# The Casey Anthony Trial (Update: #1 on Caylee's Law)



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

I try to distance myself from these types of things, but sometimes I can't. I much prefer to watch a trial than to listen/watch/read the news on cases, especially one like this. Anyhow, so far I'm really disgusted by the defense attorney, not only by the defense theory, but also his tactics in dealing with witnesses. I think he is preying on a hurt family, utilizing this case for his "15 minutes", and is trying to confuse the jury. I sincerely hope the jury can cut through the BS on this one. So far, the defense theory has more holes than Emmental.

*Edited*: For those interested in some articles, this is an interesting article titled "Casey Anthony Verdict: A Jury of Idiots or Hapless Peers?". In the last paragraph the article basically says that trials like this are a sporting event in this country, whereas, in other countries the prosecution and defense work to uncover the truth. It then states that this type of scenario (a lack of justice) does not happen as frequently in other countries because of the aforementioned setup.

Also, for those interested in signing a petition regarding Caylee's Law, you can go here. And, four states are already working on Caylee's Law - Florida, Oklahoma, Maryland, and Kentucky.







If you would like some type of justice for this little girl, please contact your senator, representatives, etc. If anyone is reading this, Ohio and New Hampshire are also considering proposing this law.

*Petition for Caylee's Law*: Here is the petition for Caylee's Law.

*Contact Information*: Here is a list of contact information for Senators and here is information for Representatives. Here is also another list that you may find helpful.


----------



## Maurine (May 28, 2009)

I have a friend who watches it during the day and fills me in. That defense attorney sounds terrible! He keeps getting in trouble with the judge.

I think Casey is in a heap of trouble...that defense is not convicing me one bit!


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Maurine*
> 
> I have a friend who watches it during the day and fills me in. That defense attorney sounds terrible! He keeps getting in trouble with the judge.
> 
> I think Casey is in a heap of trouble...that defense is not convicing me one bit!


Baez still continues to get into trouble with the judge.


----------



## TCMoulton (Oct 30, 2003)

Jose Baez really is an amateur when it comes to major cases as believe this is his first. His tactics when questioning George Anthony and Casey's attitude in court really tick me off. I just Hope the jury sees her for who she truly is - a murderer.


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

I am sick over the verdict. I honestly feel ill that I live in this country right now.


----------



## Drummer's Wife (Jun 5, 2005)

yeah, wow.


----------



## insidevoice (Feb 16, 2011)

I was happy with the verdict. My opinion isn't based on whether or not I thought she did something to cause harm to her child, but based on the case presented by the state. They did a wonderful job of character assassination, but that isn't enough to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. T

I don't feel it is my place to pass judgement on her actions or her parenting. It is the State's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In this situation, they proved that she isn't a good person, but they couldn't make the connections for the rest.


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *insidevoice*
> 
> I was happy with the verdict. My opinion isn't based on whether or not I thought she did something to cause harm to her child, but based on the case presented by the state. They did a wonderful job of character assassination, but that isn't enough to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. T
> 
> I don't feel it is my place to pass judgement on her actions or her parenting. It is the State's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In this situation, they proved that she isn't a good person, but they couldn't make the connections for the rest.


Please help me understand it because I feel sick to my stomach with the verdict and I truly want to understand. Reasonable doubt does not mean no doubt. I am just baffled.

I really want to understand, I do, so no snark intended at all. How do you explain the duct tape over Caylee's mouth? How do you explain the smell of decomposition in the car? How do you explain not calling 911 if it were an accidental drowning (which is very common in FL)? How do you explain partying, a "Beautiful Life" tattoo, etc. after knowing your child drowned in a pool? How do you explain lying about a babysitter kidnapping your child when you supposedly knew it was an accidental drowning?


----------



## KatWrangler (Mar 21, 2005)

I don't get it. I am shocked with the verdict.


----------



## insidevoice (Feb 16, 2011)

The state didn't make any case about an accidental drowning. That's just the point. The state tried to paint a picture of a violent mother who actively killed her child, they didn't have concrete evidence to make that case.

Simply put, they couldn't put the duct tape in her hand as the cause of death.

Smells in cars can be caued by many things, and if push came to shove the argument could be made that the body WAS in the car, but that doesn't mean that Casey actively killed the child. Once the defense introduced accidental death as a consideration it changed the trial. The state had to prove that she killed her daughter, AND that it was premeditated. They never had the evidence to do that and would have been better off going forward with ONLY the manslaughter charge- as they could have focused more on the evidence instead of Casey's actions.

The behavior is explained simply by saying that she reacted badly- out of fear, out of grief out of anything- people react in different ways and even just plain STUPID ways. The argument can be made that the tattoo was a tribute by a loving mother celebrating her daughter's life. Her partying was an attempt to escape from a reality she couldn't cope with, the lies can be written off as someone trying to deny the reality of a horrible situation. Whether I believe that or not is of no consequence. They are all legally plausible explanations, and are together enough to create legal reasonable doubt.

If people are upset with the verdict, they need to look not at the defendant, but at the prosecution, who thought it was a slam-dunk case and went forward when they shouldn't have.


----------



## catlvr976 (Feb 16, 2003)

I was wondering, as I haven't really foloowed the case....who/where is the little girls' father?


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *insidevoice*
> 
> The state didn't make any case about an accidental drowning. That's just the point. The state tried to paint a picture of a violent mother who actively killed her child, they didn't have concrete evidence to make that case.
> 
> ...


Thanks for sharing your opinion!

The state's theory has nothing to do with an accidental drowning, so they would have no reason to push that theory in one way or other. That said, the chief medical examiner said in 100% of the accidental drowning cases they see, 911 is called. They've also shown doubt that the ladder was actually up that day (no records indicating Cindy called George when she said she did and Cindy changing her statement).

As for the smell, have you ever smelled a dead body? There is no other smell like it, so you can't really confuse it with anything else. Sorry.

I don't believe the prosecution thought this was a slam-dunk case, nor do I think they went forward when they shouldn't have. There was plenty of evidence in the case (duct tape that was proved to have been taken from their home, car smell, decomposition on hair, the chief medical examiner saying 100% of accidental drowning victims were called into 911, etc., etc., as I won't list it all). That said, I do not think this was a death penalty case.

Did/do you believe Scott Peterson was guilty?


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *catlvr976*
> 
> I was wondering, as I haven't really foloowed the case....who/where is the little girls' father?


It's unknown and will probably remain unknown as Casey refuses to be honest about it. She did make a claim on one guy and he acted as a father until he got a paternity test.


----------



## insidevoice (Feb 16, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> Thanks for sharing your opinion!
> 
> ...


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

I guess the prosecutor's worst fear came true - common sense just isn't common. Sad.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *insidevoice*
> 
> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> ...


Do you think she did murder her child regardless of what you believe the evidence shows?

I can't tell if you want to skirt the question or not, but, do you believe Scott Peterson should have been found guilty based upon the evidence?


----------



## insidevoice (Feb 16, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> I guess the prosecutor's worst fear came true - common sense just isn't common. Sad.
> 
> ...


I guess my point is that what I think doesn't really matter. Nor should it.

From an entirely personal point of view- yes, I think Casey was involved in her daughter's death, and yes, I think Scott Peterson murdered his wife. In the Peterson case, I think the prosecution did a better job of putting the pieces together. I still don't think it should have been a capital case, but they did make a better case. Also, as someone vehemently opposed to the death penalty, I find anything short of a videotape of the crime and 50 eyewitnesses with perfect recall and impeccable character (yes, I realize that doesn't happen) insufficient evidence for a capital case.


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *insidevoice*
> 
> I guess my point is that what I think doesn't really matter. Nor should it.
> 
> From an entirely personal point of view- yes, I think Casey was involved in her daughter's death, and yes, I think Scott Peterson murdered his wife. In the Peterson case, I think the prosecution did a better job of putting the pieces together. I still don't think it should have been a capital case, but they did make a better case. Also, as someone vehemently opposed to the death penalty, I find anything short of a videotape of the crime and 50 eyewitnesses with perfect recall and impeccable character (yes, I realize that doesn't happen) insufficient evidence for a capital case.


Your point wasn't lost on me. However, I guess the difference between myself and those that would vote not guilty despite believing a murder took place is that I could not live with myself if I voted not guilty. As a juror, I would have to vote guilty if common sense, reasonable evidence pointed towards guilt.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It is nice to hear how others view this.


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

I think it is an atrocity that she was acquitted. She admitted to being present at her daughter's death. The fact that she had duct tape on her skull and the fact that she was dumped in a swamp, bagged in garbage bags ((who knows how as Jose Baez said himself 'we'll never know' how handy.)) should have at LEAST gotten Miss Anthony aggravated child abuse. It's disgusting. I've been following this case since day 1, three years ago and watched every single day of jury selection and trial. It's a very sad day. Talk about losing faith in the justice system. Bleh. She'll be a free woman on Thursday. Citizens beware.


----------



## VocalMinority (Apr 8, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> I am sick over the verdict. I honestly feel ill that I live in this country right now.


I feel sick over the verdict, too.

But if you listened to the judge's instructions to the jury, one was "To find her guilty, you *must* determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee's death was caused by a premeditated *criminal act* on Casey's part" (my paraphrasing). Unfortunately, I think that was a nearly insurmountable thing to overcome, given the circumstances. Casey's outrageous, infuriating, narcissistic, mind-boggling behavior makes it seem obvious that WHATEVER happened was her fault...but no one *knows* what happened.

