Why is the Casey Anthony trial a national story?

[Wreckem]

Sad that this cop is from a suburb of Chicago who no doubt had something to do with the demise of his wives. Perhaps a visit to his place with my Chicago ATOT friends and give him a piece of our mind? :sneaky:

He is in prison awaiting trial that keeps getting delayed and might not start this year.

 

[her209]

Technically motive is not really required to convict. Its nice, especially cuz it makes it easier for the jury to swallow, but its not needed.

Who knows why people do things?
They may do crazy shit, like murder their own children. Could you ever really prove why? Fact is she did it, and thats why she went to jail.

Oh wait......

Well if you're going to convict someone of premeditated murder, you're probably going to need to prove a motive.

 

[ProfJohn]

I can't believe this.

As someone who was living in Orlando when the case broke I am truly shocked they didn't get her for even 2nd degree murder.

Any theories about the drowning and her dad doing it etc etc don't line up with Casey's behavior.

Her daughter disappeared and she responded by partying for a month until the cops came to her front door.

My only question is whether this was stupid jury or stupid DA.

 

[waggy]

He is in prison awaiting trial that keeps getting delayed and might not start this year.

it should be said he is in jail for killing his 3rd wife wich the evidance is crap, the police work is crap. the prescuter had a law passed to get bullshit evidance allowed in the court (then fought to disallow some that helped drew!).

 

[Wreckem]

Well if you're going to convict someone of premeditated murder, you're probably going to need to prove a motive.

You do not need motive to prove pre meditation. It can help, but is not necessary.

 

[Wreckem]

I can't believe this.

As someone who was living in Orlando when the case broke I am truly shocked they didn't get her for even 2nd degree murder.

Any theories about the drowning and her dad doing it etc etc don't line up with Casey's behavior.

Her daughter disappeared and she responded by partying for a month until the cops came to her front door.

My only question is whether this was stupid jury or stupid DA.

Niether. For the last time. It was a WEAK case.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I can't believe this.

As someone who was living in Orlando when the case broke I am truly shocked they didn't get her for even 2nd degree murder.

Any theories about the drowning and her dad doing it etc etc don't line up with Casey's behavior.

Her daughter disappeared and she responded by partying for a month until the cops came to her front door.

My only question is whether this was stupid jury or stupid DA.

Appealing to emotion is not really hard evidence. Her behavior makes sense if you think about her killing her daughter accidentally.

I do think she should've gotten 2nd degree murder. Perhaps the jury found too many flaws in terms of evidence convicting her.

 

[Wreckem]

it should be said he is in jail for killing his 3rd wife wich the evidance is crap, the police work is crap. the prescuter had a law passed to get bullshit evidance allowed in the court (then fought to disallow some that helped drew!).

Last I read, which I really don't follow the case, but the judge tossed the prosecutions main "evidence" anyways and prosecution is appealing ruling.

 

[ProfJohn]

Well if you're going to convict someone of premeditated murder, you're probably going to need to prove a motive.

You don't need premed for 2nd degree.

They probably should have offered the jury the chance at negligent homicide. There is no doubt that the little girl is dead due to the actions of her mom.

If she had drowned in the pool while grandpa was watching her it would have came out sooner or later. Most likely he would have said something to the cops rather than see his innocent daughter face the death penalty.

 

[waggy]

Last I read, which I really don't follow the case, but the judge tossed the prosecutions main "evidence" anyways and prosecution is appealing ruling.

yeah its a total clusterfuck. i do think he is not getting a fair trial.

 

[highland145]

You don't need premed for 2nd degree.

They probably should have offered the jury the chance at negligent homicide. There is no doubt that the little girl is dead due to the actions of her mom.

If she had drowned in the pool while grandpa was watching her it would have came out sooner or later. Most likely he would have said something to the cops rather than see his innocent daughter face the death penalty.

Well, she's bat sh*t crazy and free. Wonder how long before she makes the news again for some bad behavior?

 

[ProfJohn]

Niether. For the last time. It was a WEAK case.

I guess I would put it this way.


Being found innocent by the jury and having not done the crime are two different things.

Just because she was found not guilty does not mean that she didn't kill her daughter. It just means that they could not prove their case.

Any one who looks at ALL the information and details of the case, including stuff not shown in court, should have no problem coming to realization that she almost certainly killed her daughter either on purpose or by accident.

 

[waggy]

I guess I would put it this way.


Being found innocent by the jury and having not done the crime are two different things.

Just because she was found not guilty does not mean that she didn't kill her daughter. It just means that they could not prove their case.

Any one who looks at ALL the information and details of the case, including stuff not shown in court, should have no problem coming to realization that she almost certainly killed her daughter either on purpose or by accident.

while i agree. legally she did not kill her daughter.

i didn't see all the case but man i was kinda suprised the verdict. I really want to hear from the jury.

