THEY LET THE b***h GO!

Post Reply New Topic

I voted "Not Guilty". That Internet movie was way too easy/obvious.

Here's how I believe the Casey Anthony case was way way different than that fictional court movie your faculty of law gave you to look at as an exercise. In that fictional court video you were given, the accused claimed the marijuana found in his car by the police was for his own personal medical purposes rather than to illegally sell to others to make money, which was within the bounds of what's reasonable (on the other hand Casey Anthony was beyond all bounds of reason).

Plus the prosecutor in that fictional court movie you showed was very wishy washy in showing that the accused had way too much marijuana in his car for it to be for his own medical use. On the other hand, in the Casey Anthony trial there was an actual medical examiner who made it quantitative by saying they checked the records and each and every single case when a child drowned the parent called 911 within an hour. You can actually make that quantitative with a graph showing the normal bell curve, and then showing how many standard deviations away from the mean (and even maximum time taken) it was when finally a month later the grandma Cindy Anthony found out and called the police. Then you can quantitatively find out how many standard deviations away it was when much much later Casey Anthony changed her story from Zanny the Nanny to eventual "my child drowned." Plus there was duck tape on the child's mouth (duck tape linked to the Anthony residence), the child was disposed of in garbage bags, then dumped in muddy water in a swamp not far away.


The difference between that fictional video your legal faculty gave you and what Casey Anthony did is what's considered within 'reasonable bounds'.

People hurting someone who looks like Casey Anthony not only should be illegal, but is already very illegal. It's disgusting.

It's also illegal to hurt Casey herself, although many will exercise their first amendment rights or even shun her. On that hand, it's perfectly legal to shun anyone you want, regardless of being innocent/guilty. As long as it's within the law.

There's word out that Casey Anthony doesn't look like what she did when she was released - new hair style, new clothes, et cetera. Rumor has it that she's even considering getting that tattoo removed, although this is unconfirmed.

It would not be your job as a juror to determine whether you thought the defendant acted reasonably. Whether they're guilty of the crime they're charged with would be. You wouldn't get to make up your own private 'what I think is reasonable' standard.


That a medical examiner said 'that's not normal' is not the same as 'she did it'.

Let me make sure I'm not misunderstanding you since it's only fair to clarify what someone's saying in conversations (at least that's what Janissy says):

You're not actually saying you think the law is wrong as far as "reasonable doubt" meaning "doubt within what's reasonable"?

The Supreme Court has said many many times that "proven beyond reasonable doubt" does not mean proven 100% and no doubt whatsoever. It doesn't matter how guilty someone is and how much proof you have, you can always brainstorm more reasons why the accused may be innocent. The Supreme Court ruled it means only no doubt which can be considered reasonable. You're not actually saying the Supreme Court of the United States of America is wrong?

Last edited by NicksQuestions on 24 Jul 2011, 11:41 am, edited 2 times in total.

In that video MotherKnowsBest showed us, it's the judge's jurisdiction to decide what's legal or not. It's the jury's jurisdiction to decide "matter of fact" or if something happened or not. Thus, that's where the word "reasonable" in the phrase "is it beyond reasonable doubt they did it" comes into play.

Janissy's right.

You were saying that Casey acted unreasonably, therefore she did it. That doesn't have anything to do with the reasonable doubt standard, which says that guilt is only established if there are no reasonable doubts that she didn't do it.


If those doubts are reasonable, then that's enough. If those doubts aren't reasonable, then they aren't enough.

She probably already taped the interview and changed her look right after which is why she was so rushy-rushy to get out to Hollywood.

I'd like to place my own comments on the discussion and the court case. First, the jury found her not guilty. Nothing we say is going to change that. Get over it! Secondly, the judge could have declared her guilty and ingnored the jurors entirely, but didn't want to do so on camera. Thirdly, some key points need explained: motive, cause of death, and why nobody contacted authorities or even looked for the body.

False. A judge cannot overturn a not guilty verdict. The judge might have declared a mistrial on some grounds or another, but judges cannot render guilty verdicts unless jury trial is waived.

ruveyn

The Prosecution completeley fudged the case...she could have easily been taken in for childa abuse for not reporting her child missing.

You seem to be ignoring a fundamental principal of Common Law jurisprudence:

A trier of fact (whether jury or judge acting alone) may not convict an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone, unless there is no other explanation that is consistent with the circumstantial evidence.