Does Casey seem sufficiently selfish and emotionally detached to be capable of chloroforming her toddler, smothering her with duct tape and driving around with her in the trunk? There can't be any question in anyone's mind that she IS.

But, toddlers DO die by accident. They drown in pools or bathtubs. They put things into their mouths that they shouldn't and can be poisoned. They choke on things. They get mini-blind cords wrapped around their necks. Does Casey ALSO seem sufficiently out-of-touch with reality and - again - emotionally detached from her child, to have found Caylee accidentally dead and to have put duct tape over her mouth and tossed her in the woods down the street, thinking "People will believe someone else did this"? Yes.

The prosecution *meant* to be rhetorical, in asking, "Who would take an accident and make it look like murder?" (my paraphrasing). But would you put that past Casey? Calling 9-1-1, feeling guilt, mourning and holding a funeral are *rational* responses to a child's accidental death. Casey *isn't* rational. She seemed to think she could indefinitely keep her parents from realizing that a child who lived in their home was missing. She took police to an office she no longer worked in. She invented a kidnapping nanny. Did she do those things because she's loony; or because she's cunning and calculated and understood how it behooved her, to make herself look unstable? Who knows? But either way, *yes*, she's a person who might have taken an accident and reacted to it SO inappropriately that she made it look like murder.

And she wasn't prosecuted for being so disturbingly inappropriate; for failing to be despondent at the loss of her daughter; for being so hugely and infuriatingly self-centered. She was charged with killing her daughter with a premeditated, criminal act. Without knowing how poor, little Caylee died, how could the jury *really* know?

As far as our country, I'm glad we can't sentence people to death for being detestable.

I do, however, have grave doubts that a jury would've let Casey walk, if she were a father.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jeannine*
> 
> As far as our country, I'm glad we can't sentence people to death for being detestable.
> 
> I do, however, have grave doubts that a jury would've let Casey walk, *if she were a father.*


Or non-white.

The prosecutor was also snickering, or laughing during the defense closing, which is terrible manners, and very well could have had the jury questioning just how serious the prosecution really was about the whole case.

I think the prosecution should have realized a LONG time ago that they didn't have enough evidence for Capital Murder. They likely WOULD have gotten a conviction on a lesser charge - but they weren't trying for a conviction on a lesser charge - they wanted the death penalty.

And yeah, she probably should have been charged with child abuse, or manslaughter. Problem is, the Jury doesn't make the charges, they only make the verdict. The prosecution simply didn't have enough evidence for capital murder, and they should have tried her on lesser charges.


----------



## TCMoulton (Oct 30, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> Or non-white.
> 
> ...


The jury had the option to convict her of 1st degree, 2nd degree, or aggravated manslaughter - they found her not guilty of all three counts.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TCMoulton*
> 
> The jury had the option to convict her of 1st degree, 2nd degree, or aggravated manslaughter - they found her not guilty of all three counts.


And the prosecution did a really bad job of setting up the trial. Aggravated Manslaughter isn't the easiest to prove either, b/c it requires that the defendant cause the death of the victim - and the prosecution couldn't prove that. They couldn't prove anything, it was completely circumstantial. Lesser Manslaughter charges might have worked though - b/c they would only need to prove a high degree of criminal negligence - which they could prove (based on not reporting for 30days, which was a fact, not supposition. Or lying to police about a fictional nanny).

The prosecution messed up big time, plain and simple.


----------



## insidevoice (Feb 16, 2011)

Negligent Homicide would have been pretty attainable as well.

The prosecution overreached.


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jeannine*
> 
> I feel sick over the verdict, too.
> 
> ...


Premeditation *was not* the issue as there were several lesser charges -- second degree murder and third-degree murder (and possibly another, if I'm not mistaken). Even if they could not prove premeditation, I do believe there was enough evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, to convict her of murder (second degree).

I'm not a huge fan of the death penalty and I've maintained from the beginning that I didn't believe that should have been an option.

Yes, she would have been charged if she were a father. If you look at Scott Peterson, there was far less evidence in that case and he is on death row. There have been plenty of other woman convicted of murder with circumstantial evidence, but the fact this woman was young and attractive played in her favor, sadly.


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> Or non-white.
> 
> ...


They did.


----------



## VocalMinority (Apr 8, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> [I have grave doubts that the jury would've let Casey walk if she were a father...] Or non-white.


----------



## VocalMinority (Apr 8, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> Premeditation *was not* the issue as there were several lesser charges -- second degree murder and third-degree murder (and possibly another, if I'm not mistaken). Even if they could not prove premeditation, I do believe there was enough evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, to convict her of murder (second degree).
> 
> ...


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> They did.


But the "lesser" charges were all intentional murder charges, and they have no proof that she murdered the child, or that she intended to murder the child. They could have gotten 1st, 2nd, or involuntary manslaughter, and gotten convictions. I think pretty easily. I do not believe that she should have been found guilty of an intentional murder when it was based solely on circumstantial evidence. I think this is an example of the prosecution WAY overreaching.

I also think it says something it was a jury of conservative, death penalty believing (all jurors who did not believe in the death penalty were excused automatically), jurors in Florida (which is a state that has a high death penalty rate), found her not-guilty. The prosecution proceeded without a rock solid case - which is what you need for intentional murder.


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> But the "lesser" charges *were all intentional murder charges*, and they have no proof that she murdered the child, or that she intended to murder the child. They could have gotten 1st, 2nd, or involuntary manslaughter, and gotten convictions. I think pretty easily. I do not believe that she should have been found guilty of an intentional murder when it was based solely on circumstantial evidence. I think this is an example of the prosecution WAY overreaching.
> 
> I also think it says something it was a jury of conservative, death penalty believing (all jurors who did not believe in the death penalty were excused automatically), jurors in Florida (which is a state that has a high death penalty rate), found her not-guilty. The prosecution proceeded without a rock solid case - which is what you need for intentional murder.


Actually, no.

One of the charges clearly states, "...Or by intentionally committing an act or actively encouraging another person to commit an act which could reasonably be expected to result in physical injury to CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY." and the other states "...Did willfully or by culpable negligence, in violation of Florida Statites 782.07(3) and 827.0393), while a caregiver to Caylee Marie Anthony, a child under 18 years of age, fail or omit to provide CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY with the care, supervision and services necessary to maintain CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY'S physical and metal health, or fail to make a reasonable effort to protect CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY from abuse, neglect or exploitation by another person, and in so doing caused the death of CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY."

I do not believe this was a death penalty case. However, my assumption is that the prosecution believed the computer forensic evidence was strong enough to prove premeditation. Either way, this is a travesty, as a murderer goes free and is now free to make millions off her murdered child.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> Actually, no.
> 
> ...


The third one, the prosecution may have had the evidence to support, but they didn't use it. The prosecution was shooting blind and trying to convince the jury with pure emotion - which isn't what the law is based on.


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

I don't intend to change your (general) opinion and my opinion is certainly not going to be changed.







It is definitely enlightening to hear other opinions about this.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> Actually, no.
> 
> One of the charges clearly states, "...Or by *intentionally committing an act* [This requires the mental state of intent - which the prosecution had ZERO evidence of] or actively encouraging another person to commit an act which could reasonably be expected to result in physical injury [The prosecution also didn't have any evidence of Casey encouraging another person to kill Caylee] to CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY." and the other states "...Did willfully or by culpable negligence, in violation of Florida Statites 782.07(3) and 827.0393), while a caregiver to Caylee Marie Anthony, a child under 18 years of age, fail or omit to provide CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY with the care, supervision and services necessary to maintain CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY'S physical and metal health, or fail to make a reasonable effort to protect CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY from abuse, neglect or exploitation by another person, and in so doing caused the death of CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY."


I never once suggested she encouraged anyone else to kill Caylee and I'm sure you understand the law and know that charge does not only pertain to encouraging another to commit the act.







My point is that there were lesser charges that did not include premeditation.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama* p
> 
> The third one, the prosecution may have had the evidence to support, but they didn't use it. The prosecution was shooting blind and trying to convince the jury with pure emotion - which isn't what the law is based on.


I could not disagree more. I believe they had plenty of evidence to prove culpable negligence. Not calling 911 when your child is missing (drowned, killed, kidnapped, I don't care!) is negligent. One of the facts in this case, with video evidence, is that she claimed the child was kidnapped and by not calling 911, that goes directly to culpable negligence because she put that child at risk for harm or murder.


----------



## Celticqueen (Feb 17, 2007)

Apparently morning sickness isn't the only thing making me want to puke today. What a horrible verdict.

Injustice has been served. In a way, "freedom" will be like prison for a while for Casey, though. The sheer amount of people who hate her guts right now does not shock me. What will it be like for her to go to the grocery store? To the mall with one of her boyfriends? Sure, a few years from now, or less, people will stop talking about her. Some will even forget her face. But the next 6 months at least will be tough. To be such a hated member of society has to be nearly impossible to live a normal life, I can only imagine.

