PDA

View Full Version : Casey Anthony - did she do it?



Teh One Who Knocks
07-06-2011, 03:40 PM
Well by now we all have heard the news, that bitch got off for killing her daughter. I don't try and hide what I think, she's guilty as fuck in my opinion.

What does everyone else think?


http://i.imgur.com/MH0ef.jpg

Muddy
07-06-2011, 03:48 PM
Man I'm all talked out.. I will say though... When is the justice for Caylee?

Goofy
07-06-2011, 03:59 PM
Haven't really followed the story tbh

Godfather
07-06-2011, 04:01 PM
Hopefully someday she'll be judged by a higher authority.

For the record: I don't watch this kinda stuff, as sad as this and similar cases are.

The Nancy Grace & Jane Velez-Mitchell crap is what I'm talking about specifically. The ridiculous hair and screaming accusations, male-hating, cutting off people who don't support you, analyzing what the accused wears in their hair... all on prime-time TV? It's just daytime drama dressed up to appear as legitimate news... it makes me angry. It's in the same genre as The Bachelor... except it's searching for drama out of real life tragedy.

My mom and a lot of women I know can't get enough of it. To me all you have to do is take a look at the cases chosen and the style of Nancy Grace to seriously question the point of it. They say reality TV doesn't force you to think critically (shows like Jersey Shore), and therefore actually makes you dumber. IMO this kind of thing makes you dumber. Watching case after case of little white girls and pretty wives being murdered and then their accusers hung on CNN... nope. Doesn't do it for me. It's sad, it's illegitimate. Total garbage.

/rant

Hal-9000
07-06-2011, 04:11 PM
All I can say is that if she is guilty, hopefully the exposure will incite the public to make her life a living hell...

PorkChopSandwiches
07-06-2011, 04:11 PM
I cant believe she walked, not reporting it for 30 days is guilty enough

Teh One Who Knocks
07-06-2011, 04:14 PM
I cant believe she walked, not reporting it for 30 days is guilty enough

Exactly....what more evidence do you need?

Hal-9000
07-06-2011, 04:23 PM
This reminds me of the Jonbenet Ramsey case.In 1996 she was murdered and the parents were prime suspects off and on until 2008.Finally DNA evidence on Jonbenet's clothing exonerated both parents and proved there was a third person in contact with the child.In that case I believe the parents were/are innocent.They reopened the case again in 2010, to continue the investigation.

In this case though, based on what I've read....Anthony is getting away with murder.

Godfather
07-06-2011, 04:24 PM
Brutal. Hadn't heard that part of this case. But it's still only circumstantial, not direct evidence. It's easy to convince jurors that circumstantial evidence leaves reasonable doubt.

Which is a problem... because everyone knows that all be certainly means she did it :wha: Jury duty doesn't sound fun...

Teh One Who Knocks
07-06-2011, 04:28 PM
Brutal. Hadn't heard that part of this case. But it's still only circumstantial, not direct evidence. It's easy to convince jurors that circumstantial evidence leaves reasonable doubt.

What mother doesn't report her kid missing for 31 days, all the while out drinking and partying and not once acting like anything is wrong? In fact, it was the grandmother that finally called 911 because Casey wasn't gonna do it. Then she made up a story saying she was kidnapped by a babysitter....that never existed.

Teh One Who Knocks
07-06-2011, 04:29 PM
This reminds me of the Jonbenet Ramsey case.In 1996 she was murdered and the parents were prime suspects off and on until 2008.Finally DNA evidence on Jonbenet's clothing exonerated both parents and proved there was a third person in contact with the child.In that case I believe the parents were/are innocent.They reopened the case again in 2010, to continue the investigation.

In this case though, based on what I've read....Anthony is getting away with murder.

I still think one or both Ramsey's were guilty

Hal-9000
07-06-2011, 04:29 PM
What mother doesn't report her kid missing for 31 days, all the while out drinking and partying and not once acting like anything is wrong? In fact, it was the grandmother that finally called 911 because Casey wasn't gonna do it. Then she made up a story saying she was kidnapped by a babysitter....that never existed.

and where was the child during those 31 days?

Godfather
07-06-2011, 04:35 PM
I agree it's enough for us. Having read that, of course I believe she's guilty now.. .. but it's still clearly circumstantial by definition. You have to infer something to connect it to a conclusion. We can't start doing that in courts.

For the legal system, the precedent needs to remain that people cannot be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone. I don't think we need to go into why.... but the justice system needs proper direct evidence, otherwise you create a terrible, dangerous system. Sometimes this system is going to fail... but the onus is on the prosecutors to prove guilt, not the accused to prove innocence. Wrong-place-wrong-time type evidence, even in the extreme, means jurors would have to connect some unknown dots....

