Casey Anthony Trial

Discussion
1

I hear this is big news in the States. Down Under we’ve heard only snatches of it…but I think I get the gyst of it.

So…how the fuck did she get away with it…!!!

http://www.cayleedaily.com/2011/07/casey-anthony-found-not-guilty-juror-bullied-to-verdict/

Is this another O.J?? What the fuck went wrong?? From where I’m standing it seems like an open and shut case. Young wayward mother kills baby, gets life. I mean…her baby daughter is missing and she goes out partying?? Then she makes up an imagined babysitter as an an alibi?? Hello! What were the jury thinking?? Maybe there are pieces of the puzzle I’m not taking into account but…holy hell, did this chick ever pull a swifty on the jury. Reminded me of that Susan Smith case from the mid 90’s - http://crime.about.com/od/murder/a/susan_smith.htm - the chick who drowned her kids in a car and blamed it on a “black man”. I would have assumed the outcome in this Casey Anthony would follow the same path. Not to be.

And shame on the American media and the general public for turning the death of a little girl into a sitcom. SHAME!!

discuss

2

And shame on the American media and the general public for turning the death of a little girl into a sitcom. SHAME!!

discuss

Shame on you for turning it into a thread !!!
lol jk
I have no opinion on this haven’t been paying attention

3

I’m in favor of dealing with criminals the old fashion way:

Shipping them to Australia :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

That said, the defense for her put up a solid smokescreen of ‘there’s no real proof’ and the circumstantial evidence wasn’t enough. Juries are made up of people, and we all know what kind of fuck-up that can be.

4

Haven’t been paying attention either til about 30 minutes ago.

Read up on this a little. And yes, it does seem as if she got away with murder. Who goes out and parties and gets a tattoo and makes up lies about imaginary baby sitters after their 2 year old goes missing?

Maybe the jury thought she was hot and couldn’t acquit her on the basis of her hotness? A Yummy Mummy perhaps? Who knows.

Americans are weird.

5

Well…you can’t just say “this person MUST be guilty” if there’s not enough evidence to prove that she is.

I would party if I had a 2 year old and it died. That shit would be a huge burden at this point in my life.

6

This was in Florida.
She did the kid a favor.

7

I didn’t follow it either, but a buddy of mine did and he’s pissed!!

What I don’t get is how they convicted her of 4 counts of lying to a police officer but not with murdering her child. I would imagine the police were smart enough to ask “did you murder your child?” So, how does her lie to that question get found guilty but not of the actual murder… can’t even believe she didn’t get manslaughter … I seriously hope the DA retries this case.

the kicker is that they have messages that she texted to her friends that talk about the “dead body smell” in her trunk.(or something along those lines"
Late,
grmpysmrf

8

Everything in Florida smells like a dead body. Or worse. In fact, if I lived in Florida I would probably put corpses in my car to use as air fresheners.

9

She isn’t hot so that didn’t get her off the hook… I hope.

But it’s ok, it’s Florida. Dexter Morgan will be on her case soon enough

10

This was in Florida.
She did the kid a favor.

Why? What’s the deal on Florida??

11

Florida’s a good place to go on vacation.
It’s not the best state to live in.

12

The prosecution failed to prove she was at the scene of the crime. Unless their is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, she is presumed innocent. She never had any reason to take the stand. Her waiting a month to report her baby missing allowed for a lot of evidence to disappear. Ask me she was a methodical litttle biatch.

13

Regarding Florida:

Some of the trashiest, most squalid shit goes down there, all out of proportion to the size and population of that state. That podcast Uhh Yeah Dude that I mentioned in another thread used to have a segment called “This Week in Florida” until Penn & Teller stole the idea and started using it. On their website they have a list of all the fucked up shit in Florida they discussed, it’s worth a peek:

http://uhhyeahdude.com/index.php/wiki/This_Week_In_Florida/

14

Regarding the verdict, I pretty much feel the same way about that as I do the Ryan Dunn thing. All these people getting in a tizzy about something that has exactly zero bearing on their lives. It’s a fucking shame, but what difference does it really make to any of us, so why waste your breath? My buddy Bill put it pretty well, “You’d probably be less disappointed in trial verdicts if you’d stop being a voyeur of the misery and pain of others.”

But fat chance of that. We are Americans, after all- you can strip away our constitutionally guaranteed rights, but you’ll never take away our unwarranted righteous indignation.

15

If planets had armpits and armpits had assholes, Florida would be the asshole on the armpit of Earth.

16

But it’s ok, it’s Florida. Dexter Morgan will be on her case soon enough

HAHA, if only!!!

The prosecution failed to prove she was at the scene of the crime. Unless their is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, she is presumed innocent. She never had any reason to take the stand. Her waiting a month to report her baby missing allowed for a lot of evidence to disappear. Ask me she was a methodical litttle biatch.

all this tells me, “beyond reasonable doubt” without her even taking the stand. I wonder why the Judge didn’t step in and over rule the jury?

All these people getting in a tizzy about something that has exactly zero bearing on their lives.

You think case law has zero affect on our lives? …ok then.

“You’d probably be less disappointed in trial verdicts if you’d stop being a voyeur of the misery and pain of others.”

I agree completely about someone’s pain and misery not being entertainment BUT trials actually do affect the rest of us. so now this woman has set a precedent that will be followed from now on.
Late,
grmpysmrf

17

I wonder why the Judge didn’t step in and over rule the jury?

Because that would be unconstitutional and grounds for a mistrial anyways- the jury decides guilt, not the judge.

You think case law has zero affect on our lives? …ok then.