The biggest issue at hand is the death sentence. All it takes is more than half of the jury members to be morally against it and even if enough evidence was provided (which there was), they won't convict her because they don't believe she should be killed for killing. I don't know if that was even the case, but it wouldn't surprise me. I am not against the death sentence for cases like this.

My heart goes out to her daughter, and Casey's parents, but I cannot, and will never understand Casey's immature, spoiled, narcissistic brain. There is no doubt in my mind that she killed her own daughter, and I will continue to be sick about this for awhile.

I gave my 2 year old a big fat hug today. I am thankful that he is in a family that loves him, would never hurt him, protects him and would search for him with sleepless nights if he was ever lost. It sickens me that some toddlers are not so fortunate, but that's our world for ya.

Casey Anthony: Please don't breed again.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> I don't intend to change your (general) opinion and my opinion is certainly not going to be changed.
> 
> ...


I agree that they had evidence, I just don't think it was presented well. The prosecution was also laughing during the defense closing - and there is NOTHING acceptable about that. Particularly in a capital case - ALL members of legal teams need to be on their best court room behavior at all times, b/c you don't know what the jury is going to think about how you're acting. The prosecutor screwed up BIG TIME.

I don't know who killed the little girl, but the prosecution had no business charging Casey Anthony with Capital Murder, or any crimes that required intent to kill, or intent to cause harm, since they had no evidence of her intent. And no, a photo of her partying and getting drunk doesn't provide evidence of intent.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Celticqueen*
> 
> *The biggest issue at hand is the death sentence. All it takes is more than half of the jury members to be morally against it and even if enough evidence was provided (*which there was), they won't convict her because they don't believe she should be killed for killing. I don't know if that was even the case, but it wouldn't surprise me. I am not against the death sentence for cases like this.


Potential jurors who stated that they were against the death penalty were excused - ALL the jurors were OK with the death penalty. That alone makes me think the jury did their job well, b/c if any jury was going find her guilty, it was a pro-death penalty one in Florida (which is a state that has a LOT of people on death row).


----------



## Celticqueen (Feb 17, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> Potential jurors who stated that they were against the death penalty were excused - ALL the jurors were OK with the death penalty. That alone makes me think the jury did their job well, b/c if any jury was going find her guilty, it was a pro-death penalty one in Florida (which is a state that has a LOT of people on death row).


Thanks for clarifying. As I said before, I didn't know


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> I never once suggested she encouraged anyone else to kill Caylee and I'm sure you understand the law and know that charge does not only pertain to encouraging another to commit the act.
> 
> ...


I've mentioned this before, but the computer results speak for themselves in terms of premeditation. (Premeditation wasn't even my point as I've already stated a few times.) And, yes, that isn't exactly a video of her committing the crime, but computer evidence (in any case where it is utilised) can be damning and has aided in many convictions. I also believe they had evidence of intent; we will simply not agree on that.

I don't think it's acceptable to laugh during closing, but I don't believe that had much to do with the jury's decision. And, if it did, well, the jury just wasn't following the law. Further, I won't even delve into the lack of professionalism exhibited by Baez. It seems many give him a pass, though, because unlike Ashton, this is his first rodeo. Regardless, I can agree that Ashton was not professional in his hand-covering snicker.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Celticqueen*
> 
> *The biggest issue at hand is the death sentence. All it takes is more than half of the jury members to be morally against it and even if enough evidence was provided (*which there was), they won't convict her because they don't believe she should be killed for killing. I don't know if that was even the case, but it wouldn't surprise me. I am not against the death sentence for cases like this.


There was a juror that had "misgivings" about the death penalty, a juror who "thought" s/he could impose the death penalty, but didn't like to judge people, and a juror who "guessed" s/he could impose it. I, personally, do not feel this was a DP case and I couldn't sentence someone like this to death, but it doesn't even begin to answer why she was acquitted.


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> Potential jurors who stated that they were against the death penalty were excused - ALL the jurors were OK with the death penalty. That alone makes me think the jury did their job well, b/c if any jury was going find her guilty, it was a pro-death penalty one in Florida (which is a state that has a LOT of people on death row).


The jury did not do their job well, IMO. Juror number three did an interview and she said that the state didn't prove COD or motive. They were specifically instructed that the state did not, under the law, have to prove this. This jury didn't understand the basic jury instructions.

This whole thing makes me sad.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lovingmommyhood*
> 
> The jury did not do their job well, IMO. Juror number three did an interview and she said that the state didn't prove COD or motive. They were specifically instructed that the state did not, under the law, have to prove this. This jury didn't understand the basic jury instructions.
> 
> This whole thing makes me sad.


The state may not have HAD to prove cause of death (as in, what actually caused Caylee to die - drowning for example), but the state DID have to prove that Casey KILLED her, with intent and pre-meditation, in order for the jury to convict (the level of "intent" varied based on the charges, and not all charges required pre-meditation). The state did not prove that Casey KILLED Caylee, the state proved that Caylee died and that Casey partied afterwards - that doesn't mean Casey Killed Caylee.

The fact that Caylee died is most certainly sad. The fact that the prosecution overreached when they couldn't prove what they needed to, is also sad. But its not sad that the jury did what they were told - there wasn't enough evidence.


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lovingmommyhood*
> 
> The jury did not do their job well, IMO. Juror number three did an interview and she said that the state didn't prove COD or motive. They were specifically instructed that the state did not, under the law, have to prove this. This jury didn't understand the basic jury instructions.
> 
> This whole thing makes me sad.


I agree, they didn't, and even with a NG verdict, I would have expected a bit more time to discuss things, look at evidence, etc. One of the jurors also discussed punishment, which was clearly against Judge Perry's orders to them (as is standard).

They *did not have to prove premeditation* on every charge and further, they only had to prove that Casey's actions were neglectful and that those actions led to Caylee's death to get a conviction. Clearly there was enough admitted evidence for that. I believe their interest in rushing through instructions they truly didn't understand allowed a murderess to go free.

You know, it's kinda interesting that the Amanda Brumfield case was in Orlando. They had a lot less evidence in that case and yet, she was convicted of manslaughter. I wonder if things would have gone a little differently had the prosecution spent time explaining the law to the jury during their closing arguments.


----------



## mar123 (Apr 14, 2008)

I think they proved her negligence caused Caylee's death and in not finding that, the jury made a mistake. The fact that they didn't really review anything (tapes, transcripts, etc) or ask any questions is unreal. In a case like this, there are usually many questions from the jury.

I often hear people brag about how they got out of jury duty. Well, when intelligent people get out of it, this is what we are left with.

I did hear that one juror said they were crying and sick and just couldn't deal with it anymore.


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mar123*
> 
> *I often hear people brag about how they got out of jury duty. Well, when intelligent people get out of it, this is what we are left with.*


Post of the day.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> Post of the day.


Really? You want someone on a jury that doesn't want to be there? I think there are far more rushed verdicts when its a bunch of people who don't give a damn and don't want to be there.

Also, I know that not every charge required pre-meditation. Thats fine. The prosecutor was NOT trying to get a conviction on those charges - they were collateral charges that were designed to be a "catch all" in case they didn't find for the main charge. But the prosecutors case was terrible, and there was no Proof. It doesn't matter what the jury "knows" or "believes" or "thinks" about Casey, its about what the prosecutor can PROVE.

He may have been able to prove that her negligence caused Caylee's death, but instead he chose to make a piss poor case about capital murder and how she was guilty of pre-meditated intentional murder, when he didn't have evidence of that - he had evidence for negligence, for aiding and abetting possibly, but NOT premeditated, intentional murder.


----------



## mar123 (Apr 14, 2008)

I think more people need to see jury duty as a responsibility- something that is needed to have a good society. You can't leave things like this up to everybody else and then be unhappy and complain about the results. Just like voting- if you don't, you shouldn't complain.


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

ETA: For those that believe the jury didn't do their job, they are right. As stated by Juror 3, "If they charged her with other things, we probably could have gotten a guilty verdict, absolutely," Ford said today on "Good Morning America". "But not for death, not for first-degree murder. That's a very substantial charge."

She also went on to say if she was wrong and she, the juror, killed someone (death row), she couldn't live with it. She said the death penalty weighed heavily in their decision because she needed full proof Casey did this or else she is no better than Casey (a murderer). That should not have been a thought in their minds at that point and again, they did *not* follow instructions.

It's a travesty. This young woman is to blame for Casey going free because she did not read the jury instructions, which includes several lesser charges. I'm sure people will blame the prosecution for this, but the fact remains, the jurors did not do their job or follow the law in reading and understanding the jury instructions and that is proof.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> Really? You want someone on a jury that doesn't want to be there? I think there are far more rushed verdicts when its a bunch of people who don't give a damn and don't want to be there.
> 
> Also, I know that not every charge required pre-meditation. Thats fine. The prosecutor was NOT trying to get a conviction on those charges - they were collateral charges that were designed to be a "catch all" in case they didn't find for the main charge. But the prosecutors case was terrible, and there was no Proof. It doesn't matter what the jury "knows" or "believes" or "thinks" about Casey, *its about what the prosecutor can PROVE.*
> ...


Re-read the post she made; it was pretty clear what she was saying. I think the verdict was a result of several things, most of them related to an ill-equipped jury. You've maintained they did their job, yet their was evidence of neglect; it can't be both. They did not understand or follow the instructions they were given (both with the law and those of Judge Perry), nor did they follow the law.

