Casey Anthony Trial

I am generally interested in mystery/murder cases. So, naturally I was drawn to this case. I was very surprised that she was found not guilty, but I see that the prosecution had a weak case. May be she is innocent and the kid drowned accidentally, but I cannot believe anyone would behave like her when a kid dies. But then, she is psycho... so who knows...

 

What was the 'duct tape' over the mouth for, keep the water in? Personally, water boarding this bitch to get her to talk? Meh, I wouldn't raise much of a fuss. Give her a little taste of what Caylee experienced. Might even do it myself if'n I thought I could constrain myself once she started talking.

 

One of the issues was that only the prosecutor was telling the jury that the duct tape was over the mouth and nose. None of the witnesses were able to say more than the duct tape was attached to the hair. Since, as the judge correctly told the jury what the lawyers say is not evidence.

The prosecution couldn't show through witnesses or exhibits (1) Who killed her, (2) How she was killed (3) When she was killed. When you attempt to give someone the death penalty, you really need to be able to present these things to a jury.

 

I think the fictional babysitter Casey lied about, the 'Zanny Nanny,' knows more about the circumstances attending Caylee's death than all the legal experts, CSI personnel and talking heads put together. Even if by chance Casey was completely innocent, without all the information and without any further information I'd still waterboard that sorry excuse of a mother and human being for her callous actions after Caylee's disappearance. My gut says she knows more and is somehow involved. At least before she took her last breath in this lifetime she'd know what little Caylee went through before taking her last gasp of air.

 

I guess TREB doesn't believe in one or two of the foundations of our legal system,, things like innocent until proven guilty,, or trial by jury. "let's just torture them,, then we will get the truth!"

 

The way that chick lies, I'm not sure that even water boarding would get a truthful answer out of her.

 

Water boarding is effective at getting the answer you want, not so good at getting the truth.

 

I'll never be accused of being soft on terrorists or criminals, but suspect the best investigators and interrogators have a better tool.

Set up an environment for the suspect to relax and then monitor what they say.

 

One is presumed innocent, unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. She never lost her legal innocence, since the burden was not met by the state. According to the law, she is innocent of those charges she was not found guilty of.

However, as to whether she did anything illegal or not, unless we were privy to all the evidence, we won't know.

Most of the times cop go with their guts, and that has been shown to be wrong most of the time (having been a law officer, I know how tenacious they can be). There have been two fathers accused of being at fault for their child's disappearance, and were later cleared after much police harassment. One was Dugard's step father (his wife divorced him over her disappearance since the cops wouldn't leave him alone - the daughter is on the cover of People mag this week), and the other was a girl who went missing in Silver Spring MD in the 1970's or 80's, and the cops forced a confession out of the girl's father, and he nearly killed himself over his sense of guilt, and the girl's real killer revealed the location of her body more than 20 years later.

 

Over a decade ago, I was a juror to a civil trial.

I honestly did not know how to rule on damages in the lawsuit.

The prosecutors chatted with us after we made our verdict....the defendant had been in trouble about 40 times.

We would not have let the defendant walk - we would have thrown the book at him had we known this.

 

The foundations of our legal system worked just fine in this case. I.e. She got her trail and jury! :doh: One in which I fully agree with the verdict that the jury handed down. Unfortunately, one dimensional mind's, such as expressed above often have difficulty wrestling with facts and feelings when they overlap in a POV as I expressed. Pity because the usual response from one deminsional minds is a personal attack rather than an amicable exchange.


BTW, even lies are useful to a trained interrogator, something the Media doesn't mention.

 

The danger there is that with that "record" (I read "in trouble", not convicted) the defendant was probably one of "The usual suspects" that got rounded up every time there was a problem.

Sometimes, where there's smoke there's fire, sometimes just a convenient target.

 

^ I understand that danger of being a "usual suspect", but 40 times is so frequent that I definitely was inclined to think he was guilty.

I know - our system prefers to acquitt the guilty than convict the innocent, although both happen all too often.

If my suspicions are correct, I hope the law of averages caught up and the defendant got convicted on something else later.

 

Which is exactly why you weren't (and shouldn't be) told. You should be basing your verdict on evidence about the actual crime.

 

In this small town in Georgia where I live, a few years ago a coach at the local middle school was accused of molestation by three girls. His arrest was front page news. He was arrested in front of his wife/children. His church asked him to not come back until after the trial (He was the youth pastor.). He spent a bunch of money on a bondsman, lawyers, etc. A condition of his bond required him to wear an ankle monitor and restricted where/when he could go places. For two years this guy couldn't go any where without anyone staring at him.

Then one day just before the trial one of the girls got caught up in a couple lies. With some new information in hand about one of the girl's PREVIOUS accusations against someone, the girls were requestioned. Two of the three admitted that it was all made up because the coach who was also a science teacher had given one of the girls a bad grade.

Charges were dropped against the former coach. Of course, now he is divorced. He had moved to a nearby town and he sells real estate. When he comes to Monroe, he still feels that people look at him suspiciously.

My point? Just the accusation of a crime changes a person's life. That is why our judicial system requires such a high burden of proof upon a prosecutor. I fully believe that Casey Anthony did it. However, this case was proof that our system works. Nothing that is done will ever bring Caylee back.

 

There are millions of wonderful mothers in this world and everybody wants to focus on one nut. I don't know anything about this case and don't wish to.

 

On the coach a couple of posts ago, were charges filed against the girls that lied?

His career and marriage were destroyed by a lie - accountability?

 

No they were not. In addition, their names were never revealed in the media. Privacy of juveniles and all that.

 

Several people I have personally know over the years have said basically the same thing. From police officers, military officers who have sat on Courts Martial board, lawyers to judges.

"Don't get involved in the criminal 'justice' system." Once you get caught up in the system, innocent or guilty, it is a crap shoot whether you will end up found innocent at the end or not. Even if you are found innocent, a lot of financial and other damage usually occurs on the way through the system.