That’s not what I meant, grmps. The way people are moaning about this case is not about any case law precedent being set, it’s about people’s outrage about the dead kid and they feel like that broad should pay. I have yet to hear anyone actually discussing actual court proceedings or jury deliberations in an intelligent manner. Without knowledge of what went on in the trial or reading transcripts or something along those lines, anything you say becomes rampant speculation. These people are just outraged because they wanted to see a babykiller get dealt with, but guess what- they’re not members of the jury and they did not see the evidence put forth. It’s a lynch mob mentality, not outrage over case law precedence.

And I know you’re a little bit trying to bait me here, 'cause that’s what you do, but since I’m usually on your side of these things in the debates I’ve read before I started posting, I’ll half-bite on that hook.

I’ll go ahead and go out on a limb and say that any theoretical precedent set in this baby-murder case has a slim to none chance in reality of actually affecting the lives of these people thousands of miles away from the proceedings who are so butt-hurt over it. How many of them are scared that their rights are going to be trampled on during THEIR baby murder trial? If these people were actually concerned about precedent (instead of just being indignant over how if they ran the world that bitch would be strung up tomorrow), then they probably would have had a FUCKLOAD more to say about the Citizens United ruling, or the recent ruling that Wal-Mart is “too big to sue”. But I didn’t hear them make a peep. So, I’ll stand by my assertion that really this media hoopla over this incident is an overblown distraction from the social issues that really matter. After all, it’s sad to say but babies end up in dumpsters every damn day and it’s not nationwide news that everyone has to stop and comment on. It’s a fucking sideshow, not the main event- people just can’t tell the difference any more.

18

I wonder why the Judge didn’t step in and over rule the jury?

[reply]Because that would be unconstitutional and grounds for a mistrial anyways- the jury decides guilt, not the judge.
[/reply]
A judge may, in some jurisdictions and in some types of cases set aside a jury verdict (called JNOV in most jurisdictions). [u]While the standards may vary, JNOV usually arises when the judge finds that the jury has ruled against the weight of the evidence, i.e. that no reasonable jury could have ruled in that favor appropriately looking at the evidence. [/u]This is different than a mistrial because in a JNOV a judge may actually enter a new verdict, not merely dismiss the proceedings.

You think case law has zero affect on our lives? …ok then.

[reply]That’s not what I meant, grmps. The way people are moaning about this case is not about any case law precedent being set, it’s about people’s outrage about the dead kid and they feel like that broad should pay.

yeah? you don’t think that this trial has a set a new precedent for future murders?

I have yet to hear anyone actually discussing actual court proceedings or jury deliberations in an intelligent manner.

me neither but then again I have only paid attention in passing

Without knowledge of what went on in the trial or reading transcripts or something along those lines, anything you say becomes rampant speculation.

agreed, however based on what has been presented by most if not all major news outlets what nugget of “Oh that’s the reason” has been kept from us?

These people are just outraged because they wanted to see a babykiller get dealt with,

Well no shit everyone wants to see just get served even if it’s not directly affecting them because it gives people hope that it at least it still exists

but guess what- they’re not members of the jury and they did not see the evidence put forth. It’s a lynch mob mentality, not outrage over case law precedence.

true.

And I know you’re a little bit trying to bait me here, 'cause that’s what you do, but since I’m usually on your side of these things in the debates I’ve read before I started posting, I’ll half-bite on that hook.

Man that sux people think I bait others here. I don’t bait anyone here. I DEMAND A TRIAL!!
Late,
grmpysmrf

19

A judge may, in some jurisdictions and in some types of cases set aside a jury verdict (called JNOV in most jurisdictions). While the standards may vary, JNOV usually arises when the judge finds that the jury has ruled against the weight of the evidence, i.e. that no reasonable jury could have ruled in that favor appropriately looking at the evidence. This is different than a mistrial because in a JNOV a judge may actually enter a new verdict, not merely dismiss the proceedings.

Okay. I’m not a lawyer, didn’t know about that. But according to what I just read here: http://www.answers.com/topic/judgment-notwithstanding-verdict it’s not up to a judge to decide to do that, it must be requested by one of the parties (the prosecution in this case) after the verdict is decided, and then: "In deciding a motion for JNOV, the court is facing questions only of law, not fact. The court must consider only the evidence and any inferences therefrom, and must do so in the light most advantageous to the nonmoving party." In this case, that would be the murderous Miss Thang. So I don’t see that that would necessarily make a difference.

Not to mention the fact that everything I read references the JNOV as a motion used only in CIVIL cases, not a CRIMINAL case such as this.

yeah? you don’t think that this trial has a set a new precedent for future murders?

I don’t know, I haven’t studied or even followed the case or heard anyone with a deep understanding of the law that has followed the case discuss it. Also, as a “big S” skeptic, I operate under the rule that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, so since you insist there is one, maybe you should explain exactly what precedent you think is being set here, before I should be asked to either debunk it or agree with you.

Man that sux people think I bait others here. I don’t bait anyone here. I DEMAND A TRIAL!!

You do, but it’s not nearly as bad as they make it out to be. I’m a big fan of spirited debate, and fuck 'em if they can’t hang. And on political and social issues (A) I usually end up in the same camp as you- not that our tents are necessarily set up next to each other, but I can at least smell your meat cooking, and (B) I firmly believe that these are the issues that are most important to view in a logical and scientific manner, and that uninformed, superstitious, or hypocritical arguments in these areas should be vigorously attacked- stupidity accounts for far too much of the decision-making power in this country. So, I guess, go you, grmpysmrf! I’m your huckleberry.

20

While the standards may vary, JNOV usually arises when the judge finds that the jury has ruled against the weight of the evidence, i.e. that no reasonable jury could have ruled in that favor appropriately looking at the evidence.

Also want to point out that not every time a jury rules contrary to the evidence should it be overturned. Jury nullification is one of the most powerful tools the citizenry has to protest unjust or unwanted legislation…

Not that it has anything to do with this, I’m just sayin’.