Casey Anthony: Not Guilty

[Benjamin]

The biggest case of this young century came to a close with Anthony walking away not guilty on all counts other than lying to the police (which she's essentially already served the time for).

So what do you guys think about this? You're either somebody who thinks that she must have done it and that the jury got it wrong (and the justice system is flawed, etc.) or you're someone who thinks that there just wasn't enough evidence to convict her (which doesn't necessarily mean you don't think she did it).

[HypnoToad]

I do personally think she did it (And even if she didn't, she most likely knows who did)...but the evidence that would've proven without a doubt that she did it just wasn't there.

[Louis]

I don't know a whole lot about the case, but if there isn't enough evidence and not any (helpful) witnesses, the jury isn't left with much of a choice.

[Benjamin]

Personally, I think she did it simply because of the child's mouth having fucking duck tape on it. If she really did drown on accident, the tape makes zero sense. And the car smelling like dead people along with her google searches have convinced me that she definitely did it.

Unfortunately there just wasn't any undeniable evidence to convict her. Besides, it's better to let a murderer get away with it rather than convicting an innocent person with murder (though in this case I believe she was a murderer). Because of that, I'm not too bothered by this.

[Todd]

I think she probably did it. You all think she probably did it. All 12 people on the jury think she probably did it. However, there was no concrete proof that she was guilty, no physical evidence, no witnesses, no smoking gun, nothing. The prosecution had a weak case and could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty. In America's legal system, our gut feelings are not enough (at least they shouldn't be enough, sadly, sometimes they are) to convict somebody, and I am thankful to live in a country where that is the case. I know many people are outraged by the verdict, but it was the right one. The standards of conviction in a court of law are much higher than those in a court of public opinion.

[Benjamin]

I really don't like all of the people saying shit like "Our legal system is officially fucked."

With every murderer that gets away unharmed, there's someone else who was wrongly accused of murder that the system helped save from going to prison for something they didn't do.

[Todd]

I really don't like all of the people saying shit like "Our legal system is officially fucked."

With every murderer that gets away unharmed, there's someone else who was wrongly accused of murder that the system helped save from going to prison for something they didn't do.

The thing is, our legal system can be fucked though. People have been freed 20 years after being convicted for a crime they didn't commit. Hell, people have been executed for crimes they didn't commit (see Cameron Todd Willingham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham)).

It worked this time, but there are plenty of times when it doesn't.

[Benjamin]

The thing is, our legal system can be fucked though. People have been freed 20 years after being convicted for a crime they didn't commit. Hell, people have been executed for crimes they didn't commit (see Cameron Todd Willingham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham)).

It worked this time, but there are plenty of times when it doesn't.

But the main principle of it is good. All your doing is proving that it isn't perfect/flawless which is obviously true.

[Theazninvasion68]

I'm with Todd on this.

And yes, many people do get convicted for a crime they didn't commit.

... And falsely confessed of doing the crime. Strange, I know.

[Dusty]

A lot of signs point to her being guilty. More then anything else though, my heart goes out to the little girl who's life was cut so short.

[travz21]

Don't really care too much. They made the right verdict. This kind of stuff happens all over the world and people get away with it. I am curious as to wtf happened, though.

[Benjamin]

Don't really care too much. They made the right verdict. This kind of stuff happens all over the world and people get away with it. I am curious as to wtf happened, though.
Casey Anthony killed her daughter.

A lot of signs point to her being guilty. More then anything else though, my heart goes out to the little girl who's life was cut so short.
Yeah, I should have definitely said something like this in the OP. Rest in peace Caylee Anthony :(

[CallofReach141]

This is as mysterious as the OJ Simpson fiasco.

[Louis]

Casey Anthony killed her daughter.

Yeah, I should have definitely said something like this in the OP. Rest in peace Caylee Anthony :(

You do not know that she did, and no one else who has been watching this case can say it with absolute certainty. Signs may point to it, but you can't say she did with certainty. I'm not saying that it's not a possibility, but I'm saying that it's unfair to just go ahead and say, "Yeah, she killed her daughter." That's ridiculous to me.

[Benjamin]

You do not know that she did, and no one else who has been watching this case can say it with absolute certainty. Signs may point to it, but you can't say she did with certainty. I'm not saying that it's not a possibility, but I'm saying that it's unfair to just go ahead and say, "Yeah, she killed her daughter." That's ridiculous to me.

