The very troubling problem with the Casey Anthony verdict is:

[RBInMaine]

That the jury said they could not convict because they didn't have a precise cause, time, and place of death even though the expert definitively said that it was homicide and an approximate time of death was established. Remember that in the real world crimes happen and are not caught on video tape, and people don't SAY just what happened. Think about this. Just think about it. There have been successful murder prosecutions with less evidence. On the cause, time, and place of death points, precise answers CAN'T always be determined given the time lapses, body decomposition, and that there was no confession given. Does this mean that under such circumstances there can no longer be prosecutions of cases of this type? That would be CRAZY. Yes, CRAZY. It is saying that under such circumstances, if the exact time, place, and manner of death can't be established, even though the victim's remains were not discovered for months, then the perpetrator can walk free. You can't prosecute. This is RIDICULOUS. It is a green light to perpetrators: just make sure no one witnesses it, don't confess, and hide the body very well. The Anthony case prosecution was a very compelling circumstantial case, and extensive circumstantial evidence, which is GOOD evidence (remember, even DNA evidence is CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence), is plenty to bring and win a prosecution. This need for people to have simple, easy, open-and-shut evidence like on CSI on tv is getting ridiculous.

Casey Anthony, a confirmed ultra-self-serving and pathological liar, partied while her kid was dead in a bag in a swamp. Is that how a caring parent acts? Making up fake nannies as cover to be able to party? Not reporting that the child is missing for a month, saying she was last seen with a fictious babysitter, and partying all the while? "Innocent" people don't do that. They just don't. On the jail tapes, was she crying over the child? No. Just insisting that she wanted to call her boyfriend. C'mon.

[DesertFlower]

1. i would have had no problem finding her guilty.

[DURHAM D]

2. Juror #2 is a moron.

Unfortunately she was not the only one.

My favorite protest sign: Somewhere a village is missing 12 idiots.

[Odin2005]

5. Most people that would make good jurors are kicked off by the lawyers

Our juries are filled with morons. We need to limit the ability of prosecutors and defense lawyers to reject jurors.

[Citizen Worker]

33. There are already limits in place. In capital murder cases, while it varies somewhat from state to

state, each side is limited to 15 peremptory challenges. That is, a prospective juror can be excused for no reason at all. Strictly a gut call by either the prosecution or defense. Other prospective jurors may be dismissed for cause and that requires a ruling from the bench. The lawyers will argue over whether or not there is cause but the ultimate decision resides with the judge.

[kath]

35. They really don't want anyone on the jury with lots of education and/ore who possesses good critical

thinking skills. Those types are rejected in a flash.

[Odin2005]

3. The Unrec brigade is out!

[Autumn]

4. I thought some one said yesterday that

the jury could not convict because they couldn't be sure if it was a homicide or accidental drowning. That was all I heard and then turned off the TV. I haven't paid any attention to it other than reading a couple things on the DU.

[Warpy]

6. Oh, FFS. So try her for being an "unnatural mother."

The prosecution simply failed to prove the case. They did a great job on her character, but being a loser party girl who didn't want her kid isn't really illegal, not yet.

It's almost a week. It's time to let this go.

[RBInMaine]

10. First, welcome to the tiny minority on this issue. Second, do you have an actual intelligent reply

to the points in the OP? Do you know that MANY cases have been "proven" with less evidence? Make no mistake. This very same case, in another jurisdiction, with another jury, may well have resulted in a conviction. It is RIDICULOUS to essentially say that without PRECISE causes and times under these kinds of time lapse and decomposition circumstances you can't have a successful prosecution. I listened to the evidence and have listened to the explanations of two of the jurors. Very sad. The prosecution's fear materialized: common sense was lost.

[Warpy]

14. The jury disagreed with you

The prosecution failed to establish means, motive and opportunity.

Now move on. I'm sure there will be another case that will fascinate you soon enough.

[DURHAM D]

20. Why are you in this thread telling others what they need to do?

You are not the boss of anyone on DU.

Perhaps you should take your own advice and move on.

[eridani]

38. In another jurisdiction, the prosecutor might not have been a media whore

--who insisted on going for murder one insteead of neglect plus negligent homicide or manslaughter. I doube if there would have been much trouble proving those things.

[Odin2005]

23. It's an issue because it shows that juries are full of idiots who...

...think shows like CSI are documentaries.

[Kaleva]

37. The only person stopping you from letting this go is yourself.

[WolverineDG]

42. Thanks for the intelligent response

too bad folks are still caught up in their MSM-manipulated emotions to realize just what exactly they are advocating.

dg

[ejpoeta]

7. i think as some have suggested in other threads.... this was a death penalty case.

had this been a life in prison case maybe they would have convicted her. had they been given that as a choice. 2nd degree murder. I did not watch the trial, but from what I have heard from others, I have to think the prosecutor didn't do that good a job presenting the case. Even if he had a good case. He didn't connect the dots or something. It's not about her or what a bad parent she is or that she wanted to party. The prosecution has to prove that she did it. Circumstantial evidence convicts people. It should be enough. She was the last person to be seen with the little girl. She never reported her missing for a month. She still doesn't seem concerned with her being gone. I don't know. But it is not the jury's fault. They didn't see the same thing we saw. They were sequestered. And they didn't see the many sides of casey anthony either.