And the prosecutors could and *did* prove negligence. They also proved premeditation with various pieces of evidence, but again, we simply won't agree on that.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mar123*
> 
> I think more people need to see jury duty as a responsibility- something that is needed to have a good society. You can't leave things like this up to everybody else and then be unhappy and complain about the results. Just like voting- if you don't, you shouldn't complain.


I do agree with you that people need to take jury duty seriously. Part of that responsibility should include taking it seriously by taking your time to work through each charge, reading the instructions, asking questions, and finally, not trying to profit off the murder (or death) of a small child.


----------



## Dr.Worm (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> Premeditation *was not* the issue as there were several lesser charges -- second degree murder and third-degree murder (and possibly another, if I'm not mistaken). Even if they could not prove premeditation, I do believe there was enough evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, to convict her of murder (second degree).
> 
> ...


This made me think of Diane Downs...she shot her kids, one died, one was paralyzed and she is still in jail. This happened in 1983.


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dr.Worm*
> 
> This made me think of Diane Downs...she shot her kids, one died, one was paralyzed and she is still in jail. This happened in 1983.


Yes there are young, white women who have been imprisoned (Susan Smith, Amanda Lewis, etc.) for similar crimes; however, generally speaking, people do not want to believe a young white woman could kill their own child. The other similarity between Susan Smith and Casey Anthony are they both initially blamed their crime on people of different races - African American male, Hispanic female. Pretty disgusting.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

What peices of evidence proved pre-meditation? Partying afterwards doesn't prove pre-meditation. I really don't think the prosecutors had the evidence they needed. It's terrible, but they didn't have the evidence. Juror 14 has also spoken about the trial, and he said that he agreed with the verdict (he did not vote, b/c he was an alternate so he only sat through the trial and deliberations) b/c the prosecutor didn't prove anything, not how Caylee died, not who killed her, and he said that the entire family was really screwed up - but thats not a crime, and its not proof that a crime was committed.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> And the prosecutors could and *did* prove negligence. *They also proved premeditation with various pieces of evidence*, but again, we simply won't agree on that.


----------



## Dr.Worm (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> Yes there are young, white women who have been imprisoned (Susan Smith, Amanda Lewis, etc.) for similar crimes; however, generally speaking, people do not want to believe a young white woman could kill their own child. The other similarity between Susan Smith and Casey Anthony are they both initially blamed their crime on people of different races - African American male, Hispanic female. Pretty disgusting.


Sorry, I'm sick and not making sense today lol. I meant that I agree with you. People really do have a hard time believing a pretty young mother could kill their child, I was just thinking of Diane because of how it was amazing she got put in jail at all considering how she used her looks to her advantage.


----------



## Aillidh (Jun 14, 2011)

This case made me so sad. The jury made a mistake, in my opinion. An injustice was done.

Quote:


> Casey Anthony: Please don't breed again.


I totally agree.


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> What peices of evidence proved pre-meditation? Partying afterwards doesn't prove pre-meditation. I really don't think the prosecutors had the evidence they needed. It's terrible, but they didn't have the evidence. Juror 14 has also spoken about the trial, and he said that he agreed with the verdict (he did not vote, b/c he was an alternate so he only sat through the trial and deliberations) b/c the prosecutor didn't prove anything, not how Caylee died, not who killed her, and he said that the entire family was really screwed up - but thats not a crime, and its not proof that a crime was committed.


I have to chuckle because you're preoccupied with the premeditation aspect of this case (even though there were charges that did not require premeditation) and yet, you refuse to read what I wrote several times. I'll repeat myself again -- the computer evidence in this case is enough to prove premeditation. I don't think partying equates to premeditation and have never even insinuated as much. In fact, you are the one that continually brings that up. Computer forensic evidence was provided. That, alone, is enough to show premeditation. Computer searches done on the family computer under Casey's password-protected account do show premeditation. I do not find it mere coincidence that she was doing her searches on the very chemical found in the trunk of that car (not to suggest that was the only chemical found in the trunk).

Honestly, Juror 14 also said Casey was a good mom and that her harming her child just didn't fit in with that. (Apparently every murderer or criminal out there started out as a murderous baby and just manifested who they truly were in life when they became old enough to do so?) He also had a few facts of the case (that were in evidence) incorrect so I don't put much stock in what Juror 14 says. Good mothers don't lie to police officers about their supposedly missing, drowned, kidnapped, etc. children. Good mothers don't throw their child in trunks to let them rot (whether they are dead or alive). Good mothers don't put duct tape on their child's mouth for any reason whatsoever. I could go on and on and on and on. Oh, and Juror 14 also commented on "we" and yet, he didn't deliberate, so who exactly was he speaking for? As I said, I don't put any stock in what Juror 14 said.

Further, if you read what I wrote about Juror 3, a woman that actually deliberated on this case, you would see there were issues with the jury deliberations. In fact, another juror mentioned that 6 of the jury members refused to deliberate on anything beyond the last four counts. That isn't a deliberation.


----------



## Celticqueen (Feb 17, 2007)

This is a case of a woman not wanting to be a mother anymore and craving freedom from the demands of motherhood so she killed her daughter, was stupid enough to keep her in a trunk long enough to stink, then bagged her, placing a sticker from her own bedroom on the tape over her mouth showing the only bit of sentimental bit that 25 year old woman has in her entire being. The fact that her guilt is not obvious to some people truly amazes and saddens me.

I wish the body hadn't been "dry bones" though, as they would have found out even more. However, the evidence lined up enough to convict Casey's pathetic self. It should have been a slam dunk in her death sentence.

As a previous poster said, I too question the intelligence of these jurors.

And here people are speculating Casey will get millions of dollars from all of this, book deals, movie deals. Go America for the exploitation of a murder! Not like it hasn't happened before, though


----------



## coffeegirl (Jan 1, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> I have to chuckle because you're preoccupied with the premeditation aspect of this case (even though there were charges that did not require premeditation) and yet, you refuse to read what I wrote several times. I'll repeat myself again -- the computer evidence in this case is enough to prove premeditation. I don't think partying equates to premeditation and have never even insinuated as much. In fact, you are the one that continually brings that up. Computer forensic evidence was provided. That, alone, is enough to show premeditation. Computer searches done on the family computer under Casey's password-protected account do show premeditation. I do not find it mere coincidence that she was doing her searches on the very chemical found in the trunk of that car (not to suggest that was the only chemical found in the trunk).
> 
> ...


I saw the interview with Juror #3. I disagree with your conclusions though. She was trying to express herself, alone, as to what happened in there. She was specifically asked about her, and their, thought processes. She's been getting threats and doesn't feel safe in her home. She did not pull out a copy of their jury instructions and go point by point down the list, so let's not give this one interview too much weight. I am not convinced, from what I've heard, that the jurors failed to follow the law or failed to look at all the evidence. This was a circumstantial case, so there was always the possibility that this would happen even though I never would have believed it. You could have knocked me over with a feather when the verdict came. But *they* were the jury, they had the charges that the prosecution sent down, and they obviously coulnd't conclude that the evidence amounted to what the prosecutors wanted it to beyond a reasonable doubt.

I know that a similar kind of evidence convicted Scott Peterson, but there have also been strong circumstantial cases that LOSE because they're circumstatial. I also don't think this is like OJ or Michael Jackson at all. We can't discount the cult of celebrity there.

The fact that she's young, white and attractive....unfortunately that probably had some effect. If not with the jury, then at least with her incredible luck at securing an attorney dream team with absolutely no money.


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *coffeegirl*
> 
> I saw the interview with Juror #3. I disagree with your conclusions though. She was trying to express herself, alone, as to what happened in there. She was specifically asked about her, and their, thought processes. She's been getting threats and doesn't feel safe in her home. She did not pull out a copy of theirjury instructions and go point by point down the list, so let's not give this one interview too much weight. I am not convinced, from what I've heard, that the jurors failed to follow the law or failed to look at all the evidence. This was a circumstantial case, so there was always the possibility that this would happen even though I never would have believed it. You could have knocked me over with a feather when the verdict came. But *they* were the jury, they had the charges that the prosecution sent down, and they obviously coulnd't conclude that the evidence amounted to what the prosecutors wanted it to beyond a reasonable doubt.
> 
> ...


The judge ordered the jurors not to consider punishment in their deliberations. Juror 3 explicitly stated that weighed heavily on her and their deliberations. She also went on to say if she was wrong and she, the juror, killed someone (death row), she couldn't live with it. She said the death penalty weighed heavily in their decision because she needed full proof Casey did this or else she is no better than Casey (a murderer). That should not have been a thought in their minds at that point and again, they did *not* follow instructions.

She further went on to say, and I quote, "If they charged her with other things, we probably could have gotten a guilty verdict, absolutely," Ford said today on "Good Morning America". "But not for death, not for first-degree murder. That's a very substantial charge." There were lesser charges. It is pretty clear when you say "we could have found her guilty on something other than first degree murder", you didn't understand there were lesser charges to consider.

Also, I think I stated earlier that one of the jurors (not named) said six people refused to deliberate. Well, that's the very nature of deliberation. Yanno? The jury foreman, unless he was one of the six, should have reined things in, as that was part of the responsibility that he accepted.

I'm sorry, but attorney dream team?