The case was entirely built upon circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence of Ms. Anthony's guilt--not one shred. There are no witnesses to her taking any action that led directly to her daughter's death. Neither her fingerprints nor any other direct evidence of her participation was found on her daughter's body or in the vicinity of the scene. Given the lack of direct evidence, the possibility of an exculpatory explanation is significantly higher.

Plus the prosecutor in that fictional court movie you showed was very wishy washy in showing that the accused had way too much marijuana in his car for it to be for his own medical use. On the other hand, in the Casey Anthony trial there was an actual medical examiner who made it quantitative by saying they checked the records and each and every single case when a child drowned the parent called 911 within an hour. You can actually make that quantitative with a graph showing the normal bell curve, and then showing how many standard deviations away from the mean (and even maximum time taken) it was when finally a month later the grandma Cindy Anthony found out and called the police. Then you can quantitatively find out how many standard deviations away it was when much much later Casey Anthony changed her story from Zanny the Nanny to eventual "my child drowned." Plus there was duck tape on the child's mouth (duck tape linked to the Anthony residence), the child was disposed of in garbage bags, then dumped in muddy water in a swamp not far away.

The difference between that fictional video your legal faculty gave you and what Casey Anthony did is what's considered within 'reasonable bounds'.[/quote]

But the trial is not about what every other person has done in those circumstances, it is about what this person did in these circumstances. Was Ms. Anthony's conduct sufficient to cause suspicion? Absolutely. But suspicion does not equal proof of guilt.

You may believe until your dying day that she is guilty. And you may proclaim that belief loud and long, and pay the consequences for it if you are reckless about the truth of your statements or the honesty of your belief.

But at the end of the day the only opinions that matter are the opinions of the triers of fact. And they did not agree with you. They might have gotten it wrong, after all, human beings (including you and me) are imperfect. But the law has spoken and the criminal matter is closed. Best to leave it so.

If I understand correctly, a judge CAN overturn a guilty verdict (as opposed to "not guilty") if, despite jury findings, the evidence clearly does NOT show guilt. A jury, if finding "not guilty," can essentially play a significant role in overturning unjust laws if guilt is obvious but the jury, in effect representing the people, finds otherwise.

It's POSSIBLE in theory. I wonder if there have ever been actual examples of laws being overturned based on jury findings?

Here is context for what I meant when I said "It's beyond what's considered reasonable":

Continuum of How Certain You Are Based on the Evidence, in a Court of Law (The United States):

1. "Clear and Convincing Evidence" - it is substantially more likely than not - Civil Cases
2. "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" - no reasonable doubt could be raised - Criminal Cases
3. "Beyond the Shadow of a Doubt" - no doubt whatsoever could be raised - Most believe not 100% possible

The thing which separates 2 from 3 is "reasonable".

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_the ... n_of_proof

Last edited by NicksQuestions on 25 Jul 2011, 9:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That's what I meant when I responded to MotherKnowsBest's video exercise she got from her legal faculty. That's what I meant when I pointed out the differences between the video's example of the guy being accused of selling marijuana vs. the Casey Anthony case, is it within what's reasonable (beyond reasonable doubt vs. beyond a shadow of a doubt).

Last edited by NicksQuestions on 25 Jul 2011, 9:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Casey Anthony even admitted she did something with Caylee. She claimed her girl drowned in a swimming pool; she didn't just leave her body there. So why is it reasonable to believe finger prints/DNA were needed to show Casey actually handled the body of Caylee??? The duct tape was linked to her house. The heart shape stickers on the duck tape was also linked to the house, along with the trash bags the girl was placed in before being dumped into a pool of muddy water in the swamp. There is no reason to doubt she touched Caylee after she died, at least no doubt which can be considered reasonable.

Is there any reason to believe that the drowning excuse reasonable could have happened? When Casey claimed George Anthony was there when they found that the girl drowned, George flat out denied the drowning story as hogwash. On top of that, he worked for the police so he would have been intelligent enough to call 911 if there had actually been a drowning incident. Plus the medical examiner said they looked at the records and each and every single time a child drowned a parent called 911 within one hour, while it took Casey Anthony years of changing her story a few times before she finally said it was a drowning (plus there was duck tape on the child's mouth, in trash bags, and dumped in a muddy water swamp). Then after the jury reached its verdict one of the defense attorneys said that we may never know what happened to Caylee (changing the story again after the drowning, Zanny the Nanny, Caylee having fun, and so on).

What other reasonable explanation is there for something like that?

Last edited by NicksQuestions on 25 Jul 2011, 9:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.