Casey Anthony Trial

[katydidKD]

http://losalamitos.patch.com/article...nthony-verdict


I like it.

[DrPhil]

Rest in peace Caylee Anthony regardless of the outcome of this case and how I feel about...other stuff.

If people are going to use their no longer silent consciousness to enact change:

http://www.missingkids.com/missingki...eCountry=en_US

Another interesting case that didn't receive much (or any) attention at the national and international levels:

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-05/j...ns?_s=PM:CRIME

http://www.kansas.com/2010/01/02/111...m-herrman.html

http://www.kwch.com/news/adam/kwch-c...2316.htmlstory

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Thing is, the prosecution/investigators are probably fairly certain that they are right and that this is where the investigation led. If there were more suspects, then they might continue to proceed down those lines, but a conviction without new evidence would be all the more difficult for the media circus of this trial.

Her acquittal doesn't mean they didn't find the killer, it means they couldn't prove it. Nor does it mean that she IS the killer, but they may simply have no other significant evidence. A lawyer can better say how likely it is for someone else to be tried.

So basically, this is a mess all around. If she did do it, she got away with it. If she didn't, it's highly likely we'll never know who did. And if there's new evidence that implicates her, it won't matter because she can't be tried again.

That just flat out sucks.

*sigh*......Thanks for that. The scholar in me is glad to learn something new but now I'm legitimately angry which is almost worse than when I was just righteously indignant but didn't really know what was going on.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

So basically, this is a mess all around. If she did do it, she got away with it. If she didn't, it's highly likely we'll never know who did. And if there's new evidence that implicates her, it won't matter because she can't be tried again.

That just flat out sucks.

*sigh*......Thanks for that. The scholar in me is glad to learn something new but now I'm legitimately angry which is almost worse than when I was just righteously indignant but didn't really know what was going on.

It's the justice system, and this is the justice system working, like it or not. Whoever said they'd rather have 100 guilty people go free than one innocent person imprisoned, well I agree, but this case is a consequence of that. And we don't KNOW what happened.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

So basically, this is a mess all around. If she did do it, she got away with it. If she didn't, it's highly likely we'll never know who did. And if there's new evidence that implicates her, it won't matter because she can't be tried again.

That just flat out sucks. Now I'm legitimately angry which is almost worse than I was just righteously indignant but didn't really know what was going on.

I know you said you don't know much about the legal system but I cannot understand why people (not you) are acting so baffled. It is one thing to be shocked or angry over the verdict. It's another thing to act as though these legal dynamics are something new. I think it speaks to a number of things including, as we said before, how people tend not to pay attention until they are interested in the particular case for some reason. This could be a teachable moment about various aspects of the legal system and the media. However, I can't help but be floored and mildly amused that people are making so many judgments when they are so uninformed about the legal system.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

It's the justice system, and this is the justice system working, like it or not. Whoever said they'd rather have 100 guilty people go free than one innocent person imprisoned, well I agree, but this case is a consequence of that. And we don't KNOW what happened.

I agree. As a friend and I were discussing earlier (Prosecutor Ashton also said this), personal reactions aside, it makes no sense to say you support justice and innocence until proven guilt yet you only support it when you agree with the verdict.

The justice system has hundreds if not thousands of people who were wrongly convicted over the years. For a small percentage of those people, they will eventually be vindicated. A radio station did a show about that last week (also: http://www.innocenceproject.org/). Likewise, there will also be people who were found not guilty but they MAY have done the crime. I just hope that people operate by the law and don't attempt to take the law into their own hands.

[christiangirl]

Well.....and this is just a guess....but maybe people are acting like this is new because it really is new to them. With each highly publicized case, a new wave of people figure out how the legal system works or receive confirmations that what they've seen in the media (and thought was incorrect) is actually how it goes. In life, people (children, employees, etc) get punished by authority (parents, employers, etc) on circumstancial evidence all the time. So it's not far-fetched for people to assume the justice system would operate that way, too. Or else wish so badly that it did they convince themselves it's possible even if they know deep-down it's not.

[VandalSquirrel]

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/07/06/...irtual-frenzy/

http://www.change.org/petitions/create-caylees-law

You know how to get law makers interested in laws? Not the same way you go about trying to save your favorite television show.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/07/06/...irtual-frenzy/

It calls for the creation of a new federal statute called “Caylee’s Law” – named after Anthony’s deceased daughter – that would make it a felony for parents not to report the death of a child to law enforcement within an hour of discovering the incident, or within 24 hours in the case of child disappearance.

1. How could someone prove that it's been more than an hour since discovery?

2. Don't police departments require folks to wait 48 hours before they can report someone as missing? Never mind.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

1. How could someone prove that it's been more than an hour since discovery?

2. Don't police departments require folks to wait 48 hours before they can report someone as missing?

1. That's what I was thinking.

2. It's 24 hours, AFAIK.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

2. It's 24 hours, AFAIK.

Whoops. That's what I meant.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

1. That's what I was thinking.

2. It's 24 hours, AFAIK.

For an adult yes, but for a young child, NO. You can notify the police 5 minutes after last seeing your child.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

For an adult yes, but for a young child, NO. You can notify the police 5 minutes after last seeing your child.

How young is "young" in an instance like this? Anything under 18? 10 or younger?

I know that I've heard of people being told to wait because "Junior is 16 and probably just ran away."

[christiangirl]

Hmmm....is there an age limit on that? I've had a lot of adolescent patients (12+) who ran away and their parents called the police only to be told they had to wait 24 hours.

ETA: Yeah, what he said up there.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

How young is "young" in an instance like this? Anything under 18? 10 or younger?

I know that I've heard of people being told to wait because "Junior is 16 and probably just ran away."

Caylee was like 3, no? Yes, teenagers and adults are different but who the hell would wait 24 hours if their 5 yr old wandered off in a park?