But if I was in the jury I would have said not guilty for everything you just said. It's just my personal opinion and I can't say it's a fact even though it came across that way in my last post. I'd say it's the most likely thing that happened though.

[Dusty]

This is as mysterious as the OJ Simpson fiasco.

And now he is in jail. He was bound to end up in jail one way or another.

[MKH]

Bitch did it FA SHO. Unless Pennywise the Clown is running around (I started watching Stephen King's IT again last night :awesome:), the only other person that could have done it was Harry Potter under his Invisibility Cloak (10 days until Deathly Hallows Part 2!).

[DaMU]

I get the human interest side of this, but such big trials always bug me, because the attention is so utterly disproportionate to things of more importance. But that's what happens in the marketplace of human ideas - a lot of shitty stuff gets sold.

[MKH]

#teenmom is trending because everyone wants to see Casey Anthony have another kid and get a reality show on MTV. Season finale: MURDER.

[Harlz]

"This is a court of law, not a court of justice"

I forgot who said that, but it seemed relevant.

[F-ck Casey]

#teenmom is trending because everyone wants to see Casey Anthony have another kid and get a reality show on MTV. Season finale: MURDER.

LMFAO.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

If she killed her daughter, why isn't she in jail then? Eh? She doesn't look that smart, but hey, who knows, maybe she knows exactly how to dispose of a body and murder a child without leaving fingerprints or anything at all to link her to the case. Yeah, that has to be it.

Accept the verdict. Move on. Don't worry, guys, there will be another case exactly like this in a few months. Who knows, maybe Justin Timberlake will rape some kids and we can focus on a celebrity trail instead of a 22 - 25 year old mother (who obviously hadn't worked out some issues she had with giving up her old life).

Shit happens and people make choices that, to the rest of us, look like suspicious behavior. Got a tattoo? You killed your daughter. Went out at night and partied after you drugged her? YOU KILLED HER!

Fingerprints, DNA...something. Then I'll believe it. Until then.... media assassination. They want you to believe one thing, but then 12 very smart, GOOD jurors do their job because the state UTTERLY failed... and it's like the goddamn apocalypse, live on Nancy Grace.

[the enigma]

I feel like a terrible person, because I had no idea this trial was an issue or even happening until the verdict came in and my Facebook blew up. Looking into it, there is no way to prove she did it, and so you can't convict her. Investigators can find new evidence and charge her again if they can. It's not the end of the world.

Hopefully the Facebook Chains will end and I can check my messages without seeing that woman's name again.

[F-ck Casey]

Investigators can find new evidence and charge her again if they can. It's not the end of the world.

No, they can't. It's called double jeopardy. You can't be charged twice for the same crime.

[travz21]

Yeah. She's home free, baby!

[the enigma]

No, they can't. It's called double jeopardy. You can't be charged twice for the same crime.

Nope, they can. The point of "double jeopardy" is to prevent a defendant from being charged for the same crime multiple times without new evidence. If new evidence is found it can be presented to the court. If it is substantial enough, the court will allow the charges and a new trial will begin. It is a Fifth Amendment right in the US that was put in place so people could not be abused or oppressed through being punished multiple times for the same crime, or being harassed over a crime they didn't commit.

So yeah, they can charge her again. Also, it only applies to being charged multiple times in the same sovereign, so it can be taken in front of a Federal court and not be considered double jeopardy.

Again, this is only if an investigator finds irrefutable evidence. The likely hood of which is slim to none.

[DaMU]

I don't know, enigma. I saw this documentary about double jeopardy with Ashley Judd in it, and the message I got from it was that I like Ashley Judd's boobs.

[CallofReach141]

Nope, they can. The point of "double jeopardy" is to prevent a defendant from being charged for the same crime multiple times without new evidence. If new evidence is found it can be presented to the court. If it is substantial enough, the court will allow the charges and a new trial will begin. It is a Fifth Amendment right in the US that was put in place so people could not be abused or oppressed through being punished multiple times for the same crime, or being harassed over a crime they didn't commit.

So yeah, they can charge her again. Also, it only applies to being charged multiple times in the same sovereign, so it can be taken in front of a Federal court and not be considered double jeopardy.

Again, this is only if an investigator finds irrefutable evidence. The likely hood of which is slim to none.