Were we watching the same trial? There is a reason he was called Bozo in the press (and other defense attorneys were less than complimentary of his performance, which says a lot because defense attorneys are typically staunch supporters of other defense attorneys). They did not "win" because they were a "dream team". The jury is required to consider all of the evidence and to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. They refused to take more than 11 hours to deliberate on a several-week long case. Most of them left their notebooks in the courtroom when they went to deliberate. How can you possibly remember every piece of evidence that was presented over several weeks? You can't. They didn't ask to review anything, look through anything, and according to one juror, 6 of them refused to discuss the case further. I'm sorry, but that isn't deliberating.


----------



## mar123 (Apr 14, 2008)

I completely understand our justice system and the way it is supposed to work. But it is so sad that when jurors come out and say the things that are being said, that there isn't some type of "do over." Obviously they didn't do their job and Casey is benefitting from this. It really is maddening.


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mar123*
> 
> I completely understand our justice system and the way it is supposed to work. But it is so sad that when jurors come out and say the things that are being said, that there isn't some type of "do over." Obviously they didn't do their job and Casey is benefitting from this. It really is maddening.


I posted this on the first page, but you likely didn't see it. If you come back, this is an interesting article titled "Casey Anthony Verdict: A Jury of Idiots or Hapless Peers?". In the last paragraph the article basically says that trials like this are a sporting event in this country, whereas, in other countries the prosecution and defense work to uncover the truth. It then states that this type of scenario (a lack of justice) does not happen as frequently in other countries because of the aforementioned setup.

Also, there is now a petition for Caylee's Law, which you can sign here. It's amazing that it was at 300,000 or so signatures yesterday and now it's climbing to 700,000. I am in 100% agreement with you on the injustice here and I guess I feel a little contented to know something just may come out of this unjust situation.


----------



## coffeegirl (Jan 1, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> The judge ordered the jurors not to consider punishment in their deliberations. Juror 3 explicitly stated that weighed heavily on her and their deliberations. She also went on to say if she was wrong and she, the juror, killed someone (death row), she couldn't live with it. She said the death penalty weighed heavily in their decision because she needed full proof Casey did this or else she is no better than Casey (a murderer). That should not have been a thought in their minds at that point and again, they did *not* follow instructions.
> 
> ...


Ah, ok. I didn't realize you were there in the jury room with them. My apologies.

About the attorneys: yes, I think they were a "dream team" as the term is used. I could care less what the press called Jose Baez. Why should we care about that? This was a jury trial, tried in a court of law. The fact that the court of public opinion and the press didn't agree ultimately means nothing, because it's not their verdict that CA is walking free on in 9 days. The press didn't try this case, or serve on the jury. I'm assuming that the juror who spoke to the press was answering specific questions the best she could.

Now admittedly they weren't the caliber of OJ's lawyers. But a team of lawyers, who were working-- as far as CA was concerned anyhow-- for free....for 3 years....and their work got her acquitted. So yeah.

FTR I strongly suspect that she killed her daughter. But I also think she got a fair trial.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> The judge ordered the jurors not to consider punishment in their deliberations. Juror 3 explicitly stated that weighed heavily on her and their deliberations.


You know...I get this. I really do. They're supposed to judge purely on the evidence. But...it's not reasonable to expect that you can simply order someone to ignore their own conscience. If the jurors aren't supposed to consider punishment in their deliberations, it would make a lot more sense to keep the punishment under wraps during the trial. They're not really any reason why a juror needs to know if a case is capital or not, and I can't see how anyone could avoid factoring that in, to one degree or another, in their deliberations. The judge was basically saying, "if there's any small possibility that she's innocent, you'll be committing murder by casting a guilty vote, but don't worry about that". I really think most people would have trouble with that.

And, that's my sole contribution to this discussion. I know very little about this case, because I just can't reading about it. I never was very able to read stuff about murdered children, especially young ones. Since Aaron, I can't do it at all.


----------



## coffeegirl (Jan 1, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mar123*
> 
> I completely understand our justice system and the way it is supposed to work. But it is so sad that when jurors come out and say the things that are being said, that there isn't some type of "do over." Obviously they didn't do their job and Casey is benefitting from this. It really is maddening.


I understand the maddening part. But they weren't allowed to work with evidence that the prosecution didn't give them. Or didn't prove to them to the exclusion of any reasonable doubt. To say that the system didn't work this times assumes, IMO, that something needs to change. What exactly should change? That's what bothers me. Any kind of "change" that comes about from this born of the public's collective outrage would (I'm afraid) have to do with circumstantial evidence being given more weight, or with allowing jurors to work form their emotions, or to make assumptions on facts not in evidence. That would undoubtedly lead to defendents who don't have Casey's resources to NOT get fair trials in the future. We don't want to make it just okey dokey that people are put to death on circumstantial evidence all the time now, with no DNA, direct witnesses, etc., you know?

If you're mad, look to the prosecution. The burden was on them.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Quote:


> Also, for those interested in signing a petition regarding Caylee's Law, you can go here. And, four states are already working on Caylee's Law - Florida, Oklahoma, Maryland, and Kentucky.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There should probably be a separate thread for discussion of the proposed law but since it was posted here, I'll reply here.

I think this is yet another example of a knee jerk reaction to tragedy or an outcome people don't like. We see this all the time. We couldn't convict her on other charges, so let's make up a new charge that we could have made stick. I think it has no legal basis as a federal law, the link to the petition is only getting play because people are mad that she wasn't convicted and are now just making up a law that they wish was in place so they could get her for something. I think that if the law goes into effect it will be a bureaucratic nightmare, where parents will be forced by fear to report kids to police which never needed to be reported and will force law enforcement to deal with a massive overload of paperwork keeping track of said reports. I can't even tell you how many times my parents had no idea where I was for over 24 hours. Completely and utterly stupid.


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coffeegirl*
> 
> Ah, ok. I didn't realize you were there in the jury room with them. My apologies.
> 
> ...


Apparently you didn't actually listen to the what Juror #3 said when she went on GMA. I didn't guess or assume; I copied, verbatim what she stated in that interview. If you listened to or watched other jurors speak, you would hear exactly what they said and it is as I stated above. And, no, they did not follow the law they were given, nor was it in their jury instructions. And, yes, I have them. When you say something incorrect, I'm going to correct you. My apologies.

Do you know what dream team means? Please look it up because these lawyers would not qualify as anything close to what the term "dream team" actually means. Mason was the most well-known and well, I can bet most people weren't familiar with him prior to this trial. Her team wasn't working for free, either. And, winning one case does not a dream team make. Baez was a lawyer for three years prior to this case. Prior to that, most of his courtroom experience was related to his own child support issues with his ex-wife.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> You know...I get this. I really do. They're supposed to judge purely on the evidence. But...it's not reasonable to expect that you can simply order someone to ignore their own conscience. If the jurors aren't supposed to consider punishment in their deliberations, it would make a lot more sense to keep the punishment under wraps during the trial. They're not really any reason why a juror needs to know if a case is capital or not, and I can't see how anyone could avoid factoring that in, to one degree or another, in their deliberations. The judge was basically saying, "if there's any small possibility that she's innocent, you'll be committing murder by casting a guilty vote, but don't worry about that". I really think most people would have trouble with that.
> 
> And, that's my sole contribution to this discussion. I know very little about this case, because I just can't reading about it. I never was very able to read stuff about murdered children, especially young ones. Since Aaron, I can't do it at all.


Sadly, this isn't the case, Storm, though I could understand it more if it were. They had several charges to consider, most of which didn't include the death penalty. There was only one charge in which the sentencing could be the death penalty (if a majority vote was given) and the Judge could overrule that. And, again, as some people are claiming in this thread, "the jurors followed the law", well, for a juror to consider punishment was against the law and rulings they were given, so I take issue with that statement.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coffeegirl*
> 
> I understand the maddening part. But they weren't allowed to work with evidence that the prosecution didn't give them. Or didn't prove to them to the exclusion of any reasonable doubt. To say that the system didn't work this times assumes, IMO, that something needs to change. What exactly should change? That's what bothers me. Any kind of "change" that comes about from this born of the public's collective outrage would (I'm afraid) have to do with circumstantial evidence being given more weight, or with allowing jurors to work form their emotions, or to make assumptions on facts not in evidence. That would undoubtedly lead to defendents who don't have Casey's resources to NOT get fair trials in the future. We don't want to make it just okey dokey that people are put to death on circumstantial evidence all the time now, with no DNA, direct witnesses, etc., you know?
> 
> If you're mad, look to the prosecution. The burden was on them.


Though I believe our justice system is not one of finding the truth or justice, I don't see that changing in this country anytime soon. Sadly. I don't think any country is perfect, for the record, though I did post an article up-thread that is really fascinating related to this very issue.

That said, no one had to be put to death in this case. No one. There was plenty of evidence for the lesser charges, which had nothing to do with the death penalty. I sure do hope more murderers start videotaping their crimes!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arduinna*
> 
> There should probably be a separate thread for discussion of the proposed law but since it was posted here, I'll reply here.
> 
> I think this is yet another example of a knee jerk reaction to tragedy or an outcome people don't like. We see this all the time. We couldn't convict her on other charges, so let's make up a new charge that we could have made stick. I think it has no legal basis as a federal law, the link to the petition is only getting play because people are mad that she wasn't convicted and are now just making up a law that they wish was in place so they could get her for something. I think that if the law goes into effect it will be a bureaucratic nightmare, where parents will be forced by fear to report kids to police which never needed to be reported and will force law enforcement to deal with a massive overload of paperwork keeping track of said reports. I can't even tell you how many times my parents had no idea where I was for over 24 hours. Completely and utterly stupid.