[DURHAM D]

11. It is the jury's fault.

They were lazy and didn't do the work required. Or they were just too stupid to get it.

It was not a "death penalty case". Guilty vs. not guilty was the " decision" (case). Death is the punishment phase. And, most importantly, manslaughter (shorter sentence no death penalty) was an option but amazingly they found her not guilty of that also. In other words, the jury apparently didn't think a crime had even been committed.

It is clear from the juror's comments that they all stopped listening after opening arguments.

[Odin2005]

24. The jurors were a bunck of MORANS.

[WolverineDG]

43. You do know they would have been the jury to decide the punishment, right?

The decision of death penalty v. life in prison ALWAYS goes to the jury. And since the prosecution couldn't establish a necessary element to their death penalty crimes, ie, intent, the jury realized they wouldn't be able to determine which sentence to mete out.

Maybe you're happy with lowering the bar the prosecution has to reach to "just because I don't like that person," but I'm not.

dg

[csziggy]

31. The jury had a number of lesser non-death penalty charges to chose from

Down to manslaughter as a result of child abuse. They apparently did not bother to review the judge's jury instructions to see that it did not have to be a death penalty charge.

One of the defense team attorneys spent an hour of their closing argument time distorting the ways that the jury could come to a decision, including their own take on "reasonable doubt" and on the various charges and penalties At the time, I thought the prosecution should have addressed that directly, reminding the jury that whatever the defense team presented was ONLY from the standpoint of defending their client, and that the jury should rely only on the jury instructions that they got from the judge.

In a trial that lasted six weeks with over 400 pieces of evidence, they jury did not review one piece of evidence and took less than 12 hours to come to a decision. From the juror comments I have seen the also ignored the judge's instructions.

The consolation is that a sociopath or psychopath like Casey Anthony will not be able to keep out of trouble forever. She will be caught and probably convicted the next time she screws up because she will be in the public spotlight for the rest of her life. And I doubt that she and her defense team are going to make the big bucks they plan to. When even porn companies get so much negative feedback for making an offer that they withdraw it, few publishers, producers or media companies will want to associated with them.

[eridani]

39. The jury didn't see the saime thing as the public did? You mean they were partially shielded--

--from trial by media? How horrible.

[ejpoeta]

40. people think the jury should have found her guilty based on what THEY saw or know but the jury

was sequestered, they saw the evidence presented during the trial NOT the 'trial by media' and casey anthony presented a different demeanor when they were in the room than when they were not in the room. Plenty of people in the media and on this site seem to think that based on what we have seen she should be found guilty and while I believe casey anthony is guilty, the jury had to make a decision based on what evidence was given to them by the prosecution and the defense.

[Turbineguy]

8. It's always the same problem.

It's up to the Prosecution to prove guilt and convince the jury. That's the burden our system places on the Prosecutor. That's why OJ Simpson walked. Sure he had good Attorneys. But in the end he was blessed by the lousy job the Prosecution did.

[givemebackmycountry]

9. Well, tough titties.

She walks this week, and there isn't a goddamn thing you or anyone else can do about it.
Maybe she'll be on next years "Dancing with the Stars" because this country is just absurd enough to eat THAT shit up.

It's done man.
Get over it.

[Taverner]

13. Stick a fork in it, it's done

Agree 100%

[RBInMaine]

17. Well, in our system we the people are the "victim" in criminal cases, and I think we all need to be

concerned about what this means for our system of justice and where we are as a society. As parents and a citizens, these victims are us. If they are children, they are all our children. The innocent victim certainly isn't "getting over it" anytime soon. And we should all be concerned about what these high profile cases can mean for all of us going forward. When the VERY guilty OJ got off, defense attorneys all over the country started using the same tactics as Cochran and Bailey, even comparing local cops to the "bad" LAPD. These things have national implications that can affect all of us, if even indirectly. I wish someone with standing could bring a wrongful death suit. It would be interesting to see what a civil jury, with a lower burden of proof to consider, would say in this case.

[WolverineDG]

44. I know! Let's do away with criminal defense attorneys

That'll solve your problem for you!

dg

[frylock]

22. fucking-a..

the amount of hand wringing around here over what should have been a regional event is laughable at best.

[Odin2005]

25. People don't stop being vicious psychopaths just because they were aquitted.

Psychopaths cannot be fixed, they can only be separated from society so they cannot hurt anyone else.

Casey Anthony is incapable of empathy or compassion, she will never change. She will never feel remorse for what she did. She is evil, and society needs to be protected from people like her.

[alcibiades_mystery]

48. Thanks for the diagnosis, Dr. Frist-Lombroso

:eyes:

Rule #1 for Criminal Case Analysis on DU: Every defendant is a "psychopath" or "sociopath." They are animals who cannot be fixed, and should probably be put down. It's the kind thing to do, after all.

We now run our criminal justice system through the principle of the presumption of sociopathology.