You sure, or does it depend on the State in which the crime is committed? Because I remember once hearing about a guy who raped and murdered a woman, he was acquitted on all charges due to lack of evidence. A while later a videotape capturing the former-defendant in the act surfaced (as irrefutable as the evidence can get) , but the case could not be re-opened due to double-jeopardy, so he went scott-free.

[Todd]

Nope, they can. The point of "double jeopardy" is to prevent a defendant from being charged for the same crime multiple times without new evidence. If new evidence is found it can be presented to the court. If it is substantial enough, the court will allow the charges and a new trial will begin. It is a Fifth Amendment right in the US that was put in place so people could not be abused or oppressed through being punished multiple times for the same crime, or being harassed over a crime they didn't commit.

So yeah, they can charge her again. Also, it only applies to being charged multiple times in the same sovereign, so it can be taken in front of a Federal court and not be considered double jeopardy.

Again, this is only if an investigator finds irrefutable evidence. The likely hood of which is slim to none.

I don't think that's true. Double jeopardy means you can't be retried for the same crime, period.


I don't know, enigma. I saw this documentary about double jeopardy with Ashley Judd in it, and the message I got from it was that I like Ashley Judd's boobs.

1. That wasn't a documentary
2. The entire premise of that movie, that if you are found guilty of killing someone, then it turns out they faked their death, that once you are freed from jail you can kill that person and not be charged with double jeopardy, is bullshit. Double jeopardy prevents you from being tried twice for the same instance of a crime. If it's found that the death was faked, that first instance disappears and then killing him for real is a second instance, thus, you would be tried for it.
3. I like Ashley Judd's boobs too.

[Dusty]

http://cgi.ebay.com/Casey-Anthony-Nude-Pancake-Duct-Tape-Art-ORIGINAL-Lacey-/250850475759?pt=Art_Paintings&hash=item3a67da7eef#ht_2039wt_922

My wife showed me this on eBay yesterday. Can't believe it's over $200 dollars.

Warning: The painting is of Casey Anthony nude with duct tape on her chest and a pancake on her head.

[F-ck Casey]

Nope, they can. The point of "double jeopardy" is to prevent a defendant from being charged for the same crime multiple times without new evidence. If new evidence is found it can be presented to the court. If it is substantial enough, the court will allow the charges and a new trial will begin. It is a Fifth Amendment right in the US that was put in place so people could not be abused or oppressed through being punished multiple times for the same crime, or being harassed over a crime they didn't commit.

So yeah, they can charge her again. Also, it only applies to being charged multiple times in the same sovereign, so it can be taken in front of a Federal court and not be considered double jeopardy.

Again, this is only if an investigator finds irrefutable evidence. The likely hood of which is slim to none.

http://www.spaceg.com/multimedia/collection/fukung.net%20favorites/dog%20is%20a%20lawyer%20-%20your%20argument%20is%20invalid.jpg

[Justin V.]

Nope, they can. The point of "double jeopardy" is to prevent a defendant from being charged for the same crime multiple times without new evidence. If new evidence is found it can be presented to the court. If it is substantial enough, the court will allow the charges and a new trial will begin. It is a Fifth Amendment right in the US that was put in place so people could not be abused or oppressed through being punished multiple times for the same crime, or being harassed over a crime they didn't commit.

So yeah, they can charge her again. Also, it only applies to being charged multiple times in the same sovereign, so it can be taken in front of a Federal court and not be considered double jeopardy.

Again, this is only if an investigator finds irrefutable evidence. The likely hood of which is slim to none.

I agree with Casey.

"This rule is occasionally referred to as a legal technicality because it allows defendants a defense that does not address whether the crime was actually committed. For example, were police to uncover new evidence conclusively proving the guilt of someone previously acquitted, there is little they can do because the defendant may not be tried again—at least not on the same or a substantially similar charge. "

If the case was dismissed or declared a mistrial and new, irrefutable evidance appeared, then yes she could be tried. What you're thinking of is this:

"Double jeopardy attaches only to prosecutions for the same criminal act by the same sovereign, but as separate sovereigns, both the federal and state governments can bring separate prosecutions for the same act.

