Casey Anthony Trial

[agzg]

Originally Posted by BetteDavisEyes

I don't believe the prosecution fucked things up at all. I think they did a great job but obviously the jury (much like in the OJ case) didn't see it that way.

As for getting emotionally invested, I don't see why it should bother you so much. Some people get emotionally invested in soap operas, movies, TV shows, books etc. What's the difference between those & these? Those are make-believe, this is real. I show real emotions (sadness, grief, happiness, anger etc) when I see a great movie or read a great book. This is no different. I may not live in Florida (hell, I live on the other side of the country in California) but that doesn't stop me from feeling for her & the entire situation surrounding her death.

There's a difference between "feeling for someone" (I'd like to think that none of us are heartless enough not to) or even having "real emotions" and having a physical and strong emotional reaction (feeling sick? crying? as if this happened to you personally? and then posting about it on facebook?).

This is just my opinion, of course, but folks like that seem to have drank a little too much of the Nancy Grace kool-aid. What about the other thousands of kids who go missing every year? If everyone felt as strongly about those kids as they do about this one kid, they'd never get out of bed. Why this case above all others?

It bothers me because there are millions of kids in the world who need help, but everyone's crying over one little girl. How many are involved in Boys and Girls clubs? How many donate to children's charities? Certainly not enough. But everyone can be a slacktivist on facebook.

Also: The jury did not make or break this case. They never make or break a case. The prosecution did. I'd say the defense put forth an awesome case, but the burden of proof is on the prosecution and they did not meet that burden. If that's not the prosecution messing it up, what is it?

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by katydidKD

I know?! Who gets sick or emotional about a little precious baby girl being suffocated, bagged, and thrown in a swamp by the person who was supposed to protect her with her life?!

Hyperbole doesn't help the matter. No one is commenting about that. They are commenting about the jury failing to convict Casey, and you know it. That's two different things.

BTW, the world will continue to turn despite the fact that Casey Anthony was not convicted of murdering her daughter. Even if she was, Caylee would still be dead. This woman had a pretty sh*tty life before this and will have a worse life after...even if she does cash in on a Lifetime movie. (Personally, that is a good reason to stop watching Lifetime.) There are lots of kids who are abused and killed everyday, and we never avenge them. Why all the attention on this singular case?

[BluPhire]

Just now heard about it. The first place I went to was here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCHB4GCyufE

The comments are hilarious.

[AGDee]

It's another case of trial by media before the real trial even began. I agree 100% with agzg. We didn't hear all the evidence, we weren't sitting in the courtroom and we weren't in the jury room. I would have a helluva time, as a juror, convicting anybody of murder when there was no firmly established cause of death and no physical evidence tying the murder to the accused. With no firmly established cause of death, how can you say there was a murder "beyond reasonable doubt".

Yes, in my heart, I think she probably did it. No, I don't think it was proved "beyond reasonable doubt" and those are two very different things. I'm absolutely not commenting about it on Facebook because people are way too riled up.

But then again, I'm the person who would have had a hard time convicting Scott Peterson of Laci's murder too. I didn't think there was enough evidence to prove to me "beyond a reasonable doubt".

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I

But then again, I'm the person who would have had a hard time convicting Scott Peterson of Laci's murder too. I didn't think there was enough evidence to prove to me "beyond a reasonable doubt".

That's the reason why I was shocked she got off. I thought they (the jury) would just do a greater good conviction.

I did listen (to what I could bear) and though like you believe she did it, outside of the screaming heads and the Nancy Grace's I did not see how they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt because it was just a lot of weak circumstantial evidence.

Does she win mother of the year?

No

Could she babysit my kids?

No.

But just because me or you wouldn't kick it for two weeks while my baby is missing doesn't mean she's gotta be the killer.

I mean look at those that did kill their kids and immediately called the cops and were crying on cue.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

People who cleared out their savings for in vitro have always had the option of adopting children, though. Good ole American foster children at that.

I heart you Sen.

Originally Posted by BetteDavisEyes

I agree. I don't think for one second they'll give her the death penalty but I do think she'll get life in prison. There is one juror that for the longest time kept saying he'd have a hard time giving anyone the death penalty regardless of their crime. Attitudes like that especially towards women who commit crimes makes me believe life in prison is what she'll get.

Yeah, her attorney will definitely file an appeal. It's standard.

Where I'm from saying you aren't sure you could go with the death penalty usually removes someone from the potential jury pool. I was honest when I told the lawyers and judge I was against it and I was excused. They knew I was for real though since I had a volunteer position working with families of inmates, with some of those inmates on California's death row.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

Where I'm from saying you aren't sure you could go with the death penalty usually removes someone from the potential jury pool.

