So pretty much they claimed that "even though she was partying, that's not proof she killer her child."
Then who did it...?
Then who did it...?
CASEY ANTHONY - NOT GUILTY??
- Thread starter topoffers
- Start date
What the defense claimed was that the child drowned by accident in a swimming pool.
I was more surprised at the time it took the jury to come to that verdict than I was the verdict itself.
You know, all this negative publicity minorities get on STS and I can honestly say that crimes like these are psycho white people crimes
There's a reason we kill our own kids, drop acid, and take shrooms. We are fucking nuts.
There's a reason we kill our own kids, drop acid, and take shrooms. We are fucking nuts.
There wasn't enough evidence to convict her of first degree murder. They had very little evidence to prove that she murdered her child AND it was premeditated. They could have charged her with Manslaughter and won easily, maybe even second degree murder. The prosecution took a gamble and lost hard.
One attorney's (humble) legal analysis..
Do I think CA did something, through action or inaction, that resulted in the death of her child?: Yes
Do I think the jury made the right decision in acquitting her?: Yes
Those 2 Yes's may sound opposite, but they are not. Right to jury trial by our peers is one of the most cherished rights in America. When not just 1 or 2 jurors, but ALL 12 people (none of whom have any incentive to find her innocent) all vote acquittal (if any of them had thought differently, it would have been a hung jury, not an acquittal) then you have to realize that there is no possible way her guilt could be as obvious as all of you screaming "give her the chair" seem to think, there is more to this story than the media tidbits you see. Do you really think the case against her was iron-tight, and they just somehow randomly managed to find the only 12 complete strangers in the country who would think differently?!?
The standard of "reasonable doubt" is a very high standard, and for good reasons. If we could convict someone of a capital crime based on "more likely than not" or "I think she did it, but I'm not sure" or any other easier standard to reach, then our system of law and justice would mean nothing. I think the street kid I walked by with the needle tracks on his arm, and F#ck da police" tattooed on his face this morning has probably committed an unpunished crime or two in his life, but that doesn't mean we lock him up just based on what I or any other person "think". Likewise, the creepy loner guy in the gray panel van with the moustache, mullet, and criminal record cruising by the junior high is probably up to no good, but we don't get to just execute him road-side based on our reasonable assumptions.
The "out partying, acting strangely, etc" all paints CA in a bad light as a person/mother, but being a bad person/skank/shitty parent, etc does not make you guilty of a capital crime. It makes you guilty of bad judgment and a poor public perception, nothing more.
The standard for conviction is very high for very good reasons; combine that with a lack of physical evidence, lack of testimonial evidence, lack of obvious motive, and a obvious failure by the prosecution to meet their burden of proof (the defense has no such burden, only the prosecution in criminal cases) and I have no doubt that the verdict would have been the same if we'd replaced those 12 jurors with any other 12 unbiased people picked from a hat who saw the same evidence and heard the same courtroom testimony.
Do I think CA did something, through action or inaction, that resulted in the death of her child?: Yes
Do I think the jury made the right decision in acquitting her?: Yes
Those 2 Yes's may sound opposite, but they are not. Right to jury trial by our peers is one of the most cherished rights in America. When not just 1 or 2 jurors, but ALL 12 people (none of whom have any incentive to find her innocent) all vote acquittal (if any of them had thought differently, it would have been a hung jury, not an acquittal) then you have to realize that there is no possible way her guilt could be as obvious as all of you screaming "give her the chair" seem to think, there is more to this story than the media tidbits you see. Do you really think the case against her was iron-tight, and they just somehow randomly managed to find the only 12 complete strangers in the country who would think differently?!?
The standard of "reasonable doubt" is a very high standard, and for good reasons. If we could convict someone of a capital crime based on "more likely than not" or "I think she did it, but I'm not sure" or any other easier standard to reach, then our system of law and justice would mean nothing. I think the street kid I walked by with the needle tracks on his arm, and F#ck da police" tattooed on his face this morning has probably committed an unpunished crime or two in his life, but that doesn't mean we lock him up just based on what I or any other person "think". Likewise, the creepy loner guy in the gray panel van with the moustache, mullet, and criminal record cruising by the junior high is probably up to no good, but we don't get to just execute him road-side based on our reasonable assumptions.
The "out partying, acting strangely, etc" all paints CA in a bad light as a person/mother, but being a bad person/skank/shitty parent, etc does not make you guilty of a capital crime. It makes you guilty of bad judgment and a poor public perception, nothing more.
The standard for conviction is very high for very good reasons; combine that with a lack of physical evidence, lack of testimonial evidence, lack of obvious motive, and a obvious failure by the prosecution to meet their burden of proof (the defense has no such burden, only the prosecution in criminal cases) and I have no doubt that the verdict would have been the same if we'd replaced those 12 jurors with any other 12 unbiased people picked from a hat who saw the same evidence and heard the same courtroom testimony.
My whole rant with my verdict of "give her the Chair" was not about whether or not the system worked. I'll repeat: "she did enough evil that she deserves the chair even without the court seeing it as intentional."
I just wish that my countries' laws would fry you for being a bad parent.
I just wish that my countries' laws would fry you for being a bad parent.
'I want to have more children' reveals Anthony | Mail Online
Murder wasn't the only charge. She was also found not guilty of aggravated manslaughter and aggravated child abuse.
Murder wasn't the only charge. She was also found not guilty of aggravated manslaughter and aggravated child abuse.
This is so true. I watched almost the whole First 48 series on Netflix. 95% of the cases were minorities and involved drugs/blackmarket type transactions and/or robbery and were the typical gun or knife type shit. But that 5% with white people are the most fucked up weird ass cases on the series. The weirdest was the white dude that chopped up his niece and her husband and hid them in the attack, then blew his and his dad's brains out while fleeing the scene.