casey anthony got away with it

[Sexy_Dave]

Gad no offense was taken and you are exceedingly intelligent to recognize that we AL take or life experiences into our judgements.

Having said that and back to the matter.

Under our system of law, Casey Anthony has NOTHING to explain.

The prosecution did not connect the dots between the indeterminate "evidence" they presented.

While the fact remains that with a "dry bones" body it was impossible to determine a cause of death, it is not fair to allege that the absence of such a proven cause of death that the implied cause of death was murder by the mother. There was simply no "circumstantial" or otherwise evidence of a murder.

If she was insane and said she couldn't have murdered her daughter because she was on the Space Shuttle to Mars, it only goes to her being a liar and/or a crazy person. Her lie does NOT make her guilty of murder, bank robbery, or anything except lying.

Then why did they try to explain? This was my point. Why offer a defense at all? The fact that Baez went to the effort of offering up this lame ass explanation lends credence to the prosecutions case. He may as well have said she was on Mars for all the credibility the one he offered has.

And I agree that, as I noted in my ETA above, the prosecution failed to connect the dots. Had they instead showed child neglect which then led to Caylee's indertiminate death she may have been found guilty of manslaughter at least.

All that being said, Baez did his job and got a successful outcome.

 

[GG2]

Then why did they try to explain? This was my point. Why offer a defense at all? The fact that Baez went to the effort of offering up this lame ass explanation lends credence to the prosecutions case. He may as well have said she was on Mars for all the credibility the one he offered has.

Baez's defense strategy has little to do with the legal process. Theoretically, if he did go with the Mars defense, the outcome would have been the same. In both cases, it's still up to the prosecution to prove their case that Casey murdered her child and try to convict her of 1st degree murder. Clearly in retrospect they "overcharged" the case by trying to get a 1st degree murder conviction. They should have known better given the available evidence.

 

[Malibook]

Reasonable doubt is a highly subjective term.
There are numerous potential juries that would have convicted her in this case just as there are lawyers and judges that are stunned by this verdict, including the original judge in this case.

For me, the treatment of the body is very telling and shows way more than simple panic.
What if the body was put through a wood chopper thus making a cause of death indeterminate?
And the bits and pieces were found dumped in a swamp.
Then just make up some ludicrous story and walk?

 

[gww]

They could not prove to this jury she did it and therefore she is 'not guilty'. The prosecution went to trial with the evidence they has and their theory of what happened. If they put on a better case to connect the dots for the jury the outcome may be different. Those that believe she did it or was involved, will just have to accept it.

 

[Malibook]

But let me put the issue to you this way: Suppose that "out of the blue" you are asked to appear on an identification line-up and some fool picks you and, as a result, you are charged with some heinous criminal offence. You plead not guilty and the Court acquits you... are you "innocent" or "not guilty"?

Perry

In this case, you are innocent and hopefully found not guilty.

One is presumed innocent until found guilty.
Not guilty does not necessarily equate innocent.
One who commits a crime and gets acquitted is not innocent.

 

[S.C. Joe]

Her father could have been the one who killed her baby on 2 reasons, IMO

1st, Casey claims to have been sexually abused in the past by her brother and father, IF true, the father might have wanted his daughter locked up--even killed, so he never had to worry about the truth coming out.

2nd, the father might have been sexually abusing this 2 year old girl and killed her by accident.

Father was a cop, cops if anybody are the type that can cover up a crime or twist the facts around.

I'm happy she walks, just like when O.J. got off. Was right, when in doubt the jury should find them not guilty. I hope also she goes on TV and shoots her mouth off how she didn't kill her baby and I hope she makes good $$$ for all the BS she has went through. That is what O.J. should have did.

I do think the family knows more than they are saying but we don't just lock the whole family up over here. About time the TV news got put in its place, was so wrong how the TV news had her guilty.

 

[S.C. Joe]

BTW, who was the father off this baby who was killed ? Could he had been the guilty one--for no child support to pay and/or to hurt the mother?

 

[S.C. Joe]

I'm pretty sure it was disclosed by Casey that the father was dead.

oh, I also heard that the babies DNA was tested to make sure the brother wasn't the father.

This is what the TV news should be talking about. Who can trust what Casey says? I don't.

 

[richaceg]

Would any of you bang her?

I'd like to splooge on her face and slap her with my cawk.