The way this is implemented varies wildly from state to state (and even judge to judge) - often, though, "not sure" isn't strong enough, you have to actually be unable or unwilling to assign the penalty (if for no other reason than to prevent 'rehabilitation' by the judge or opposing counsel).

[AnotherKD]

I think one of the reasons I was so shocked is because I WASN'T following it super closely. I was going off of what a lot of the hyperbole in the press. And of course I have my reaction to it, but I think my reaction is a) I am surprised that she got off because I was under the assumption that they had a lot more evidence against her (through hearing what everyone had to say about it), and b) I just feel bad for that little girl. No one should have to go through that. It's just a sad situation all around. BUT, if I am ever arrested and put on trial for something (heaven forbid), I would hope to have the presumption of innocence that we are lucky to have in this country.

[Senusret I]

There was too much to multi-quote here, so I will just say AMEN to everyone I agree with.

[GammaPhi88]

Did anyone else watch Nancy Grace's head spin around over the verdict tonight? She terrifies me.

[BetteDavisEyes]

Originally Posted by GammaPhi88

Did anyone else watch Nancy Grace's
head spin around over the verdict tonight? She terrifies me.

Lol! That's why I watch other channels. I have noticed that the more agitated she becomes, the thicker her accent gets.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

The way this is implemented varies wildly from state to state (and even judge to judge) - often, though, "not sure" isn't strong enough, you have to actually be unable or unwilling to assign the penalty (if for no other reason than to prevent 'rehabilitation' by the judge or opposing counsel).

Oh definitely on the state to state thing, and even in a state depending on who is running the case itself, who is on trial, where the alleged crime took place and the venue of the trial. San Quentin was only a ferry ride or a bridge crossing away so it was a bit more in our thoughts due to executions and protests in San Francisco than it would be for people in Modoc County. My understanding (lawyer adjacent) was also people who were against it or weren't sure could cause jury issues with a potential for a mistrial and excluding those jurors (by the lawyers or the judge) cuts down on that problem with capital cases.

In Idaho it probably wouldn't matter how I felt as we aren't actively executing people. We have the death penalty and one person has been executed for about 35 years. Over all only 27 people have been executed since Idaho courts started in 1864, almost 150 years ago, the majority of those 27 were by hanging, if not all but the lethal injection in 1994. We only got rid of firing squad as a method of execution two years ago, but it is an option if injection wouldn't work. Idaho only has three crimes for capital punishment, but we have jury instructions for cannibalism, but have never had a case. Wild West indeed.

[Drolefille]

Having been on a jury, for a crime much less serious than murder, it is perfectly possible to believe that someone is guilty and yet acquit them because there is still reasonable doubt. I didn't follow this case that closely but from what I could tell the defense did a good job of throwing enough possibilities out there to create doubt, and the prosecution failed to drill it down in their rebuttal/closing arguments/etc. The fact that the DNA in the air test (whatever that's called) is relatively new may be another issue the jury had, and there is some issue with juries

Also, btw, the way to make juries full of people who can't get out of jury duty is to berate/insult/threaten people who actually serve on juries. Oh wait, they didn't come to the same conclusion you did sitting on your ass at home in front of the TV so THEY must be the morons.

Tearing up thinking about the sadness of a child dying is one thing. Most of that is emotionally manipulative anyway. But if you're feeling physically ill or sobbing, stop making it about you. This victim is one of many every freaking day and the only reason anyone here cares about her over anyone else is because mom's a modern day sideshow. Statistically 44 other people were murdered the same day she was. Who were they? Why don't you know?


/end rant
/agzg and Sen are my peeps.

[Kevin]

It is amazing that people get so invested in these cases. Those of you who are worked up, did you hear the state's attorney mention the fact that they had eleven other child murder cases currently awaiting trial just in that jurisdiction? Can any of you name one?

But for the media circus, this thing was pretty run-of-the-mill, absent the wonky scientific evidence. Just a typical (yes, that's sad commentary that such a thing could be typical) murder trial. Nothing to see here, move on.

As far as the jury goes, saying that you think someone is guilty and saying that the state proved all of the elements of its case beyond a reasonable doubt are two entirely different things.

[Kevin]

Well, they shouldn't see that sort of stuff. And honestly, with the evidence the state did put on, if I'm a defense lawyer, I'm loving it. Experts on "behavior"? Smell evidence? DNA from the air? If we're going CSI-to-the-max, then it's safe to say that the state's case is very flimsy, and really, it was.

We have to use evidence to convict and sentence someone to death. We can't just do it because we feel it in our bones that she's guilty and she didn't act appropriately or whatever.