That said... I understand how, if the direct evidence (witnesses, dna, testimonies) wasn't strong, they'd be directed to some doubt with the '31 days' piece. The prosecutors would have known it wasn't good enough evidence from the get-go too if they went to law school at all.

Teh One Who Knocks
07-06-2011, 04:38 PM
...people cannot be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone....

How do you think they did it before all that CSI style forensics? ;)

And that is exactly what is ruining the legal system...juries all expect it to be just like an episode of CSI with all the fancy forensics and whatnot. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way in real life.

Teh One Who Knocks
07-06-2011, 04:38 PM
and where was the child during those 31 days?

Exactly

DemonGeminiX
07-06-2011, 04:55 PM
The charge of murder requires three elements to be proven:

1) Cause the death of another: You have to specifically show beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did indeed caused the death of the victim in question. The prosecution had no evidence that conclusively proved that Casey Anthony killed her daughter. There are too many questions that remain unanswered. Keep in mind that the specific cause of death is not required. We don't have to know how someone died to know that someone else caused their death, although it does make it easier to prove.

2) With prior planning (premeditation): You have to show that the accused specifically planned the death of the victim. The prosecution could not show this either.

3) Mens Rea/With intent (malice): You have to show that the accused intended to cause sufficient injury to result in the death of the victim in question.

Note that the actual cause of death is not required. Nor is motive required. The two can make proving the above three a helluva lot easier, but they are not necessary to prove the above three.

For both 2 and 3, 1 has to be shown first or there's no case. If you can't show 2 nd 3, but you can show 1, then you can maintain that it was manslaughter (which she was also charged with), but because they could not show 1 beyond a reasonable doubt, there was no way that manslaughter was going to stick. Because neither of them were going to stick, the child abuse wasn't going to stick either. I'm thinking the manslaughter was a backup plan in light of the thin evidence of murder, and the child abuse charge was going to be icing on the cake in the event that one of the other two stuck. It didn't work out for them.

The fact that she didn't report the child missing is not sufficient evidence to prove murder. You have to prove Actus Reus, the guilty act, the actual murder. Not mitigating circumstances that leads you to suspect someone of murder, you have to prove the actual murder, the actual act of the accused taking someone else's life with intent and prior planning. Prosecution could not do that, and that's why she was acquitted.

Do I believe she killed that child? Yes, I do. Does it matter what I think? No, it doesn't. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks, it doesn't matter what any analyst thinks, it doesn't matter what any news anchor thinks. A jury of her peers has spoken and acquitted her on the three charges.

If the prosecution had better evidence, a better all around case, then Casey Anthony would be facing the possibility of death row.

It sucks, but that's the way it goes. Maybe someday they'll figure out what really happened to that poor child. Unfortunately, if she did kill her own child and they learn precisely how to prove it beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, tehy won't be able to try her again.

Hal-9000
07-06-2011, 04:58 PM
And to add to DGX's post you have to prove murder through physical evidence or eyewitness testimony at the time of the homicide.

You'd think one savvy CSI guy could place Anthony at the scene when her daughter died...

DemonGeminiX
07-06-2011, 05:09 PM
And to add to DGX's post you have to prove murder through physical evidence or eyewitness testimony at the time of the homicide.

You'd think one savvy CSI guy could place Anthony at the scene when her daughter died...

Not if you get a confession. Eyewitness testimony isn't necessary, although it would help. Physical evidence is part of 1: connecting the accused to the actual death.

Teh One Who Knocks
07-06-2011, 05:11 PM
The fact that she didn't report the child missing is not sufficient evidence to prove murder

It is for me ;)

Hal-9000
07-06-2011, 05:11 PM
Not if you get a confession. Eyewitness testimony isn't necessary, although it would help. Physical evidence is part of 1: connecting the accused to the actual death.

Well yes of course the burden of proof is lifted in the case of a confession..

Eyewitness testimony and physical evidence are the two things that will convict, necessary isn't really the question here, what I was listing are the two things that can convict.

Godfather
07-06-2011, 05:41 PM
How do you think they did it before all that CSI style forensics? ;)

And that is exactly what is ruining the legal system...juries all expect it to be just like an episode of CSI with all the fancy forensics and whatnot. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way in real life.

Forensics isn't made-for-TV witchcraft.. it saves the innocent and proves guilt all the time. Looking back at cases from decades ago, it has overturned many terrible convictions made based soley upon circumsantial evidence - 'wrong place, wrong time' convictions that weren't correct. DNA is a great progression. To start convicting people based almost soley on circumstances instead of hard facts again is a step backwards. Even if in this particular case it takes no imagination at all... but the law works on precedent, they have to.

The prosectuion failed to prove guilt, not the jury.

