THEY LET THE b***h GO!

Post Reply New Topic

In other words, Casey was the one on trial, not her father. Now, if after all this they think they have enough evidence to get a conviction, they can arrest him and put him on trial.

... and eventually work their way through the rest of Florida's residents until they find someone who breaks down and "confesses" to the crime.

It's called a "Witch Hunt".

The only reason the defense implicated George Anthony was to get the spotlight off the real guilty person, Casey Anthony. This defense team used every trick in the book to get the client off and apparently it worked.

By "tricks" you mean reasonable doubt, right? The foundation upon which our system of criminal justice is built? The thing that's supposed to keep innocent people from being punished for crimes they didn't commit?

But never mind all that and what the jury thought, the TV audience all thought she was guilty, and those are the real important people here, right?

By "tricks" I mean, suddenly, the trial is no longer about Casey Anthony. Suddenly, it's about George Anthony. Who's on trial here? If George is on trial bring on the evidence and try him separately. If there isn't evidence he did anything then stop talking about him.
He had no business anywhere in the Casey Anthony trial. There was no evidence whatsoever that George Anthony had anything to do with the murder nor was there any evidence he molested Casey. It was a real travesty of justice.
I can't believe the defense got away with such accusations with no proof except the word of someone who is already a proven liar. The judge should have thrown it out.
Something doesn't add up about it. Almost seems like it was a fake trial for the benefit of a television audience.

I think the overriding problem here is that you don't understand the justice system, but to address your points directly:

It's not the job of the defense to prove someone else's guilt, merely to present an alternative narrative or narratives of the crime to the prosecutions version. This is called SODDI, for Some Other Dude Did It, and is a cornerstone of criminal defense strategy. Remember, thy don't have to "prove" anything other than that the prosecutor did not "prove" their own case to the standard of reasonable doubt.



Doesn't matter, he was not on trial and was simply floated as part of an alternate narrative, as I discussed above. As the jury decided, there wasn't much in the way of evidence that Casey killed anyone either, so by your logic she shouldn't have been charged with murder; which she probably shouldn't have been given the evidence. A travesty of justice would be the wrong person being convicted for a crime, the prevention of which is the entire purpose of the system. A guilty person being acquitted is not a tragedy of justice, since justice had nothing to do with their crime.



More evidence of you not knowing how the courts work, since this is textbook criminal defense. Really, don't take it personally, but you don't know what you're talking about here.



So you think Nancy Grace killed Caylee for the ratings? Sounds like a better case than the one the prosecution presented anyway. Same with the OJ case, the prime suspect should have been Jay Leno from the start...

I am watching Casey Anthony leading her family on a wild goose chase right now. It's a jailhouse video of visitation with her brother and parents. I can tell just by looking at the video the parents are clueless about where their grand daughter is and, according to Casey's story, little Caylee drowned in the pool and George knew about it. Do you think George and Casey are both lying because Casey's in jail? I don't. I think the only one lying is Casey and her parents honestly have no clue. It's a shame the jury was fooled.
And dude, he was in the trial, George Anthony was testifying on the stand, did you watch the trial? He was cross examined.
Of course I don't think Nancy Grace did it but this trial surely was a complete farce. Too much publicity. It was like the jury owed the defense attorney a favor or something and they simply couldn't convict because it would make Baez look bad.

None of that adds up to sufficient evidence for a murder conviction. If Casey had been on trial solely being a liar and general bad parenting, I'm sure she would have been convicted, but she was being tried for MURDER. They couldn't even prove how Caylee died, let alone who did it. The jury wasn't fooled, they demonstrated a rare ability to look beyond the emotional appeal and recognize a lack of evidence and a slipshod case.




So what? He wasn't on trial, was he? What does it matter if he was cross examined or not, we don't even know that his involvement had anything to do with the acquittal or whether it was down to pure lack of evidence (my guess).



"Jury owed the defense lawyer"? Is that a conspiracy theory? How could that possibly work, and what would the motivation be? If anyone involved in the case needs to have their judgment and ethics questioned, it's the prosecutors who decided to bring such a shoddy and sensational case based on what seems to have been public outrage and publicity lust alone.

I was being facetious because that's how it seemed. I've seen juries convict on less than that. What comes to mind is the Crystal Gayle Dittmeyer murder case. It was the same sort of case, a missing child, blood stain on the carpet and a stepfather. There was no body and the jury convicted the stepfather of murder.

This is what defense lawyers are for. Without defense lawyers, people who didn't do anything wrong would be locked up and executed all the time.

This is the whole point of having defense lawyers at all.

Criminal Defense Attorneys are there to represent the accused and to make sure the time fits the crime, not to let the guilty go free. Manslaughter is at least ten years behind bars, not two.

Juries aren't supposed to convict on suspicions and innuendo, that they often do is one of the great weaknesses of the system. It's unfortunate that what sticks out about this particular jury is that they performed their duties correctly, and it is that that has lead to so much invective being launched against them.

Benjamin Crider did win his appeal and got a retrial in the Dittmeyer case which resulted in a mistrial. Before his third trial he confessed he hit Dittmeyer which resulted in her death and had his charge reduced to manslaughter. Without the hard evidence, he was still guilty. So, you see, the jury was 100% right in this case. They did what they were supposed to do and the system worked. It was the appeals process that would have let a guilty man go free. It shows you the system can have flaws.

You still don't understand the system; you don't pay a defense attorney to tailor your sentence to what you've been charged with (she wasn't even charged with manslaughter, just murder), you pay them to defend you to the best of their abilities. Attorneys don't change their game up if they think their client is guilty, that would be illegal and grounds for a mistrial, they are required to do their best every single time. It's an oppositional system, the prosecutor has the burden of proof, and the jury decides if they've met it.

Clearly you think Casey Anthony is guilty, yet you have no way of knowing that. Why are you so certain that you're right and the jury was wrong? You're no lawyer and have numerous misconceptions about the legal system; what makes your opinion different and superior to that of the jury who lived and breathed the case?

Yes I understand the legal system and this trial should have followed the Dittmeyer example. There was enough evidence to prove Casey Anthony's guilt and she could have her lawyer appeal. There are times defense lawyers know their clients are guilty based on prosecuter's evidence. Sometimes they plea bargan before the case even goes to court.
Manslaughter was one of the options in the Anthony trial which makes me wonder if you have been following it?

I have to admit it - - Casey Anthony's shysters certainly defended her with more than enough zealotry to get her acquitted. And yes, I understand, that's what defense attorneys are supposed to do.
Damn it.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer