I have not been up on the news but this truly says something concerning the judicial system. It could take place and happen anywhere in the world. I was just reading this and it amazes me as to how the verdict came out. The judicial systems within any country do make mistakes but children that are at the hands of abuse and it literally amazes me what came about from this trial.
There is something very wrong with the picture of what took place just recently. Children can't defend themselves especially at the hands of abuse. It amazes me of some of these cases. This was certainly a case where no justice was served. It's truly a pity to see this decision, which recently was made.
What a pity to say the least. The certainly does an in service to the justice system, but of the likes of many as well when I saw the verdict and outcome it's very disappointing it's truly a sad situation to say the least.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/07/05/casey-anthony-verdict-not-guilty-of-murder-one/
http://www.jimhopper.com/abstats/
ReplyDeleteI am still in shock at the verdict.
ReplyDeleteIt happens all around the world and it's something of how this turned out to
ReplyDeletesay the least Sharon.
That little girls body was put in a trash bag and thrown in trees along a road. Casey Antony was spending the night with her boyfriend the night after the little girl was last seen. My guess she was already dead and Casey knew she didn't need to deal with her anymore. Casey Anthony is a callous bitch but unfortunately, that isn't something you can go to jail for.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think this was a serious miscarriage of justice.
ReplyDeleteDitto here Cille...
ReplyDeleteYeah I am looking for some factual material as this was not justice served Sharon.
ReplyDeleteThe jury deliberated for ten hours and she was only found guilty on four counts
ReplyDeleteof providing false information to one law enforcement officer.
* First-degree Murder - Not Guilty
* Aggravated Child Abuse - Not Guilty
* Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child - Not Guilty
* Four counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer - Guilty
I know that one can be innocent and sent to jail but when you take everything into
ReplyDeleteaccount this does not add up.
Guilt has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, yet no one escapes the conscience though it may take some time.
ReplyDeleteI would assume that this shall be contested.
ReplyDeleteNope. Once a person is found innocent they can't be tried for the same crime.
ReplyDeleteI don't have time to check out the link tonight but I just wanted to add that I was very surprised by the verdict. I was expecting a guilty verdict as I am sure the rest of North America thought too.
ReplyDeletePerhaps, that was the way that the media portrayed Casey Anthony as a selfish party animal that killed so she could resume her party lifestyle.
But, as roddy guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and also innocent until proven guilty.
The sad fact is a little girl died because of someone's negligence.
I didnt realize this as I thought it could be appealed - huh.
ReplyDeleteShe will never live a "normal" life. This will haunt her to her grave.
ReplyDeleteYou think? She didn't seem remorseful at all. While her baby lay dead somewhere she was out having a good time.
ReplyDeletePerhaps, she'll never understand the true consequences of her actions.
Double jeopardy is a procedural defense that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same, or similar charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction. At common law a defendant may plead autrefois acquit or autrefois convict (a peremptory plea), meaning the defendant has been acquitted or convicted of the same offense.[1]
ReplyDeleteIf this issue is raised, evidence will be placed before the court, which will normally rule as a preliminary matter whether the plea is substantiated, and if it so finds, the projected trial will be prevented from proceeding. In many countries the guarantee against being "twice put in jeopardy" is a constitutional right; these include Canada, India, Mexico, and the United States. In other countries, the protection is afforded by statute law.[3]
Wikipedia
Well if the media can influence law - the media doesnt belong within the courts - if I may. Yet I do believe
ReplyDeletewithin a resonable doubt but there was some neglegence within this not only by way of the mother but most so
within the manner of which everything was collected. And I do believe in one is innocent till proven guilty.
I believe that exists within most industralized counties. Yet it's sad.
Just watch how her life unfolds. My guess is that she will become an alcoholic and drink herself to death in an attempt to escape her conscience.
ReplyDeleteThis happened when O.J. Simpson was charged with murder. He got off and in a civil court they couldn't charge him with murder.
ReplyDeleteI think anyway.
:)
My ponder with the end of this case is will she be allowed to make a movie or gain monetarily from this Rodney?
ReplyDeleteRead my mind as I was thinking on this Erika...