 

[gww]

In O.J. got off. Was right, when in doubt the jury should find them not guilty. I hope also she goes on TV and shoots her mouth off how she didn't kill her baby and I hope she makes good $$$ for all the BS she has went through. That is what O.J. should have did.

because of the civil suit almost every dime OJ gets goes to the Goldman family (33Mil) so not much point in making money they get to spend. Casey may get lucky and no civil suit and gets to spend whatever she makes from all of this.

 

[Aardvark154]

It has been reliably reported that both her Father and Brother were ruled out by paternity tests as the father of the child.

 

[Malibook]

Toobin: Judge made statement with Anthony sentencing

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin calls the four-year sentence Judge Belvin Perry slapped on Casey Anthony a surprise but says the judge likely was making a statement in giving her the maximum jail time.

Perry on Thursday sentenced Anthony to one year behind bars on each of four counts of lying to police concerning the death of her daughter, Caylee. She also was fined $1,000 for each count.

“Most people convicted of misdemeanors do not get prison time in Florida or anywhere else," Toobin says.

Despite the sentence, Anthony won't spend much more time incarcerated. She got credit for the time spent in custody since her arrest, almost 1,000 days.

Before the court gave Anthony's official release date, Toobin speculated that she could be free in less than two months once credit for good behavior also was considered. But it appears Anthony got a bigger break – she'll be out in a less than a week. A court spokeswoman said her release date would be Wednesday.

Anthony has served about three years already. And it seems, Toobin said, the judge was intent on making sure some kind of punishment had been handed down in the case.

"This judge was clearly appalled at the nature and content of the lies Casey Anthony told to the police," he says. "We are all reminded about just how sinister and awful these comments were."

Authorities said Anthony lied about whether her daughter was missing. Her other lies included claims that Caylee was in a nanny's custody, that she had a job at Universal Studios and that she had received a phone call from Caylee.

Toobin said that while Anthony's criminal law troubles may be over, she could be involved in civil litigation much longer.

Zenaida Gonzalez has filed a defamation lawsuit against Anthony. Authorities questioned Gonzalez in Caylee's disappearance after Anthony said a nanny by that woman's name had kidnapped the child. Gonzalez denied ever meeting Anthony.

Florida officials also are asking that Anthony repay the state for the enormous cost of investigating the case. A private firm that helped in the child's search wants its money back, too.

Lawsuits could linger for years, Toobin says, but he doubts they'll have much effect.

"I will be surprised if Casey Anthony ever ends up paying anyone," he says.


http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/07/toobin-judge-made-statement-with-anthony-sentencing/?hpt=hp_t1

 

[simon482]

i started a casey anthony fan page on facebook. i got all the house wives worked the fucked up. shit is funny and been keeping me entertained for days and days.

 

[GPIDEAL]

because of the civil suit almost every dime OJ gets goes to the Goldman family (33Mil) so not much point in making money they get to spend. Casey may get lucky and no civil suit and gets to spend whatever she makes from all of this.

Someone told me that OJ probably had at least a 20 million dollar insurance policy, but don't know if he would be covered for such a lawsuit against him.

Wouldn't OJ have declared bankruptcy? Wouldn't that have negated that lawsuit claim?

Seems like OJ was impecunious at the time of his last arrest cuz he acted like a desparate man fighting over the rights of anything valuable (including souvenirs) to him. So maybe he was doing such deals on the side cuz he had no money to continue the lifestyle he was accustomed to.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Perhaps in Canada Gpideal, but I've never heard that "moral certainty" thing in Court.

"Reasonable Doubt" can be hard to get one's head around, but it is exactly that a reasonable doubt, it does not mean beyond the remotest centilla of a doubt.

As one well known definition runs: "It is not a mere possible doubt; because every thing relating to human affairs and depending on moral evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case, which. . . . . leaves the minds of jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge."

Aardvark, you forced me to check, but I think you're right in both countries. "To a moral certainty" or "proof to a moral certainty" seems outdated and technically incorrect, even though it may not result in a miscarriage of justice.