This isn't just an outcome people don't like. I could go on about that, but I've already outlined my points on this thread.

I don't believe it will become federal law for several reasons. However, four states are already working on it becoming state law. Laws are often created when there are cracks in the system and this was a crack. Look at Jessica's Law, Jimmy Ryce Act, etc.. Yes, they create more paperwork, but I believe the "work" is worth the safety of children.

If you (general) can lose a toddler for over 24 hours without worry, panic, calling 911, etc., what does that really say about you as a parent? Maybe it's just me and the people I associate with, but I've never known anyone to lose a child for over 24 hours and not report it. Nor have I known anyone to lose their child for over 24 hours many times and not report it. Lastly, this isn't simply a reaction to not reporting a missing child; this is a situation where a mother claimed their child was kidnapped from their hands and they didn't report it. Again, I can't speak to the verbiage of this law in every state, but I still believe it is worth the "work". Apparently over 700,000 people agree.

(I have more thoughts on the "losing a child" aspect of this, but I have to go for right now.)

Edited to fix an embarrassing spelling error because I was in a rush.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

The proposed law is not limited to toddlers.


----------



## VocalMinority (Apr 8, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> If you (general) can lose a toddler for over 24 hours without worry, panic, calling 911, etc., what does that really say about you as a parent? Maybe it's just me and the people I associate with, but I've never known anyone to lose a child for over 24 hours and not report it.  Nor have I known anyone to lose their child for over 24 hours many times and not report it. Lastly, this isn't simply a reaction to not reporting a missing child; this is a situation where a mother claimed their child was kidnapped from their hands and they didn't report it. Again, I can't speak to the verbiage of this law in every state, but I still believe it is worth the "work". Apparently over 700,000 people agree.


I think so many people want to sign this petition because they wish they could change the verdict in the case.

I'm not sure the law would be such a great idea. How many parents can there be, who WOULDN'T panic and call police, if their child were missing? It's hard to imagine parents (besides Casey Anthony) - *even bad parents* - who need a law to compel them to do this.

Meanwhile, I can envision missing-child scenarios where there might be a delay in the parent *realizing* the child is missing, and such a law could then get in the way of a search. Think of a teen who lies to her parents that she's spending the weekend at a friend's house...so no one realizes her secret boyfriend has done something foul with her, until Monday morning. Or, a few times, my ex has kept our kids overnight when he was supposed to return them at bedtime. He can be rotten about remembering to call and communicate about things, or even to answer his phone. So, while I find it it's hard to sleep when this happens, I assume the kids are fine and will be home in the morning; and that calling police would be huge overkill and would seriously damage my relationship with my ex. But hypothetically, what if he kidnapped them, or had a car wreck on the way to drop them off?

If parents were breaking the law, if they took longer than 24 hours to call 9-1-1, sometimes you'd have police/prosecutors get frustrated about having no good leads in a missing-child case, who instead turn their attention to a problem they *can *solve...namely, persecuting the *parents*, for violating Caylee's Law and making sure the public blames the parents - not the cops - for the difficulty finding the kid. I think the potential for this type of situation is much higher than the potential that other Casey Anthonys will come along, and be too slippery to get convicted of anything except violating "Caylee's Law".


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arduinna*
> 
> The proposed law is not limited to toddlers.


That is correct. I used "toddler" in my example because that was the age range of the victim in this case.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jeannine*
> 
> I think so many people want to sign this petition because they wish they could change the verdict in the case.
> 
> ...


For your first statement, I can only speak for myself in saying, I know the law enough to know this petition (or law) will not change the outcome of the trial.









To address the rest of your post, from what I've read, the proposed law (state-varying) is being drafted in a way to include "failure to report your child missing when you knew s/he is likely in danger". (Some states are also proposing the law to include failing to report your child as deceased within one hour.) I can understand where those words would be critical in scenarios of runaways, teens, etc. As for the scenario you provided, again, that would not fit within what is being proposed to be covered by this law - your children are not lost (you know where they are) and you do not believe they are in danger (because they are with your ex-husband). Now, that scenario could certainly get sticky depending upon the type of person your ex-husband is, but again, if you do not believe the child is in danger and have no reason to suspect as much, I do no believe that situation would be covered under Caylee's Law. I don't even want to expand on that because the laws are still being written, proposed, etc., and I realize a lot of situations are unique, but I do not think that's the point of this law.

I'm not sure I understand the last paragraph of your post, but if you're suggesting the police will focus on charging the parents with something because they cannot find the child(ren), I certainly won't say that doesn't happen now (obviously not under Caylee's Law). Look at the Zahra Baker case, and hell, look at this case. I also believe that in most of those scenarios law enforcement believes the parents (or parent) were somehow involved. Look at this case: law enforcement believed Casey's lies about her child being kidnapped and it wasn't until she was caught in numerous lies that they started to look at her as the prime suspect. I'm not suggesting this is always the case, but if a parent is not cooperating, if a parent is changing their story, and/or if evidence suggests they had something to do with it, yes, they may arrest that parent for failure to report their child missing (under Caylee's Law). I'm, personally, okay with that.


----------



## DickTracy (Jul 10, 2011)

Here are the pieces of evidence THAT proved pre-meditation. Three pieces of duct tape. The duct tape applied to the childs mouth in and by itself, proves pre-meditation. As you may or may not know, pre-meditation can be formed in a split-second. Read about it, if you don't believe me.

How about a search for "how to make chloroform", page bookmarked and visited 83 more times.

How about consciousness of guilt (deleting the firebox browsing history in the early morning hours of July 16th), and lying to LE about Zanny the Nanny.

By the way SSM, Juror #14 didn't know what was going on in the deliberations. He was an ALTERNATE, and alternates do not deliberate. He wasn't EVEN IN THE ROOM. Did you know this?

This jury failed to follow the judges orders. They considered the penalty of each count in their discussions. They said the state didn't prove how she died, when she died, or why she died. Three things that are not required for them to consider, and was told by the judge NOT to consider.

If you are going to post your thoughts, here's a good tip. Research your post, before making a post.

Good day.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> What peices of evidence proved pre-meditation? Partying afterwards doesn't prove pre-meditation. I really don't think the prosecutors had the evidence they needed. It's terrible, but they didn't have the evidence. Juror 14 has also spoken about the trial, and he said that he agreed with the verdict (he did not vote, b/c he was an alternate so he only sat through the trial and deliberations) b/c the prosecutor didn't prove anything, not how Caylee died, not who killed her, and he said that the entire family was really screwed up - but thats not a crime, and its not proof that a crime was committed.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Oh I realize that, it also is the perfect example of the reasoning behind those that support this law. That it is a reaction to this one case, and their frustration that they couldn't get her on murder.



> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> That is correct. I used "toddler" in my example because that was the age range of the victim in this case.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jeannine*
> 
> I think so many people want to sign this petition because they wish they could change the verdict in the case.
> 
> ...


I agree 100% with everything you said Jeannine. I don't think laws that are the reaction to a single case should be laws.

The public can be angry all they want, but the fact is, the media put forth ONE perspective on this, and we didn't get Casey's side of the story through the media, b/c the media was busy declaring her a murderer. Thats why the public isn't happy with the verdict - the juror's weren't selected from a group of people yelling "SHE'S GUILTY!!!! KILL HER!!!!" The jury was chosen out of a group of people that were able to remain objective in the case. The public doesn't like that, b/c if THEY (the public) were on the jury they would have found her guilty - but thats why they weren't on the jury.

I get that people are pissed off, but there isn't much to be pissed off about.


----------



## coffeegirl (Jan 1, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> Apparently you didn't actually listen to the what Juror #3 said when she went on GMA. I didn't guess or assume; I copied, verbatim what she stated in that interview. If you listened to or watched other jurors speak, you would hear exactly what they said and it is as I stated above. And, no, they did not follow the law they were given, nor was it in their jury instructions. And, yes, I have them. When you say something incorrect, I'm going to correct you. My apologies.
> 
> ...


I did see the entire interview with juror #3. I didn't say anything incorrect, but only some things that you disagree with. Your assumptions are all over this thread in every one of your posts and you're insisting to anyone who calls you on it that they are "facts". *You were not on that jury*. You were not in that courtroom. You don't know exactly what happened to Caylee. Facts.

These were death penalty-qualified jurors. Meaning, they all stated under oath that they wouldn't have a problem handing down a conviction in a capital case if that's what they had to do. 11 hours is not an abnormally short amount of time for jurors to deliberate, even in a capital case. Look up the real facts/stats on that.

Yes, I do know what "dream team" means. As far as Casey was concerned, they WERE working for free. They were paid by the State-- NOT by her. And much of their work was done pro bono. Oh, and she was acquitted of all major charges under their representation. You are free to disagree with me about the term "dream team" being applicable but your opinion, once again, doesn't = fact.