ReplyDeletelol.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.jimhopper.com/abstats/
ReplyDeleteI likewise was shocked...but for a different reason. I was shocked that the jury actually did their job and found her not guilty. Sadly, that is the exception instead of the rule. The circumstances clearly indicate a high probability that Casey Anthony was guilty, in My opinion, but it isn't the jury's job to speculate. Their job is to issue a verdict based upon what the prosecution introduces...either the evidence proves the crime charged...or it falls short of proving it. While on the surface it may seem unjust to let a seemingly guilty person go free, it is actually the lesser of two evils, because the alternative is to convict and execute citizens based upon varying levels of mere suspicion. I'm glad we live in a country where suspicion is not sufficient (if you have enough legal defense funding) to execute you. I would not want to live in a country where the "talking heads" of the news media are the ones who get to evoke emotional outrage until reason gets thrown out the window and an enraged mob mentality takes over to execute people who we THINK are guilty. The news media can freely tell all the half truths they wish with their repetitive "talking points" and there is no one to control them in exerting this public opinion influence...such is the hazard of a free press. For this reason, the information that gets factored into a verdict must meet some type of standard...hence the rules of evidence. These rules are not merely "technicalities", they are what safeguards ALL citizens from manufactured and falsified evidence being used to convict them unjustly.
ReplyDeleteMy personal opinion was that Casey Anthony was guilty...but even if I believed she was guilty of killing a hundred children...I still would have voted "not guilty" unless the prosecution provided the evidence to support EVERY part of the crime(s). To do otherwise would jeopardize the lives of ALL Americans by lowering the standards needed to execute citizens.
"It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death." ~ Maimonides (Principle derived from Genesis 18:23-32)
My intention was not to write on this but after I had read a friends blog by the name of Astra. I started to think on this.
ReplyDeleteHis blog is here:
http://multiply.com/mail/message/astranavigo08:notes:318?replies_read=21
I appreciate your thoughts as within the legal system this is very true. I thank you.
ReplyDeleteUnless new evidence is found. They cannot be tried for the same crime with the same evidence.
ReplyDeleteVery true...can you imagine where she can ever apply for a job and not be viewed as an undesirable candidate? Certainly day-care center and school teacher jobs would be impossible for her to get. Would a bank hire someone with her record of lying?...or for that matter...any job requiring that the person be trusted handling cash or credit cards or financial records?...which rules out cashier jobs and pretty much anything in accounting. Would a security guard company hire her knowing that any written reports she made could not be relied upon? Would a hospital trust her to administer medications as a nurse? Would an airline trust her to fly a plane...or even trust her word that she had followed the protocols for an engine repair as a mechanic? Can you imagine the liability a company would face if they hired her?
ReplyDeleteShe MIGHT get a job as a waitress...but how much would you tip her? Would you even trust the food she brought you enough to eat it? Would you use a tax preparation service if she had full access to your information as a data entry clerk?
The list of jobs she now CAN'T get...just goes on and on....any job requiring any degree of trust is pretty much off the table. Maybe she will find work as a stripper or hooker in Nevada someplace...but all major professional jobs are going to be nearly impossible for her to get now.
she was given a gift of beautiful, innocent, divine love that she threw away.
ReplyDeleteShe will go do what ever it was she was doing to earn money when she did not have the pretend job at universal studios. I am pretty sure the kind of people she was dealing with will not care one iota if she was guilty of murder.
ReplyDeleteSo Casey Anthony is found not guilty of murder, this is a two year old child who should have been loved and looked after, was it an accident or murder, I do not think we will ever know as all the family seem to be dysfunctional.
ReplyDeleteAnd as for that person called Cronk I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.
I've only caught bits of the trial on Fox News as I am in the UK, but it stink's, somebody is guilty of disposing of a body and the person who did this must know if it was murder or a tragic accident.
Casey Anthony will have to move as I think there will be a lot of people who will think she is guilty and try to get revenge on her.
Sorry to come here as a stranger but this has me wound up.
It's early here and if there is one thing that is alarming is when one young child is dead, how people shall celebrate by way of a party now that does indicate something as far as the character of family members and friends as well as the defendants.