I quote an excerpt of a Cdn Supreme Court Decision (Lifchus) on this particular definition. This Cdn case was appealed because the judge erroneously explained the definition of RD which may have caused a wrongful conviction (he didn't say 'to a moral certainty' but instructed the jury that reasonable doubt consists of those two ordinary meanings, which it actually doesn't, since it has a special legal meaning for the highest standard of evidence or burden of proof):

25 Nor is it helpful to describe proof beyond a reasonable doubt simply as proof to a “moral certainty”. I agree with Wood J.A. in Brydon, supra, and with Proulx J.A. in R. v. Girard (1996), 109 C.C.C. (3d) 545 (Que. C.A.), at p. 554, that this expression, although at one time perhaps clear to jurors, is today neither descriptive nor helpful. Moreover, as the United States Supreme Court recognized in Victor, supra, at pp. 596‑97, there is great strength and persuasion in the position put forward that “moral certainty” may not be equated by jurors with “evidentiary certainty”. Thus, if the standard of proof is explained as equivalent to “moral certainty”, without more, jurors may think that they are entitled to convict if they feel “certain”, even though the Crown has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, different jurors may have different ideas about the level of proof required before they are “morally certain” of the accused’s guilt. Like the United States Supreme Court, I think that this expression, although not necessarily fatal to a charge on reasonable doubt, should be avoided.


I considered it always as 'beyond a reasonable doubt to a moral certainty' as a combined or clarification of the doubt element, not just 'proof to a moral certainty'.

In other words, you better be seriously honest that the accused is guilty.

Funny enough, I've not only heard this and read this moral certainty part, but I've even seen it quoted in news flashes (one interesting example is the Dallas Sheriff announcing that the accused Lee Harvey Oswald "is the killer of the President beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty").

 

[Aardvark154]

There is good reason to avoid the term because myself, I consider moral certainty to be a higher not a lower standard than Reasonable Doubt.

 

[Aardvark154]

At present she has to pay $4,000 in fines and about $680 in court costs and at present has to do so at $20 a month so if it continues at that rate it will be about 30 years.

 

[GPIDEAL]

There is good reason to avoid the term because myself, I consider moral certainty to be a higher not a lower standard than Reasonable Doubt.

Oddly, the Cdn SC judge's example suggests a lower standard for 'moral certainty' then 'evidentiary certainty'.

In any event, I doubt my acquittal as a juror of a couple accused of illegal drug importation/trafficking would've changed lol. We carefully considered the law and the direct evidence and mens rea as opposed to any incriminating circumstances.

 

[wet_suit_one]

Our conviction rate is way lower. Although I believe we may inherited that appeal right from the Brits. The beyond a reasonable doubt standard is applied way more stringently up here. There are counties in the US where the prosecutors have a 90% conviction rate - pretty scary.

Well, my criminal law prof who's one of the best in the country (Alex Pringle, look him up if you want), told us that 85% of the time its not even worth going to trial because on disclosure of the Crown's case, it's clear that the defendant will be convicted. Given that the Crown doesn't lose 50% of cases at trial (I don't know what the rate is, but it's not 50%) and most of those 85% who know they will be found guilty plead out, I'm sure the conviction rate in Canada is pretty damned high too.

But based on what I posted below and relatively recent statistics, I'm talking out of my ass... Then again I assume my prof wasn't lying to us. It could be that in the 85% of cases where the evidence points to guilt, a certain slice of those cases have technical problems that result in the accused going free (e.g. police violations of the accused's rights that lead to exclusion of evidence that results in an acquittal, a stay or a withdrawn charge).

 

[wet_suit_one]

Last time I looked our conviction rates for violent crime hover below 50%. Statscan has these figures and if you actually take the time and look. Meanwhile US conviction rates hover well above 75% in most jurisdictions and are at 90% in a lot of the south.

Re the standard, it is naive and wrong to think that just because the same words (reasonable doubt) are used, that the standard is applied the same and that the content of the standard is the same. Or that the attitude of juries are the same for that matter. Close to 250 years of independent jurisprudence cannot result in the same meaning of those words.

Just to add some actual facts and decent statistics with some authority to this discussion, see here http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010002/article/11293-eng.pdf.

Conviction rates are interesting to look at... I see that many of us, based on 2008/2009 stats are spewing crap out of our mouths for Canada's conviction rates.

I note at the top of page 14 that 59% of all criminal cases result in the accused pleading guilty. From the bottom of page 13, 91% of cases are resolved with going to trial. Of all cases that went to trial, 61% had convictions and 39% were acquittal.

I also note that very charges as a percentage of the total result in actual acquittals. See Table 3 on page 28. Only 3.2% of criminal charges resulted in an acquittal. The vast majority of criminal charges that did not result in a finding of guilt were stayed or withdrawn (for whatever reason). That's 29.3% of all charges that were stayed or withdrawn. I assume that this is because the Crown did not think that the charge would stick or noted other problems with the charge.

Interesting...

For crimes against the person (i.e. violent crimes) I think that the best conviction rate info is in Chart 1 on page 7.

Anyone got any better sources of info?