I don't doubt that some people who serve on juries need to stop believing that all criminal investigations proceed like CSI: Miami. I think there is an equally laughable bunch who need to stop believing in the pseuodo-science of sociopathology spewed by the Investigation: Discovery channel and 48 Hours Mystery.

I always think of The Shawshank Redemption, a favorite among so-called progressives. They cry at the closing scene every time. Needless to say, had it been a real case, the lead character would be condemned as a cold, unfeeling "sociopath" by many DU commentators, and Red's parole speech would be meaningless, since the "psychopaths can't be fixed."

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. Unrecced cause it's time to move on

And the sick fascination with this case is disturbing.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

16. You've said it much better than I could.

Time to move on, indeed.

[Mimosa]

15. Best source for trial facts

Got this link from my friend Layla:

http://drlillianglass.com/body-language-blog/?s=casey

Lots of facts in real time.

[ohheckyeah]

18. Since it is up to each juror to determine

for themselves what constitutes reasonable doubt it is obvious they felt there was reasonable doubt. I didn't sit in the court room or the jury room so I won't criticize their decision.

It really doesn't matter what other juries determined in other cases. It's simply not relevant.

[TreasonousBastard]

19. Actually, the real problem is that people keep talking aobut it.

[RBInMaine]

21. Maybe because they are concerned about some justice for a child killed and dumped in a swamp.

[aikoaiko]

26. Some juries are conservative and some are more willing to make connnections.

These things happen.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

27. On the other hand, the Innocence Project is constantly battling to release convicted innocents

Conviction of innocents is what happens when a jury, instead of being logical and using the law, begins using hunches and feelings they have about the accused.

Oftentimes, people end up receiving capital punishment and by the time they're executed, it's too late when it's later found out that they were innocent.

[stevenleser]

32. I agree. I am happy with this verdict. If you cannot establish motive and other facts

then an aquittal is a good outcome.

[Kaleva]

36. Some commit murder with no logical motive

[stevenleser]

51. That is why I added "And other facts" nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

50. My hunch is that she's guilty, but my hunch is useless in any court of law in the world nt

[Mosby]

28. have you heard of the CSI effect?

[KT2000]

34. Do you mean people

expect the proof that they find in tv shows? If so, that is what I think happened here. They wanted the DNA on everything, a video of her activities and a full autopsy.

Frankly - this verdict scares me. Any murder not discovered immediately could get the killer off free and clear if this is how more juries think.

[flvegan]

29. That's actually the very good part of the Anthony verdict.

If you'd like to be convicted on circumstantial evidence to die, for something a jury cannot come to a decision on, then okay. Bet that's not the case.

Don't let your emotions play into it.

[Dept of Beer]

30. No offense but...

The very troubling problem with the Casey Anthony verdict is that there are plenty of brown children that either go missing or are murdered that the whitish press won't cover.

If she's not blond and blue eyed then it's not a story.


That's the tragedy.

[WolverineDG]

41. Cause of death & motive help establish "Intent"

which is a necessary element to the charge of murder. One of the jurors who spoke out said just that--they couldn't establish the crime, so the jury couldn't decide punishment.


dg

[Broderick]

45. Thanks

I recommended this.

[TheKentuckian]

46. Seems like the system functioned properly to me and there wasn't a conviction where the state

presents no actual evidence of an individual's guilt but rather gets by on the emotion of the act its self with a bunch of circumstantial evidence.

Yup, others have been convicted with less but I'm not certain they should be and that is exactly how the innocent end up on death row and wrongfully convicted at all levels.

I think states have it too easy between the giant resource advantage and most people's reverence for authority that is so out of whack for many that there is little difference between accusation and guilt.

That and the evidence collecting arm not only isn't neutral but actually works for the state as well. For the poor, matters are worse because their lawyer also works for the state, the state continues to have unlimited resources while the defense may have something like $25-200 and an overburdened case load.

I am also glad that the Nancy Grace emotional drama addicts were denied gratification, maybe some will quit playing juror 13 and cheering prosecutions like they are the Rebel Alliance dealing with the Imperial defense.

[lunatica]

47. I remember Condi rice using a similar excuse of why she ignored the warnings

Something to the effect of if she had seen a date and a time and intent to use airplanes to crash into the Twin Towers she would have certainly paid attention. Otherwise 'who could have ever known or guessed they would use airplanes on buildings"

It got her and her boss/lover off too.

[KharmaTrain]

49. It's Called Reasonable Doubt...

The jury's job is to decide the case on facts, not emotions. Supposedly our system is still based on the concept of innocent until proven guilty (except if you're a flaired nostrils cable anal-ist) and if there's any doubt then you cannot convict. It's a system that isn't perfect but is better than anything man has divised. The fact the jurors returned the verdict so quickly points to how inconclusive the evidence was. It's not the jury's job to connect dots or "like" a defendant...it's to listen to the evidence and make their rulings based solely on what is presented. Sadly this is another example of the lack of understanding of how our system works and is unique.

[stevenleser]

52. I so agree. If the jury feels like they are reaching in ANY way to convict, I say, acquit the person

it should have been obvious to EVERYONE that this was a clear situation where there was not enough evidence to convict.