the whole family.
What am saying is that all your blabbing about circumstantial evidence and no cause of death is moot. There is already precedence that it is enough for a conviction. You must believe that most things can be explained by coincidence. Like the evening of June 16th, the last day Caylee was seen, Casey moved in with her boyfriend.... yup, coincidence.
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
You can NOT build a case on 'coincidence' or on 'theory'! You build a case on FACTS! The prosecution had NONE! Everything was mere speculation! We can all agree that this is and was 'pull at your heart strings' case. But we are talking 'law' here....not emotion!
The prosecution had holes in their case right from the beginning and the defense proved 'reasonable' and 'shadow' of a doubt'. That's all ya needed here folks. And the jury voted accordingly.
NO ONE knows 'exactly' how this little girl died!! It's all mere speculation and theory at best. So ya wanna send this mother to prison for life or even the death penalty because she lied? Because she was perhaps a 'slut', as her own attorney called her? I don't think anyone wants to set a precedence for that now do we?
The law is the law and the prosecution had 'nothing'!! Some people are acting like the good old days by sending out the lynch mob. Same as they did for jon bonet ramsey! NO PROOF!!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
comparing this murder to Jon Benet just shows me how little attention you paid to the evidence....and yes, there was evidence. Did it put Casey at the crime scene? No.. Did it put the murder weapon in her hand? no.... that's why its called CIRCUMSTANTIAL. Obviously it wasn't enough for this jury to convict, and for that I congratulate the defense and their jury analysts for picking a perfect jury for them. Not one juror with anything more than a 2 year degree and none with even a sniff of the legal field. Like I said before, the CSI'ing of our society is going to make it much harder for prosecutors to get convictions in circumstantial cases. The jurors now expect that the forensics should be as simple to understand as when Gil Grissom explains it to them on USA network.
I would be willing to bet that the majority of these jurors actually believe that you can zoom in on a digital photograph or video and not lose any resolution...certainly not enough to keep you from reading a license plate that was 1/500th of the image before the zoom. After all, they saw it on TV.
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
I bet she ends up on a reality show, perhaps celebrity rehab like Amy Fisher is right now. Let's face it, she will find a way to take her negative celebrity and turn it into a career. People like train wrecks, she will be out clubbing again in a few months.
Not one juror with anything more than a 2 year degree and none with even a sniff of the legal field. Like I said before, the CSI'ing of our society is going to make it much harder for prosecutors to get convictions in circumstantial cases. The jurors now expect that the forensics should be as simple to understand as when Gil Grissom explains it to them on USA network.
Oh boy, here we go with the "you need a college degree to understand", and the "jurors were just too stupid" to understand circumstantial evidence. Maybe the prosecution should have just had the jurors watch hours of Nancy Grace as their closing argument. Since cable news has Casey convicted of murder 1 a year ago.
Mocking the jury's intelligence because of their not guilty verdict, is almost as funny as thinking you are smarter because you would have convicted based on CLIPS of testimony and evidence you watched on TV.
Oh boy, here we go with the "you need a college degree to understand", and the "jurors were just too stupid" to understand circumstantial evidence. Maybe the prosecution should have just had the jurors watch hours of Nancy Grace as their closing argument. Since cable news has Casey convicted of murder 1 a year ago.
Mocking the jury's intelligence because of their not guilty verdict, is almost as funny as thinking you are smarter because you would have convicted based on CLIPS of testimony and evidence you watched on TV.
No, they weren't stupid , although I do think of that saying "Most people that serve on juries are too dumb to get out of it". They were just disinterested. Several of them stated that they don't judge people and didn't want to be on the jury. They had their arms folded during the prosecutions case, one juror was playing with her pen (which she didn't use much) by spinning it in circles. Minimal, if any note taking...most didn't bother. Six weeks worth of testimony and not ONE read back of any of it. That says something to me.. At least they weren't as transparent as the OJ jury, who took less than 4 hours, 90 minutes of that was eating pizza. But Caseys's jury did get out for their summer vacations and the male juror will make his cruise that leaves tomorrow... Bon Voyage.
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
Once you hear that the possibility of molestation took place, there was no erasing reasonable doubt. That deal was made with the family. I believe it to be false. Family probably felt they lost the grandchild let's save our daughter. The father was willing to sacrifice his reputation to keep her from being sent to the gas chamber. BTW, I didn't believe she should be on death row. I don't believe in the death penalty. But the fact that she is totally off shocks me.
Once you hear that the possibility of molestation took place, there was no erasing reasonable doubt. That deal was made with the family. I believe it to be false. Family probably felt they lost the grandchild let's save our daughter. The father was willing to sacrifice his reputation to keep her from being sent to the gas chamber. BTW, I didn't believe she should be on death row. I don't believe in the death penalty. But the fact that she is totally off shocks me.
The fallacy being pushed by the pundits, which by the way, all came out of the woodwork saying they knew the jury would come back with an acquittal AFTER the verdict was read, said that Casey was over-charged, mainly because of the death penalty. Problem is, there are two phases.. a conviction phase and a penalty phase. They could have come back with a murder conviction and not sentenced her to death. As far as whether the charges were proper, if anything, she should have also been charged with child abuse and endangering the welfare of a child. Because when the jury came back with not guilty on those charges, their "legend" would have been complete.
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
if anything, she should have also been charged with child abuse and endangering the welfare of a child.
I agree!! If the prosecution spent WAY too much time trying to prove pre-meditation. They should have gone for Murder 3, negligent homicide, manslaughter, endangering the welfare of a child. The prosecution went for the grand prize murder 1 conviction.
From the Florida Senate website... ...at [url]http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0782/SEC04.HTM (quoting §782.04(4) of the Florida Statutes):[/url] (4) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated without any design to effect death, by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any felony other than any: (a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1), (b) Arson, (c) Sexual battery, (d) Robbery, (e) Burglary, (f) Kidnapping, (g) Escape, (h) Aggravated child abuse, (i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult, (j) Aircraft piracy, (k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb, (l) Unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under §893.03(1), cocaine as described in §893.03(2)(a)4., or opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user, (m) Carjacking, (n) Home-invasion robbery, (o) Aggravated stalking, (p) Murder of another human being, (q) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or (r) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,
is murder in the third degree and constitutes a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in §775.082, §775.083, or §775.084. So the required elements for third-degree murder in the state of Florida are: Unlawful killing (i.e. not allowed by some other law), of a human being (i.e. killing a dog, monkey, or tree doesn't count), perpetrated without any design to effect death (i.e. it wasn't intentional), and by a person engaged in, or attempting to engage in, a felony other than those listed (i.e. it happened while committing some other crime, except that if it's one of a specific list of crimes, then it's first- or second-degree murder instead). If any of those elements is not met, then it's not third-degree murder.
Third Degree Murder sounds like the most reasonable charge and easiest to convict on based on the evidence that was provided. The prosecution should have described Casey as a party girl, that used ether to put Caylee to sleep so she could go out and party. Then link Caylee's death as a result to Casey's child abuse, and Casey panicked and attempted to cover up the accidental death.
Logged