Teh One Who Knocks
07-06-2011, 05:49 PM
Forensics isn't made-for-TV witchcraft.. it saves the innocent and proves guilt all the time. Looking back at cases from decades ago, it has overturned many terrible convictions made based soley upon circumsantial evidence - 'wrong place, wrong time' convictions that weren't correct. DNA is a great progression. To start convicting people based almost soley on circumstances instead of hard facts again is a step backwards. Even if in this particular case it takes no imagination at all... but the law works on precedent, they have to.

The prosectuion failed to prove guilt, not the jury.

You're missing my point :|

Godfather
07-06-2011, 06:05 PM
It is for me ;)

You would certainly be a handful of a juror :P

But that's the problem. We can sleep at night having judged her as guilty based on the circumstantial evidence. The court system is a higher authority. Tieing two ends together based on what is supposed to have happened in that 31 days just isn't what you can convict people on. In the context of other trials, it would be a disaster to rely on it, especiall when it was Circumstantial vs DNA.

Anyways... I dono why I'm involved in arguing here :lol: I wish they'd convicted her and been done with it. All I'm really saying is that I understand how easily the defense would have shown that the precedent isn't there to convict someone this way.

Southern Belle
07-06-2011, 07:49 PM
Guilty

Hal-9000
07-06-2011, 08:57 PM
the baby was found with duct tape wrapped around it's head and died from suffocation?


someone put that tape on...hopefully a vision that haunts them until their last day

JoeyB
07-06-2011, 10:11 PM
What mother doesn't report her kid missing for 31 days, all the while out drinking and partying and not once acting like anything is wrong? In fact, it was the grandmother that finally called 911 because Casey wasn't gonna do it. Then she made up a story saying she was kidnapped by a babysitter....that never existed.

Don't forget she also got a tattoo. Guilty of murder or not, she is obviously a monster and a person who never should have had kids. Let's hope she never has any more.


I still think one or both Ramsey's were guilty

I do too, third person or not does not indicate the Ramsey's innocence, it just means they had an accomplice.

Hal-9000
07-06-2011, 10:26 PM
I still think one or both Ramsey's were guilty

That case fascinated me.The dna was picked up from the girl's undergarments which leads us to believe it was a sick crime...
If the parents were involved, it was more than an accidental beating as they tried to accuse the Mom of.

AntZ
07-06-2011, 10:42 PM
This reminds me of the Jonbenet Ramsey case.In 1996 she was murdered and the parents were prime suspects off and on until 2008.Finally DNA evidence on Jonbenet's clothing exonerated both parents and proved there was a third person in contact with the child.In that case I believe the parents were/are innocent.They reopened the case again in 2010, to continue the investigation.

In this case though, based on what I've read....Anthony is getting away with murder.


I don't recall the parents ever being labeled as exonerated, except for their sleazy attorneys! I remember the overwhelming criticism of the keystone cops that arrived on scene. A female officer didn't like the sight of the dead and exposed girl in plain view of investigators and other officers, so she grabbed a contaminated blanket from the house and covered the body, before any samples could be collected! At one point, the blanket was thought to be involved in the crime scene until it was discovered the idiot cop had contaminated the evidence.



I still think one or both Ramsey's were guilty

ABSOLUTELY!!

Now add this sweet baby to the list of appalling injustices in history!

http://i.imgur.com/yqerx.jpg


I almost well-up looking at her face.


If only she was born to a mother that would have loved and protected her!

Hal-9000
07-06-2011, 10:46 PM
I don't recall the parents ever being labeled as exonerated, except for their sleazy attorneys! I remember the overwhelming criticism of the keystone cops that arrived on scene. A female officer didn't like the sight of the dead and exposed girl in plain view of investigators and other officers, so she grabbed a contaminated blanket from the house and covered the body, before any samples could be collected! At one point, the blanket was thought to be involved in the crime scene until it was discovered the idiot cop had contaminated the evidence.




ABSOLUTELY!!

Now add this sweet baby to the list of appalling injustices in history!

http://i.imgur.com/yqerx.jpg


I almost well-up looking at her face.


If only she was born to a mother that would have loved and protected her!

According to a few hundred news stories the Ramsey's were given a written apology by the police...they reopened the case (again) just last year and we both know that the parents won't be ruled out...surface appearances are everything and the police are just conceding this round..

AntZ
07-06-2011, 10:49 PM
Horrifying New Details Emerge in Caylee Anthony Case

By Oliver Jones

Wednesday January 21, 2009 03:05 PM EST


With details that are both graphic and heartbreaking, new court documents released Wednesday reveal that the body of toddler Caylee Anthony was bound by duct tape that had a heart-shaped sticker placed on it.

