Absolutelyofftopic -- Casey Anthony not guilty - Discuss

She admitted to lying about Caylee being missing, she knew Caylee was dead because her defence was that she accidentally drowned and then stashed the body out of fear - therefore reporting her missing would be making a false police report. There was no evidence to convict her of murder, not even of manslaughter - no witnesses, no known cause of death, no forensic evidence. So on what evidence exactly ought she have been convicted of? Lying? She WAS convicted of that. But her version of the events provides an alternative explanation in the absence of ANY evidence to the contrary. That's why this verdict was appropriate. Reasonable doubt means that you can be 95% sure she did it, but without some convincing evidence (witness, forensics, cause of death - ANYTHING!) how could you in good conscience vote to take that woman's life?

I wouldn't have condemned her to death, I don't believe in the death penalty.

There wasn't any evidence to any of her explanations either.  Duct tape across the child's mouth is pretty convincing evidence that it wasn't a drowning.

I do think it was a sloppy prosecution.  There was enough evidence to convict her of the aggravated manslaughter charge.  My instincts direct me to the worst because of the total lack of concern over the death of her child no matter how it occurred.  However, if I had been on the jury, I doubt that I could have convicted her of the first degree murder charge, not because I didn't believe she was guilty, but because the prosecution really screwed up by not presenting a precise case that narrowed in on the elements of aggravated manslaughter.

"There wasn't any evidence to any of her explanations either.  Duct tape across the child's mouth is pretty convincing evidence that it wasn't a drowning."

Here is where you are fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of the legal system. She is not obligated to offer proof of her innocence. The prosecution must offer evidence of her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and they simply did not and could not do that with the evidence available.

Manslaughter requires evidence that the person either committed an act or or failed to commit an act that directly lead to someone's death. The cause of death could not be determined and there were no witnesses to the death, so it is impossible to know whether she committed or failed to commit an act that directly led to Caylee's death. Simple inattention to a child around a pool does not equal manslaughter!

It is within the realm of possible human action that Caylee accidentally drowned and then Casey panicked, got bad advice from her dad, made it look like a murder by applying the duct tape and stashed the body in a bag in the woods. Does it seem like normal or even reasonable behaviour? No, not really, but in light of the UTTER LACK OF EVIDENCE to the prosecution's case other than cir****tancial conjecture, she could not be convicted on the basis that her story sounds unlikely or her behaviour was suspicious! If the prosecution had any hard evidence (witnesses or forensic or a cause of death), then they would have reason to disbelieve Casey's story. But really, all the jury was presented with was two possible stories, one more likely than the other, but no real evidence to support either one. When there is doubt, the benefit goes to the accused, it's that simple.

If you have a legal argument for why the manslaughter charge should have stuck, I'm happy to entertain it. Believe me, I don't think it's a good thing for people to get away with their crimes, but the justice system is about much more than any one case. This case shows that we still believe in our legal principles and value people's liberty and the system works as it should.

She is not obligated to incriminate herself.  But the very concept of a defense is to demonstrate that the accused is not guilty.  You can get into the semantics of innocence and or guilt, but the outcome is still the same, an acquittal.

The evidence pointed to the mother and no one else.  She had custody of the child, the child ended up dead and buried with duct tape around her mouth.  Granted there are a lot of unanswered questions, but if you look at the big picture there was enough evidence to convict on the manslaughter charge.

It may not have been intentional, but I think Casey Anthony is responsible for the death of her daughter based on the evidence presented.

Again, I ask you - what evidence? 

The concept of a defense is not actually always to demonstrate that the accused is not guilty - in fact, in many trials no defence is even offered because the prosecution has not demonstrated a 'prima facie' case, there is not enough evidence to convict and therefore there is nothing in need of defending. All the defence must do is demonstrate that it is reasonable to have doubt about the prosecutions case. They can do that by offering an alternaive explanation or evidence that appears to definitely refute the prosecutions case, but they don't have to. They do not have to prove or demonstrate anything, they only need to make the prosecutions case slightly unlikely, and that's exactly what they did here.

So, if the child died accidentally, but the mother in her grief and confusion and fear made the decision to hide the body or make it look like a crime was committed instead, she ought to be convicted of manslaughter? These two things aren't remotely connected. To prove manslaughter, you must prove she caused the death. The proecutor couldn't prove it and you can't prove it. I'll ask you again - what evidence has convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt that the girl's death COULD NOT have been accidental?

I am a prosecutor, I don't know if I mentioned that earlier. I am giving you my professional opinion here. It would have been a miscarriage of justice for a conviction of manslaughter to have been registered. If the jury had returned a guilty verdict, the judge would have been obligated to ignore the verdict and enter a finding of not guilty instead to avoid bringing the justice system into disrepute. If for some reason that didn't happen, it would have been immediately overturned upon appeal. There is simply no evidence. You keep saying there is - can you please tell me specifically what evidence you think points to an act or omission by Casey directly resulting in Caylee's death? And don't say the duct tape because it has already been determined that it was possible that it was applied after her death.

As much as I so hate what you're saying because I believe this woman has guilt in the death of her daughter, I also know what you're saying is true.  Ouch, that hurt.  But thank goodness we do live in a country that has the justice system we have here in the USA. 

Question.  I understand that Casey cannot be tried again for these same crimes; however, could she later be tried for another offense, related to the death of her daughter, that might stick?  If so, any idea what the Prosecutors could try for?

This is a good question. It would be possible to try her for something else, such as causing an indigity to a dead body for the the way she disposed of her daughters remains, but I think this is highly unlikely to happen. Given that she has already been found not guilty of more serious offences, if they go to trial a second time and she is not convicted the prosecution might open themselves to a claim of malicious prosecution, or at the least the prosecution would have to defend themselves on why they simply didn't bring all the charges at the same time. Also, given that she has already opened the door to sexual abuse allegations in this trial as being the basis for her strange actions after Caylee's death, that would probably form her defence and it may result in a not guilty verdict if she wasn't in her right mind. I think the Prosecution will not consider more charges against her and tread lightly on speaking on this case. I don't think they'll even attempt an appeal. The fact that the lead prosecutor for this case immediately announced his retirement after the verdict speaks volumes.

  But the very concept of a defense is to demonstrate that the accused is not guilty.

No, the burden of proof is on the prosecution....everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. 

How did she die?  When did she die?  Who saw her die? Where did she die?   These questions were not answered by the prosecution...

The rule of law can not and should not be base on emotion.....

The rule of law is based on emotion.  Laws are written in blood, someones sorrow, pain, lose of life and the effect it has on the people left behind.  If no no cared about the aftermath of someones actions that effect someone else in a negative way, laws would not be made against those actions.  So yes, at the root of laws lies emotions.

I understand that the burdon of proof is on the prosecution, this was a sloppy prosecution, but people have been convicted on a lot less evidence than what was presented in this trial.

Usually the only person who witnessed the death is the one who caused it.  I guess it is possible that she was covering up an accidental death that was due to her negligence, but I really don't believe that.

I am not basing my judgement on emotion, but plain old fashioned common sense.

You continue to make assertions with no evidence. I'm done here - please refer to my earlier remarks asking you to explain what you mean by 'evidence', of which there was none in this case.