ReplyDeleteI did not place much into it until I started to see the entire story unwind. This is part and parcel of why I am not big on the news. But this did bring up an interested as I looked more and more into the case. I don't know what her future is but I think she was enabled and thats a hard one to just factor out.
ReplyDeleteAmen. This is a response that I surely would support 100%
ReplyDeleteWhen I heard the verdict, I didn't want to discuss it because I thought ...well, I don't know what I thought, but I know it wasn't right, and the justice system scares me, more than the threat of violence from other countries. They don't have to get rid of us, we are doing it, and the courts are finding unique judgement systems that cater to just plain evil.....no sugar coating needed.
If I killed my son, I might not be so lucky, but then I might get the chair...so all this in between B.S. lawyer babble...just watch, it will be a part of how this country sinks ...just like the Titanic (which they said would not sink)
....I'm just saying....
As I understand it, the "Universal" job was not entirely fiction...she was working for Kodak at Universal...not directly employed by Universal, which would explain the absence of her name on their employee payroll. This employment, however, ended around August of 2005, and no one seems to know how she made money after that. Many people speculated that "boyfriends" bought her things, and she reportedly misused credit cards belonging to her mother and a friend?? But, it is possible that she was working in some capacity as a sex worker...perhaps a webcam stripper.
ReplyDeleteHere is one thread discussing her employment history:
http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3581916879/m/2081972689
IF that is correct, then you are probably correct that her clients would be more concerned with how she looks and performs than the number of kids she kills in her off duty hours.
As for proving she was employed as a sex worker in some way...sounds pretty unlikely...clients of prostitutes are not generally keen about having their name splashed on world-wide news....and she isn't going to confess.
Just arrived home and it so be it I would suppose that this is the news that we really don't care to hear about yet last night it caught my attention as this happens more often than one knows.
ReplyDeleteThis is very sad.
ReplyDeleteI know many lawyers feel the same
Beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean everything will be there . It means within reason.
Like a video tape of every crime
What reasonable doubt was here?
Something just doesn't make sense here. She repeatedly lied about critical things in the investigation to help find her daughter. She didn't report it for a month. Who does that? Plus the chloroform search. She partied the days away after throwing the body of her dead daughter away like some garbage.
And yet she is not guilty....hmmmm
it makes me ashamed to even think how far down hill the American justice system has fallen!! And people chosen for jury don't even know the meaning of reasonable.
ReplyDeleteIt happens here as well Haddy. It does say much for the justice system and maybe this has spread across the internet in a manner that the justice systems tend to look at all the evidence. Pity it is...what was amazing from what I read was in how there were celebrations ongoing right after while there was the death of a Child. That part really gets me as if there was so much remorse why would there be a celebration. I would guesstimate she is a pathological liar.
What it says about the judicial system is that it works. A person is supposed to be presumed innocent until the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the described crime was accomplished by the person charged. The prosecution failed to prove how the child died, much less who might have killed her. It is insufficient to depend upon emotions evoked. The death of any child is tragic. What will be even a greater tragedy is the money that will be paid to her mother simply for selling her story to the highest bidder. What does it say about a society that hangs on every pundit's word, awaits every 'real TV' show and purchases magazines that pry into celebrity's life -- after creating their celebrity-hood? Is death for sale?
ReplyDeleteI refused to watch it as it was being televised because it was nothing but entertainment for the masses. This is a tragedy no matter how it is analyzed. What does this say about how low the human being can stoop, not only to do such a tragic thing but to use someone else's misery for entertainment? I heard that there were people fighting for a seat in the courtroom audience. Sad.
ReplyDeleteJust point Grammy...
ReplyDeleteRod I thought I would write and move on with this but tonight was not the time as it's sad. Most often I prefer the good news. Yet tomorrow is another day. As even today when I came back to it I found it a sad situation.
ReplyDeleteIt's not within the same repore of the good things of which there are many.