Evidence further shows that a Winnie the Pooh blanket, several iron-on letters and a toy horse were in the laundry bag that contained the slain 2-year-old, reports the Orlando Sentinel.

The remains were recovered by the Orange County Sheriff's department near Caylee's Orlando-area home on Dec. 11. FBI investigators also found residue that "appeared to be consistent with the adhesive side of a heart-shaped sticker," sheriff's Detective Yuri Melich is quoted as saying in the documents.

Documents also state that investigators seized sticker books and scrapbook material from Caylee's home, along with other toys that matched the one found with her body.

"It appears that the sticker was put on the duct tape intentionally," Melich is quoted as saying.

Caylee's mother Casey Anthony, 22, is being held in jail since being arrested Oct. 14 and charged with her daughter's murder, even though her daughter's remains had not yet been discovered.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20253947,00.html


_______________________________________


It's still amazing to read the old details! Yeah, some random killer took the time to give her a send off with keepsakes!

This is what people do for dead family pets when they bury them.

Hal-9000
07-06-2011, 10:51 PM
God it just breaks your heart :(

AntZ
07-06-2011, 10:56 PM
According to a few hundred news stories the Ramsey's were given a written apology by the police...

I have no desire to argue that case, especially in light of the Caylee injustice.

But as I recall, the police were shockingly inept in that investigation, some suspected that do to high level connections, the fix was in!

No mater, the "mother" is dead (hopefully rotting in hell), and the girl is now a fading memory!


I'll end it there on that subject.

Hal-9000
07-06-2011, 11:01 PM
Wasn't asking you to argue it...the police wrote an apology, that much is fact.

There are parallels between the two cases, that's why it was mentioned.15 years later they still don't have evidence on a crime that occurred in the parent's house.A similar type of sadness in both stories...the world wants justice and the police can't provide conclusive evidence to get it.

DemonGeminiX
07-06-2011, 11:06 PM
According to a few hundred news stories the Ramsey's were given a written apology by the police...they reopened the case (again) just last year and we both know that the parents won't be ruled out...surface appearances are everything and the police are just conceding this round..

One of the parents will be ruled out: Her mother died of cancer in 2006.

AntZ
07-06-2011, 11:10 PM
Wasn't asking you to argue it...

Don't get me wrong, I guess "argue" was the wrong word.

That case too, was sickening! If the police apologized, sent them flowers, or washed their cars! I could care less, because they seemed to have played an equal part securing that justice can never be served in that case.

DemonGeminiX
07-06-2011, 11:11 PM
One of the parents will be ruled out: Her mother died of cancer in 2006.

Actually, both of the parents will be ruled out. They determined by DNA evidence found on the child that neither of them could have done it. They're looking for an unspecified male.

Hal-9000
07-06-2011, 11:13 PM
What I don't understand when speaking about both cases is - I can see the young mother becoming frustrated and committing the heinous act (Anthony).

The Ramsey's were well off, had no history of family violence so what's the goal in killing Jonbenet? They knew the eyes of the world would be upon them
as her body was found in the home.Accident covered up? I don't see it.

DemonGeminiX
07-06-2011, 11:14 PM
What I don't understand when speaking about both cases is - I can see the young mother becoming frustrated and committing the heinous act (Anthony).

The Ramsey's were well off, had no history of family violence so what's the goal in killing Jonbenet? They knew the eyes of the world would be upon them
as her body was found in the home.Accident covered up? I don't see it.

The Ramsey parents have been cleared by DNA evidence, Hal. They're looking into the theory of an intruder now.

Hal-9000
07-06-2011, 11:15 PM
Actually, both of the parents will be ruled out. They determined by DNA evidence found on the child that neither of them could have done it. They're looking for an unspecified male.

and there has been a handful of people that tried to admit they killed Jonbenet.The latest guy may have some details that the police have not released...

Hal-9000
07-06-2011, 11:17 PM
The Ramsey parents have been cleared by DNA evidence, Hal. They're looking into the theory of an intruder now.

yes I had read and mentioned that earlier...just postulating the what if's....

DemonGeminiX
07-06-2011, 11:17 PM
and there has been a handful of people that tried to admit they killed Jonbenet.

You mean the nutcases looking for their 15 minutes of infamy?

Hal-9000
07-06-2011, 11:20 PM
You mean the nutcases looking for their 15 minutes of infamy?

One guy a few years ago was weird...as they were dismissing his claims they found out he had done things to other little girls....

nailed the scum too :dance:

PorkChopSandwiches
07-07-2011, 04:37 PM
Don't forget she also got a tattoo. Guilty of murder or not, she is obviously a monster and a person who never should have had kids. Let's hope she never has any more.

wtf

JoeyB
07-07-2011, 11:15 PM
wtf

You want her to have more kids?