As an example, a state might try a defendant for murder, after which the Federal government might try the same defendant for a Federal crime (perhaps a civil rights violation or a kidnapping) connected to the same act. For example, the officers of the Los Angeles Police Department who were charged with assaulting Rodney King in 1991 were acquitted by a jury of the Superior Court, but some were later convicted and sentenced in Federal court for violating King's civil rights."

But not for the same crime, that would have been double jeopardy. They could not be charged by the Federal and State for assault, but for different charges resulting from the same act, since assault and civil rights violations are state and federal offenses.

[Benjamin]

If Casey Anthony wanted to, she could come out and say "Yeah, I killed my daughter. The Jury got it wrong" and the court couldn't do shit about it.

[Todd]

If Casey Anthony wanted to, she could come out and say "Yeah, I killed my daughter. The Jury got it wrong" and the court couldn't do shit about it.

Yeah, that's basically what OJ did with his book. The court can't touch him. But the son of a bitch is serving a long sentence for something else now.

There's still the possibility that she could be sued in a civil court (like OJ was), but I'm not sure that in this case anyone actually has standing to sue. Normally, the parents, spouse or children of the deceased are the ones with standing to sue for wrongful death. Obviously Caylee has no spouse or children, so that leaves Casey and the kid's father as the only ones with standing to sue. And we have no idea who the father is, I don't even know if she knows.

[lpboarder]

It seems this subject is on the top of every forum I peruse, why should this place be any different? ;)


Considering that Casey does not seem to be the brightest bulb in the box, perhaps she lives in the only place in the US where forensic experts use the CSI franchise as a training tool. She got lucky in my opinion but at the same time, the jury was not given enough evidence to convict so I do not agree with all the armchair lawyers across the Interwebz who are upset over the verdict. Take the emotion out and let logic flow in.

[the enigma]

Everything I've ever read states that the Double Jeopardy stuff only works if no new evidence is brought up to reopen the investigation and a subsequent trial. If this is not the case, then we need to amend the constitution, because that's bullshit.

[Todd]

Everything I've ever read states that the Double Jeopardy stuff only works if no new evidence is brought up to reopen the investigation and a subsequent trial. If this is not the case, then we need to amend the constitution, because that's bullshit.


No it's not. Someone who is acquitted shouldn't have to go back to trial every year because prosecution keeps finding what they think is new evidence. It's fine the way it is.

[the enigma]

No it's not. Someone who is acquitted shouldn't have to go back to trial every year because prosecution keeps finding what they think is new evidence. It's fine the way it is.

No it isn't! You're telling me that if you're family was slaughtered, and the police had irrefutable evidence that someone did it, you'd be okay with just letting them go? I'm not saying that you find a new strand of hair, charge again. I'm saying if the evidence is substantial enough, then yes, charge the person again. To do anything else is stupid.

[travz21]

The point is that where do you draw the line of "irrefutable proof"? Some might call it a strand of hair, some a blatant video, some a new witness. Some of this irrefutable proof might not even be irrefutable, and the person being charged with the crime could keep having to come back to court again and again and again for the rest of their life even if they're innocent.

A lot of the laws in the US are there to protect people who are innocent. Just because a few bad ones get away, we can't just change the law. It would put our freedom in danger.

[Todd]

No it isn't! You're telling me that if you're family was slaughtered, and the police had irrefutable evidence that someone did it, you'd be okay with just letting them go? I'm not saying that you find a new strand of hair, charge again. I'm saying if the evidence is substantial enough, then yes, charge the person again. To do anything else is stupid.

Yes I would be ok with letting them go because you can't define irrefutable proof. It's a vague definition, and every piece of evidence is subject to being contested. We shouldn't be dragging people into court every year because new evidence was found. And double jeopardy laws should motivate prosecutors to get it tight the first time, otherwise they'll keep doing a half assed job hoping they eventually get it right. There are no do overs. It would be a waste of time and a waste of money.

[Benjamin]

A lot of the laws in the US are there to protect people who are innocent. Just because a few bad ones get away, we can't just change the law. It would put our freedom in danger.

Exactly. Thank you.

[F-ck Casey]

Everything I've ever read states that the Double Jeopardy stuff only works if no new evidence is brought up to reopen the investigation and a subsequent trial. If this is not the case, then we need to amend the constitution, because that's bullshit.

I would love to see these books, if they even are books. You probably just googled that shit and came to a flawed conclusion.

Good job, Todd and trav.