Yes, I agree. However, before we smile too happily about the fact that it worked in this instance, I think it is helpful to counterbalance that by recalling that Casey Anthony was not the typical defendant insofar as her legal team was concerned. Most defendants get nothing even remotely resembling this level of legal help. The Public Pretender's...ooops...Public Defender's office has only a fraction of the resources of the State Attorney office. A public defender has to beg the court for funding for even a single private investigator, whereas the State Attorney's office has the full and unquestioning support of every law enforcement agency for free. In reality, it is far from an equal adversarial process and with a few notable exceptions like this case or the OJ case where vast amount of funding is funneled into the defense...it usually resembles a mouse having a head-on collision with a speeding freight train...the mouse always always always fares poorly in the ordeal.
ReplyDeleteIn most jurisdictions, the trial conviction rate hovers in the high 90th percentile...think about that...a government agency...several government agencies...working together...and consistently achieving 90+ percent correct results...amazing, isn't it? Well, it would be if you believed the game isn't usually rigged to favor the state and that an actual acquittal is about as rare as seeing flying pigs....maybe more so.
Oh...one other quick note...regarding "Innocent until proven guilty"...Have you ever noticed that saying "Innocent UNTIL proven guilty" assumes that the person WILL eventually be proven guilty? A better phrase would be..."Innocent UNLESS proven guilty"
I still don't see what was the jury's reasonable doubt?
ReplyDeleteReason doubt does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented to someone or thing else(people misunderstand that)
Most crimes aren't video tape, I still like to hear what was their REASONABLE doubt
Was she honest? No (might see doubt there if she was--but she lied almost constantly to many)
"Numerous stories" Casey Anthony told her parents and others after Caylee was last seen on June 16, 2008, and the lies she told police after the girl's grandmother reported her missing 31 days later.
Why didn't she report her missing?
During those 31 days, Casey Anthony's friends and acquaintances testified she was shopping, hitting nightclubs and staying with her boyfriend, but did not tell them Caylee was missing. Not a one. If they asked her daughter's whereabouts, they said, she often said Caylee was with her nanny, Zenaida Gonzalez (who they never found)
Why the lies before even being in court?
Why wasn't she aware her daughter was missing so long--others voiced their concern before and she ignored?
Did she have motive? (facts show yes) so they couldn't say there was no motive for her too
Was there any other suspects? (Even OJ had other suspects)
Defense offered no evidence supporting their theory that Caylee drowned. Theory. None (he offer no reasonable doubt here back up by evidence (fact)-and that is the defenses job)
Nor did they offer proof of the molestation allegations (which suddenly came out --and she left her daughter there if true?), which the attorneys said explained why Casey continued to party and hang out with friends after her daughter disappeared in summer 2008. ( again as above this is not evidence-nothing to support that)
Certainly there was plenty of reasonable evidence shown of strange behavior
And many other little things
I hope we hear what their reasonable evidence was that it might not be her but someone or something else
Because I don't see it.
It doesn't matter, judgement has been made. And that is our law at times. Sad indeed.
The nature of our jury system does not require them to disclose why they reached the verdict that they did. But even without them saying so, the reasonable doubt is rather obvious. In order to render a guilty verdict, the prosecutor would have needed to supply evidence for all of the following:
ReplyDeleteWHO - Who committed the crime?
WHAT - What crime was committed? Specifically what degree of murder and the evidence supporting the elements of that degree of murder. (Each category of homicide has different elements)
WHEN - When was the crime committed?
WHERE - Where did the crime take place?
HOW - How was the crime committed? What was the method of killing?
The WHY would not be required.
The Prosecution failed to supply several of these necessary pieces of information:
WHO - Prosecution said it was Casey...so no issue here.
WHAT - On this the prosecution was a little vague...either it was premeditated 1st degree murder...or it was 1st degree felony murder (death happening during commission of felony of aggravated child neglect) This one is also no issue because either is sufficient.
WHEN - Here the prosecution failed to meet their burden of proof. They could not identify when the crime supposedly happened. They have a general idea...but can't pin down an accurate time of death. Consequently, they are left with uncertainty regarding where Casey was at the time of death.
