THEY LET THE b***h GO!

Post Reply New Topic

That people are interested does not show that people are interested for a good reason.

The Anthony case has definitely been blown out of proportion. Is it something that will really affect most people? Nope. Is a child going missing and then turning up dead something that only happens every couple of decades? Unfortunately, no.

His comment was on the relevance of the Anthony case, which is relevant enough to the thread in my opinion.

I think the relevence is not the case per se, but how this case illustrates how poorly so many Americans actually understand the American justice system. Anthony was "convicted" by the media and by most of the people who consumed that media and this thread is all about the disconnect between that media/public "conviction" and how the American justice system actually works. For that reason alone, it's a valuable thread. I think that a true understanding of the job of juries is vital- more vital than whatever Obama did recently. Many Americans will actually serve on a jury at some point in their lives (I already have) and their knowledge or ignorance of how this system is meant to work profoundly affects lives.

It never ceases to amaze me when someone seems to believe that mere suspicion is enough to convict someone of capital murder.

Unfortunately, most people seem to get their legal education from tabloids and TV show like "The View", "Oprah", and "Jerry Springer".

That is what this thread has evolved into; when the emotionalism cools off, cooler heads prevail.

Hear! Hear!

I've served on two. Both were murder cases, and were separated by about 30 years and 3000 miles. In both cases, the trail of evidence was clear and easy to follow: The prosecution was able to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that victims were killed with certain weapons at certain times and places with only the defendants present. In both cases, ownership of the weapons was traced to the defendants, who had the blood of their victims on their clothes, and who who also had a motive.

The only reason that these open-and-shut cases were brought to trial in spite of all the evidence against the defendants was that both defendants entered pleas of "Not Guilty". In both cases, a conviction was reached and the defendant was sentenced. In both cases, their appeals failed. One died in prison, and the other is serving a life sentence without parole.

Finally, even though the defense lawyers knew that their clients were guilty, they acted to protect the civil rights of their clients, and to make certain that the prosecution had done a thorough job - which the police and the prosecutors of Casey Anthony failed to do.

Okay, so what are your logical, rational reasons for why we should doubt there was a homicide? There may be "reasons", but what are the rational logical ones?

The reason I ask is the Chief Medical Examiner for Orange and Osceola counties, where it happened, ruled it as a homicide.

She said there's absolutely no reason whatsover that a baby should have duct tape over their face, and not just one piece but three pieces of duct tape, one over the nose and another over the mouth. The medical examiner said if there was a drowning there would be absolutely no reason why a parent would hide it and wait many months later to claim a drowning, especially after the police finally find the body in the woods and confront Casey when law enforcement links the type of duct tape and other items/bags to her home.

As far as the medical examiner's actual empirical evidence for a mother contacting police right after a child drowns, she said they looked through the records and 100% of the time parents reported the drowning within an hour. I mean, we could actually make a bar graph to evaluate this.

Last edited by NicksQuestions on 15 Jul 2011, 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm trying to figure this out from a logical, rational mind frame.

This isn't madness. This is SPARTA!

ruveyn

reveyn, the reason why is I've found quite a few sources which say there's a common misconception among many layman who think "beyond reasonable doubt" means the evidence is so strong it's proven 100%. That's not true, it only means no doubt which is considered reasonable. It doesn't mean there are no doubts, but rather none which are reasonable. It's kind of like how "reasonable suspicion" needed for police to question you doesn't mean "suspicious", but rather "reasonable" suspicious.

My Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_a_shadow_of_a_doubt
http://law.yourdictionary.com/beyond-a-reasonable-doubt
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1122751

Last edited by NicksQuestions on 15 Jul 2011, 3:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The standard of "reasonable doubt" for criminal convictions isn't as strict as "beyond a shadow of a doubt", but stronger than "preponderance of evidence" and "clear and convincing evidence".

That's correct.

If the defense showed that it could have been her dad, even if it was unlikely, then it's reasonable to doubt that she did it, even if you think it's pretty likely that she did.

If all the prosecution could do is make it sound very likely that she did it, that's not enough.

How this affects you, one major reason to put criminals in prison is to prevent them from committing more crimes by being locked away. If those who beyond reasonable doubt did something and we let them go, it just makes the world a scarier place.

Last edited by NicksQuestions on 16 Jul 2011, 2:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It doesn't matter how guilty someone is and how much evidence you have, it will always be impossible to prove 100% that someone did something unless you can get in a time machine to see what happened. After the fact, it's always possible to keep on brainstorming to find alternative ways of how something happened, no matter how completely strong the evidence is. Does that mean we should automatically release each and every single dangerous person from prison because there may be a few rare individuals who are innocent? So where do you set the line of when it's okay to convict and put someone in prison?

Remember, beyond reasonable doubt" does not mean there can be no doubts whatsoever and has to be proven 100%, but rather above the "threshold" of doubts which can actually be considered "reasonable". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_a_s ... n_of_proof

Here's where I'm coming from: Let's say you have a kid. You also have a dad. Your dad kills your kid. Would you

A. Tell the police?

or

B. For 31 days tell your own mother that your kid is having an awesome time, but that your mom can't see him/her. Then after police confront you, you make up a story that a Zanny the Nanny kidnapped your kid? Then when the police find your kid's body in the woods with duct tape on the mouth, and not just one piece but three pieces with one on the nose and another on the mouth, you tell the police that your kid actually drowned in a swimming pool? If you went to court and your dad kept on saying there was no drowning, would you instruct your defense attorney to keep on insisting that there was a drowning.

I'm trying to figure this out from a logical, rational mind.

Option A, of course.

But you have to keep in mind, I'm not Casey. I wouldn't bounce checks or lie to the cops, either. What I would do isn't a very good indicator of what she would do.


The standard for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt. There were reasonable doubts. Therefore, there was no conviction.

Do you know the difference between "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" and "Beyond reasonable doubt"?

"Beyond a shadow of a doubt" does not apply to capital murder cases; "Beyond reasonable doubt" does.

There was amply reasonable doubt in the Casey Anthony case to justify an acquittal.

Deal with it.

What percentage would constitute a "reasonable" doubt?
A 1% chance of innocence? A 5% chance?
Based on all the lying and hiding Casey did, I think the liklihood of her innocence is about .001%.