 

[Bird222]

I guess I would put it this way.


Being found innocent by the jury and having not done the crime are two different things.

Just because she was found not guilty does not mean that she didn't kill her daughter. It just means that they could not prove their case.

Any one who looks at ALL the information and details of the case, including stuff not shown in court, should have no problem coming to realization that she almost certainly killed her daughter either on purpose or by accident.

The jury can only consider what was presented at trial. I think it's a shame because I think she did it and there is no justice for that child.

 

[Wreckem]

I guess I would put it this way.


Being found innocent by the jury and having not done the crime are two different things.

Just because she was found not guilty does not mean that she didn't kill her daughter. It just means that they could not prove their case.

Any one who looks at ALL the information and details of the case, including stuff not shown in court, should have no problem coming to realization that she almost certainly killed her daughter either on purpose or by accident.

Where have I said she didn't do it? I don't think I have said one way or the other.

The evidence admitted into court was weak at best. Thats why she was acquitted. The prosecutions case was weak. There wasn't much they could have done. They did they best they could with the admissible evidence they had.

 

[MagickMan]

One thing is absolutely true, Nancy Grace is an idiot. I'm stunned that she has no understanding whatsoever of our justice system. I can't help but laugh at her emotional indignation over the "jury's failure".

 

[MagickMan]

I guess I would put it this way.


Being found innocent by the jury and having not done the crime are two different things.

Just because she was found not guilty does not mean that she didn't kill her daughter. It just means that they could not prove their case.

Any one who looks at ALL the information and details of the case, including stuff not shown in court, should have no problem coming to realization that she almost certainly killed her daughter either on purpose or by accident.

and that's the prosecution's fault. They failed in proving their case and now she's going home. There's also that "almost" you threw in there, some people would consider that a reasonable doubt. :hmm:

 

[guyver01]

The prosecutions big mistake is not seeking Negligent Homicide.

Did she kill the kid intentionally? probably not.
Did she kill the kid while knocking her out so she can go out and party? Probably.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

One thing is absolutely true, Nancy Grace is an idiot. I'm stunned that she has no understanding whatsoever of our justice system. I can't help but laugh at her emotional indignation over the "jury's failure".

I completely agree. I hate her appeals to emotion and her hypocrisy.

 

[waggy]

One thing is absolutely true, Nancy Grace is an idiot. I'm stunned that she has no understanding whatsoever of our justice system. I can't help but laugh at her emotional indignation over the "jury's failure".

lol she is going to handle it one of 2 ways. 1) ignore it like she did the duke case or 2) blame the jury somehow.

I hate Grace. but i have ot admit her show tonight should be entertaining.

 

[ProfJohn]

One thing is absolutely true, Nancy Grace is an idiot. I'm stunned that she has no understanding whatsoever of our justice system. I can't help but laugh at her emotional indignation over the "jury's failure".

She may be an idiot, but she probably has more knowledge of this stuff than the rest of us put together.


This case may have been part of the CSI effect. They may have assumed that if she did it there would be evidence to prove she did it and when they didn't see that evidence then they figured she was innocent.

 

[shortylickens]

She may be an idiot, but she probably has more knowledge of this stuff than the rest of us put together.


This case may have been part of the CSI effect. They may have assumed that if she did it there would be evidence to prove she did it and when they didn't see that evidence then they figured she was innocent.

I will have to disagree with both your points.

Nancy Grace does not understand the judicial system but she is a loud mouth, which is probably why so many people listen to her.

And Americas legal system is built on the principle that you need to prove people guilty before punishing them. Whether its eyewitnesses or forensic data, you need real evidence.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

She may be an idiot, but she probably has more knowledge of this stuff than the rest of us put together.


This case may have been part of the CSI effect. They may have assumed that if she did it there would be evidence to prove she did it and when they didn't see that evidence then they figured she was innocent.

That probably explains why she never mentioned the fact there was missing evidence proving premeditation and the fact that there was no official cause of death for the child. That, and she appealed to emotion and had her mind made up from the beginning that she was guilty and thought Casey should've been charged with 1st degree murder. She was showing a clear bias and she did not set it aside to look at the fact the prosecutors' evidence was lacking and that their demands were too high.

She either has no knowledge of the judicial system and how it works, or she's willfully ignorant and biased. Take your pick.

 

[MagickMan]

She may be an idiot, but she probably has more knowledge of this stuff than the rest of us put together.

You would think, but I somehow doubt it. She's currently blaming the jury, but the fact remains that the evidence that was shown in the court was NOT enough to convict on those charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hell, *I* would have let her walk under these circumstances, and I believe that she's responsible for the girl's death.

As a legal analyst Grace is a disGrace, that's all there is to it.

 

[Engineer]

Two words: Nancy Grace

This...and I suspect that her head just exploded!!!