WHERE - Here the prosecution also failed to produce evidence of where the crime occurred. It MIGHT have been in the pool (according to Defense) or the car trunk...or somewhere else...but the prosecutors can't say.
HOW - Here also the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof. Cayle died from inability to breathe...but they can not say if it was the result of chloroform, suffocation by drowning, natural causes...or what.
If ANY one part of the evidence is missing, the jury is required to acquit. Note that this is not a finding of "innocent" but merely a finding that the verdict of guilty was not supported by sufficient evidence.
Thank you Amazingpossibltes
ReplyDelete"WHEN - Here the prosecution failed to meet their burden of proof. They could not identify when the crime supposedly happened. They have a general idea...but can't pin down an accurate time of death. Consequently, they are left with uncertainty regarding where Casey was at the time of death.
WHERE - Here the prosecution also failed to produce evidence of where the crime occurred. It MIGHT have been in the pool (according to Defense) or the car trunk...or somewhere else...but the prosecutors can't say.
HOW - Here also the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof. Cayle died from inability to breathe...but they can not say if it was the result of chloroform, suffocation by drowning, natural causes...or what."
This is true amazingposs.--but not enough considering the body was not found for a long time--to me that crosses that out. And that happens in many cases. Many. So that has to be considered as well.Or should have been. Not every body is found in a short time. "Reasonable doubt"-to me I don't see that in this case"
It's also a shame, that sheriff needed to sit down and shut up.....his office had a head's up about a body two weeks after they knew they might be looking for one and didn't take the caller seriously....I'm bent out of shape about that one......
(By the many many law and enforcement of in my family, they too shake their heads on this)
The preponderance of evidence would lead a "reasonable" person to believe Casey has some culpability in the death of her daughter, even if it was not premeditated homicide. I personally think she at the very least could have been deemed guilty of child abuse, depraved indifference, based upon the 30 days between Caylee's "disappearance" and Casey reporting it. What was with that?
They were so focused on the murder charge they virtually ignored the serious charge they had smoking evidence of... the aggravated child neglect.
The defense defines reasonable doubt as essentially ALL doubt. And that is wrong. But that is his job to convinced people of that.
As far as abuse to me not checking where your child is for so long--when there was alarm by others is neglect.
I can't speak to all of these factors...I think outright stupidity comes into play, as well as the media and the defense casting "reasonable doubt" as being "beyond all doubt", knowing that there would be at least one unlearned stupidity on the jury....
There are lot's of excuses for this....but no reason
But as I said it's a done deal. I'm just disappointed in our justice this time. If everything had to be 100% few would ever be convicted of their crimes. I think they were sold on an idea of what "reasonable doubt" is and nothing else. "Reasonable" doubt I don't see
And thank you again it was something of an answer. The only one I saw really. You did a good job as defending attorney. I think the prosecution attorney could have center more on things-like the neglect. Because that is with-out question in my book. The prosecution assumed the jury would be able to hear all of the circumstantial and hard evidence and return verdicts based upon the sum of everything, he put to much faith in they would "reasonably" come to a verdict unless he made that a point which they didn't.
Interesting case. Thank you for taking the time there in answering. I will keep that in mind as well
It might be easier to understand the verdict...although still be disappointed...by seeing the different standards of proof. Civil cases use the "preponderance of evidence" standard...not criminal cases...and certainly not death penalty criminal cases. Preponderance of the evidence is "good enough" for civil cases because no one's freedom or life is in jeopardy of being taken by the state. For criminal cases the higher standard of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" places a more difficult job on the person prosecuting the case...and that is done intentionally in the effort to prevent false convictions...which is really a protection for everyone.
ReplyDeleteSo, even though the outcome of this case might seem callous insofar as Cayle is concerned...it helps to balance that one life against the endangerment to all citizens lives if that standard is lowered. Or, as Star Trek's character Spock would say..."The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one."
Philosophically, that';s a tad skewed, but it is the basis of how our legal system is built.
Clearly it wasn't an accident. If it was ... then, they could have all reported that at onced. So elementary, so simple.
ReplyDelete... well just a simple thoughts. Life continous and the family will go back to their own homes ... while a young soul is looking down asking, WHY?