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arduinna*
> 
> Oh I realize that, it also is the perfect example of *the reasoning behind those that support this law*. That it is a reaction to this one case, and their frustration that they couldn't get her on murder.


As a person who supports this law, please do not suggest I wouldn't support a law of that nature if this case were not about a toddler. I don't know how you could extrapolate that from what I wrote, but your assumption is incorrect.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> I agree 100% with everything you said Jeannine. I don't think laws that are the reaction to a single case should be laws.
> 
> ...


It's a little, uh, silly to assume what "the public" thinks or feels, isn't it? After all, you are part of the public and your opinion has shifted throughout this entire thread.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coffeegirl*
> 
> I did see the entire interview with juror #3. I didn't say anything incorrect, but only some things that you disagree with. Your assumptions are all over this thread in every one of your posts and you're insisting to anyone who calls you on it that they are "facts". *You were not on that jury*. You were not in that courtroom. You don't know exactly what happened to Caylee. Facts.
> 
> ...


I hate to split hairs, but you did make some incorrect statements; we clearly won't agree on that. I haven't stated that I knew exactly what happened to Caylee. I have stated that there was enough evidence to convict her on all counts. If there were not enough evidence, this trial would not have happened or it would have ended when the defense presented their MJOA (not that it isn't standard practice). Actually, what I've stated in this thread are my opinions based upon the facts in evidence or statements that have come out of the jurors mouths. Do not assume I was not in that courtroom, coffeegirl.

Actually, they never stated "they wouldn't have a problem" with enacting the death penalty. I've already posted up-thread what several of them said regarding the death penalty and it was not I "wouldn't have a problem". Again, fact, not assumption. Further, I've already stated (I believe on this thread) that I would have never voted for the death penalty on this case, so I'm not sure what your point is. And, I've never stated that 11 hours is an abnormally short amount of time for jurors to deliberate. Read what I wrote and feel free to respond to that.

Actually, Casey did put money towards her defense; she was later declared indigent. Perhaps you need to look into that. As for "dream team", I didn't make up the term nor the definition and just because you want to use it in a manner that is different than the definition doesn't make it a correct use of the term. That has nothing to do with my opinion. Sorry.

Edited to include one more response.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

My opinion hasn't shifted. I think the jury did their job, and that there wasn't enough evidence to convict Casey Anthony. I don't know what happened to Caylee - clearly something did, and its possible (maybe even likely) that her mother was involved - but there is no proof of that. I also don't think Caylee's law is a good idea, for the reasons Jeannine stated.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> It's a little, uh, silly to assume what "the public" thinks or feels, isn't it? After all, you are part of the public and your opinion has shifted throughout this entire thread.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> Do not assume I was not in that courtroom, coffeegirl


Were you a juror? Did you watch the trial as a spectator? Were you an alternate juror? If you were, THAT would be the failing of the judicial system, b/c clearly you are not seeing this case objectively.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

So where is your activism thread from 5 years ago, IE before this case ever happened championing a law like this?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> As a person who supports this law, please do not suggest I wouldn't support a law of that nature if this case were not about a toddler. I don't know how you could extrapolate that from what I wrote, but your assumption is incorrect.


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> "...We didn't get Casey's side of the story through the media, b/c the media was busy declaring her a murderer....


Did you watch any old interviews Jose Baez gave?

(I'm not writing this directly to you based upon what you wrote, but I'm putting it here because it somewhat fits. I just wanted to ensure that was clear. I sometimes wonder if people believe that most or all defense attorneys or defense team members believe their client is not-guilty.)

Hell, Cheney Mason basically said Casey was guilty prior to getting involved in this case. I bet he watched too much Nancy Grace!









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> My opinion hasn't shifted. I think the jury did their job, and that there wasn't enough evidence to convict Casey Anthony. I don't know what happened to Caylee - clearly something did, and its possible (maybe even likely) that her mother was involved - but there is no proof of that. I also don't think Caylee's law is a good idea, for the reasons Jeannine stated.


I have already addressed the rest of your statements in other posts on this thread, and as for your opinions shifting, I was going to copy the inconsistencies, but really, I'm not trying to say you aren't allowed to change your mind.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> Were you a juror? Did you watch the trial as a spectator? Were you an alternate juror? If you were, THAT would be the failing of the judicial system, b/c clearly you are not seeing this case objectively.


None of the three and I won't expound on that. However your last statement makes no sense if I were a juror or alternate (I was neither). It is also assuming all spectators (if I were one) have formed an opinion on the case and aren't able to put that aside during the trial. You continue the slippery slope of speaking for large groups of people.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arduinna*
> 
> So where is your activism thread from 5 years ago, IE before this case ever happened championing a law like this?


To suggest I could have predicted the need for a law like this is utterly ridiculous. Further, this law is being proposed much in the way other laws of its kind have been proposed - based upon circumstances in a particular case. And, to continue to suggest that I'm only supporting a law because it stemmed from the death of a toddler is insulting, especially after I've stated my position. If this law only protected toddlers, I would respect your insinuations.

Also, we must have differing ideas on activism because adding some information (and links) in this thread and responding to people about the proposition hardly constitutes activism to me. Yes, I support the law. I added the information for Caylee's Law on this thread because the two are directly related. If you have an issue with that addition, you're free to report it.









Edited for multi-quote hazard. I had to move a statement to the correct spot. Also removed the word "can" because it changed the meaning of what I was saying.)


----------



## coffeegirl (Jan 1, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> I hate to split hairs, but you did make some incorrect statements; we clearly won't agree on that. I haven't stated that I knew exactly what happened to Caylee. I have stated that there was enough evidence to convict her on all counts. If there were not enough evidence, this trial would not have happened or it would have ended when the defense presented their MJOA (not that it isn't standard practice). Actually, what I've stated in this thread are my opinions based upon the facts in evidence or statements that have come out of the jurors mouths. Do not assume I was not in that courtroom, coffeegirl.
> 
> Edited to include one more response.


So you were in the courtroom? I'm confused. You do know that being in your living room and watching the trial on TV is not being in the courtroom, right? Now, what about the jury room? Am I making an incorrect assumption that you weren't in there as well?

One more thing, where is this "definition" of dream team that you're accusing me of getting so wrong?


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

I thought we (in general) could all have an adult discussion about something like this, but it seems we all cannot. I had some good discussions early on with those who disagreed with me and I enjoyed learning where they were coming from. Since there is little being added to the discussion here, it has become a thread to trade snarky comments. That isn't really my style (though I responded with my own snark!). I do put thought into my statements so it's not really a wise investment of my time to continue to respond. If it should turn back into a discussion thread, I would love to participate.

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *coffeegirl*
> 
> So you were in the courtroom? I'm confused. You do know that being in your living room and watching the trial on TV is not being in the courtroom, right? Now, what about the jury room? Am I making an incorrect assumption that you weren't in there as well?
> 
> One more thing, where is this "definition" of dream team that you're accusing me of getting so wrong?


Your assumption was correct that I was not in the jury room. If I were, I think many of my points on this thread would be a little mind-boggling.







That said, I didn't watch this trial from my living room, either.

As for the definition of "dream team", here are some for you:


Dictionary.com: a number of persons of the *highest ability* associated in some joint action. 
Merriam-Webster: a team whose members are *preeminent in a particular field* or a group of people who work or play a sport together and who are the *best at what they do*.
Cambridge Online Dictionary: a group of people who have been specially chosen to work together and are considered to be the *best at what they do*.
Macmillan Dictionary: a perfect team made up of the *best players*.
The Free Dictionary: a team or group whose members are among the *most qualified or talented* in their particular fields.

This team was not a dream team using any of the above definitions. I don't really want to belabor the point, though, as this benefits no one.

Edited: Working on changing my font because it's huge.


----------



## coffeegirl (Jan 1, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> I thought we (in general) could all have an adult discussion about something like this, but it seems we all cannot. I had some good discussions early on with those who disagreed with me and I enjoyed learning where they were coming from. Since there is little being added to the discussion here, it has become a thread to trade snarky comments. That isn't really my style (though I responded with my own snark!). I do put thought into my statements so it's not really a wise investment of my time to continue to respond. If it should turn back into a discussion thread, I would love to participate.
> 
> ...


I agree that the dream team point benefits no one. It was a throwaway comment. That's why I don't understand why you kept challenging me about it lol. Obviously I'm using the phrase in reference to the OJ Simpson trial, which is (I believe) when it started being used popularly to refer to a team of really good lawyers. Especially ones that you get you acquitted of murder when you have a pile of evidence against you.

I don't want to trade snark with you, Mulvah. I made a post disagreeing with your some of your conclusions and you used the little "laughing/hilarious" smiley in a condescending response that basically said: you're wrong, the jury was wrong, all of y'all who disagree with me are wrong, and I'm right. That is what I'm responding to.

