THEY LET THE b***h GO!

Post Reply New Topic

If it can not be proven in a court of law that...

1. A person has died.
2. The person died at a particular place.
3. The person died at a particular time.
4. The person died due to a specific cause.
5. It can be demonstrated that a specific person (and no other) had the means, the motive, and the opportunity to cause the death of the victim.
5. The accused was present when the victim died, or had access to the victim at the time of death.
6. The accused possessed the means to cause the death
7. The accused had a demonstrable reason (not inferred or implied) to cause the death of the victim.

... then a reasonable doubt has been introduced, and the prosecution must rely instead upon assumption, innuendo, and convoluted chains of reasoning to obtain a conviction. Unfortunately, too may people are convicted on nothing more than assumption, innuendo, convoluted reasoning, and a large degree of prejudiced media influence and public opinion against the accused for his or her race, culture, gender, interests, education, poverty, religion, or just because he or she "looks" guilty.

Has anyone else ever noticed that once a defendant's guilt has been determined in the popular media, everything he or she says or does (or does not say or do), is focused on as de facto "evidence" of the accused person's guilt, not matter what those behaviors may be?

Tattoos, religious icons, silence or lack thereof, clothing, facial expression or lack thereof ... all are cited as proof that the accused committed the crime, when only sworn testimony and valid material evidence are really relevant to the case.

This Casey / Caylee case would turn into an Inquisition or a Witch Trial if the popular media were allowed to try the case.

Fortunately, we have Rule by Law, and not Rule by Mob.

What facts?

Convictions beyond reasonable doubt are done all the time without the above. They are not required.

Are you familiar with Jeffrey Dahmer? The police found a bunch of human heads/body parts in his fridge. He was easily found guilty. The justice system didn't show all of those above points for the victims, but he was easily convicted from all the human heads in the fridge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer

Remember, reasonable doubt doesn't mean 100% proven nor lack of any doubts, but rather no doubt which can be considered "reasonable".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt

Not to sound controversial, I hate doing that, but do you have any sources for the points you listed above. My sources are from the actual Florida's dot gov website of laws, found below, which if you care about the law is how they're told to do it.


To convict, all the prosecutor must do is show there is no reasonable doubt for the following elements of the legal statute -->

For murder:
http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2010/782.04#

For manslaughter:
http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2010/782.07

Sometimes people lie when their kid dies because they think they will get blamed for it. I am not saying Casey Anthony didn't kill her kid, I am saying that when a child dies, the parents panic thinking they will get blamed for it so they hide their body and then lie to the police by making up a story. Heck even parents who have lost a baby to SIDS have hid the body thinking they were going to get blamed for it. Hearing in the media about innocent people getting charged for murder when they didn't even kill their baby or because they took too long taking their kid to a doctor or because the baby died due to not getting enough milk, they panic thinking they will go to jail. So they make up a story.

The law says that murder is 'The unlawful killing of a human being: When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being'.

When I covered the reading of statute at law school, I was taught that you have to break this down and apply the rules of statutory interpretation to each individual word to get to the precise meaning of the law. Every element of the law then has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the case of murder the relevant elements are:

1. Unlawful killing - the prosecution have to prove beyone reasonable doubt that the killing was unlawful. How can the prosecution prove this if they do not know how the victim died? It can be that the evidence they do have is so overwhealming that it would be unreasonable to doubt it. I don't know enough about this particular case to know what evidence about how she actually died was presented. I do know that the defence has gave an explanation of the death which would be considered reasonable and as far as I'm aware the prosecution couldn't prove that it was false. Bear in mind that the defence do not have to prove that their version is correct: the prosecution have to prove that it is wrong.

They also have to prove that the accused is the one who did the killing. In child death cases the primary way that prosecutors do this is to show that the child was in their care at the time of their death. It well recognised in child protection circles that this is easier to prove the more precis the time of death. It is virtually impossible to prove if the time is vague because you then can't prove who was the carer at the time. It's why social workers supervise abusive parents or take the children into care rather than having them prosecuted. They may know the crime is being committed but they cannot meet the criminal burden of proof so instead rely on the lesser civil burden of proof.

2. That it was premeditated. This is a difficult one. The prosecution have to prove that the crime was planned in advance. Again it is hard for the prosecution to prove this if they do not know how the victim died and also when the victim died.

3. Effect the death. This is the mens rea of the crime and is essential. They have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill the victim. If they cannot prove this, the accused cannot be convicted of murder.

You may be interested to know that this news has now made it across the pond. It was reported on the national news here last night. Not from the perspective of the tragedy of a child's death, which sadly isn't news worthy, but from utter disbelief at the public reaction to the verdict.

The jury foreman has already confessed he thinks she is guilty and regrets letting her go.

Kind of reminds me of how the judge in the Clay Shaw trial later claimed he thought Shaw was lying on the stand about denying knowing Oswald and David Ferrie - let alone being in a conspiracy with them to kill the president - and that he would have voted guilty had he been on the jury.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

How much of that do you think is down to the abuse and death threats they have been getting since the trial?

Only a tiny fraction are death threats and the lunatic fringe isn't enough to cause a jury to falter.
Abuse? Do you call constructive criticism abuse? People are criticizing a verdict they think is wrong, just like people criticize juries they think send innocent people to prison. Is it wrong for people to voice their opinion, or should we clamp down on freedom of speech?

I feel like the aflack duck here!
(Runs around hysterically) budget! budget! buuuuugeeet!
(Casey Anthony's door gets slamed in my face)

From what I read, the foreman thinks Casey's father is the real bad guy.

If Caylee's body had been found in Casey's deep-freeze or buried under the Anthony house, then either one would have likely resulted in a conviction. As it was, her remains were not even found on the Anthony's property.

I would not have drawn a conviction either, even though I know only as much about the case as any other media consumer. I'm too sceptical to be convinced by emotional appeals and convoluted rhetoric.

But he was not indicted because the Grand Jury did not have the grounds to indict him. No case.

ruveyn

"Thinks" = "Suspects"

Suspicion proves nothing.