So....were you or were you not in the courtroom? It's really a simple question.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

If there was enough evidence to have convicted her on all counts, she would have been convicted. And, you are incorrect about the sentence just after the bolded. The trial happens to DETERMINE whether there is enough evidence or not! The prosecution was under the impression that they had enough evidence, and they thought they would prevail. But it is the jury's job to determine whether there is enough evidence or not - it is the prosecutions job to put forth their best case, and to present the evidence. The prosecutor does not determine whether there is enough evidence to convict.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> I hate to split hairs, but you did make some incorrect statements; we clearly won't agree on that. I haven't stated that I knew exactly what happened to Caylee. *I have stated that there was enough evidence to convict her on all counts.* If there were not enough evidence, this trial would not have happened or it would have ended when the defense presented their MJOA (not that it isn't standard practice). Actually, what I've stated in this thread are my opinions based upon the facts in evidence or statements that have come out of the jurors mouths. Do not assume I was not in that courtroom, coffeegirl.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Quote:


> The trial happens to DETERMINE whether there is enough evidence or not!


Yes. Apparently some people struggle with the concept of innocent until proven guilty

Quote: 


> *I have stated that there was enough evidence to convict her on all counts. If there were not enough evidence, this trial would not have happened *


If you used Mulvahs definition every single person ever on trial would automatically be guilty.

Do I personally think she is innocent, no. That doesn't change the facts that our justice system assumes people innocent until proven guilty and in this case the jury did not find her guilty of killing her daughter. We can go round and round all we want, but it's done.


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

For those interested, an article titled, "Americans Express Mixed Confidence in Criminal Justice System" is an interesting read.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coffeegirl*
> 
> I agree that the dream team point benefits no one. It was a throwaway comment. That's why I don't understand why you kept challenging me about it lol. Obviously I'm using the phrase in reference to the OJ Simpson trial, which is (I believe) when it started being used popularly to refer to a team of really good lawyers. Especially ones that you get you acquitted of murder when you have a pile of evidence against you.
> 
> ...


I think many would agree that OJ Simpson did have a dream team, which is why that term was used.









I have no issue with people disagreeing with me. I enjoy learning from others, but I took issue with people (in general) assuming things or posting statements of fact that are not fact. You're entitled to your opinion; your opinion will not change mine and vice versa.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> If there was enough evidence to have convicted her on all counts, she would have been convicted. And, you are incorrect about the sentence just after the bolded. The trial happens to DETERMINE whether there is enough evidence or not! The prosecution was under the impression that they had enough evidence, and they thought they would prevail. But it is the jury's job to determine whether there is enough evidence or not - it is the prosecutions job to put forth their best case, and to present the evidence. The prosecutor does not determine whether there is enough evidence to convict.


So, do you think a jury always get it right? I'm not speaking about this particular jury or case. It seems we need to move beyond that if we're actually going to have a meaningful discussion.

Well, yes, a trial allows the prosecution to present the evidence that was admissible. However, this case would not have gone to trial had there been no evidence that Casey committed a crime. There is a reason MJOAs are actually granted. I never once suggested the prosecutor determines if there is enough evidence to convict, nor did I insinuate as much. We should probably try sticking to what the other person actually wrote if we're going to discuss anything.

Also, you may want to read what I wrote to coffeegirl in context. It was pretty clear I was defending what I said versus what I did not say, so you more or less took that the bolded statement out of context. We can go back and forth on this all day long, but we will simply not agree. That said, I would love to hear your answer to the first question if you're interested in having a discussion.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arduinna*
> 
> If you used Mulvahs definition every single person ever on trial would automatically be guilty.


People view evidence differently, specifically depending upon the type of evidence, which was clear in this case. Enough evidence does not always equate to a guilty sentence. Lack of evidence does not always equate to a not-guilty sentence, either. It isn't that black and white. If it were, we would never see a hung jury.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

I don't think jury's always get it right. I'm an attorney - if I ever actually practice law I will be trying to convince juries and judges of MY CLIENTS perspective to "win" or whatever. The prosecutor in this case did a bad job of that - but I don't think he had enough evidence to proceed with the charges that he did.

One of the things I learned in law school, is that whether we like it or not, juries have the power to nullify the law. On one hand, it sucks b/c they aren't following the law. On the other, the alternative is not to use juries, which we can't do b/c of the way our constitution is written. And I don't believe there is a better alternative to having a jury.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> So, do you think a jury always get it right?


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

*sigh*
I posted about this, and it seems to have disappeared, so I'll summarize.

What, exactly, is "Caylee's Law" supposed to accomplish? I don't see how it offers any extra protection for kids and can see some situations in which it might make things worse. Is it just that people think if this law had existed already, Casey would be in jail?


----------



## coffeegirl (Jan 1, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> *sigh*
> I posted about this, and it seems to have disappeared, so I'll summarize.
> ...


I think it's more that people are pissed and want to "do something!" so, enter "Caylee's Law". I will admit, I signed the petition in the OP....I was going off emotions and it seemed like a harmless enough law. As I understand it though, the laws that most if not all states have on the books already re: child neglect already cover what Caylee's Law would cover. Going back to Casey...I have heard several legal pundits say that if the prosecutors had put aggravated child neglect on the indictment instead of child abuse, it's likely she could have been convicted of that charge (based on either the 31 days she waited before her mom called 911 and on the drowning in the pool story...again w/o callign 911) and the judge could have given her more than 4 years. I don't know how true that is given the evidence in the trial; I wasn't in the courtroom like Mulvah was. But thnking about it now, I wish I hadn't signed the petition because I don't see how the laws against child neglect don't cover the same territory, without all the exceptions and red tape and money of a new law having to be passed.


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> I don't think jury's always get it right. I'm an attorney - if I ever actually practice law I will be trying to convince juries and judges of MY CLIENTS perspective to "win" or whatever. The prosecutor in this case did a bad job of that - but I don't think he had enough evidence to proceed with the charges that he did.
> 
> One of the things I learned in law school, is that whether we like it or not, juries have the power to nullify the law. On one hand, it sucks b/c they aren't following the law. On the other, the alternative is not to use juries, which we can't do b/c of the way our constitution is written. And I don't believe there is a better alternative to having a jury.


What type of law are you looking to practice?

I do think there is something to be said for professional juries, but I do not see that change occurring in this country anytime soon (if ever!).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> *sigh*
> I posted about this, and it seems to have disappeared, so I'll summarize.
> ...


I won't speak for the 1,000,000+ that have signed the petition, but for me, no, that isn't the reason I support this law. The reality is, Casey is already a convicted felon and she will be released in a week or so. Further, there is nothing to suggest the sentencing period for violating Caylee's Law would exceed 18 months or a hefty fine. *Neither of those punishments were (likely) going to prevent Casey from leaving jail next week. *

That said, I don't know what each state will include or what, if any of it, would pass, but currently Florida is looking to include "failure to report your child missing (within 24 hours) when you knew s/he was likely in danger" in Caylee's Law. Another portion will deal with reporting a child as deceased within one hour. In my opinion and with the frequency of family homicide, this law is important because you have situations where parents do not assist law enforcement in a missing child case or aren't reporting their child as deceased within a reasonable time frame. When that happens, it clearly makes it difficult to proceed, specifically if you have no solid evidence. Further, it would allow law enforcement officers to charge the person immediately and there can be benefits to that. Being charged can also get suspects to speak more freely (Elisa Baker is an example of that), especially if you are still working on the details of the disappearance or death. That isn't to say that law enforcement doesn't currently charge suspects with other crimes (Casey Anthony, John Skelton*, and Elisa Baker are all examples of that), but sometimes, you just can't charge a suspect with a crime (Melinda Duckett is an example of this, though she committed suicide). There are many reasons why I believe this is an important law, but the above explains some of them. Sadly, there are just too many cases where parents (and/or caretakers) murder their children.

I can understand how some people feel this would "clog the system" or somehow convict innocent people due to extenuating circumstances, but I do not believe those cases are the norm. I also do not believe there will be a flood of cases with this charge included, though I'm open to being proven wrong.









(*I do not know that he would or could have been charged under Caylee's Law because the bodies of the children involved were never found and his ex-wife is the one that reported them missing.)

Edited to add more sensitive language.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

I don't know what type of law I want to practice, or if I even want to practice in the traditional sense.

I do disagree with professional juries however, b/c people are entitled to a jury of their PEERS, and professional juries would require that jurors be educated in how to be a juror - which would create a bias in and of itself I believe.

Anyway, a friend posted this article earlier, and I thought it was a good read. http://www.slate.com/id/2299039

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> What type of law are you looking to practice?
> 
> I do think there is something to be said for professional juries, but I do not see that change occurring in this country anytime soon (if ever!).


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> I don't know what type of law I want to practice, or if I even want to practice in the traditional sense.
> 
> ...


Good luck with your decision(s)!









I have always hated the phrase "a jury of your peers". A "jury of peers" is not a Constitutional right; an "impartial jury" is. And, juries are not always comprised of peers. This article discusses professional juries and it outlines some of my same feelings. I believe education is precisely what is needed to render fair results. I can even see the benefit in an educated, impartial jury foreman that guides the jurors during deliberation.

Thanks for sharing the article. I specifically found her closing interesting, "If we are going to take the position that courts eventually find the truth, we must accept the reality that all plaintiffs-not just the ones you like, or the ones I find sympathetic-deserve their day there." She goes on to say, "Juries don't get it right all the time, or maybe even most of the time."

Well, I do not necessarily believe our system is designed to find the truth. Here is an article that sums up some of my feelings on "finding the truth"; the author says that trials in the U.S. are like sporting events (specifically high-publicity trials), whereas, in other countries, they place a higher value on the prosecution and defense working together to uncover the truth. Isn't that what it should really be about? If juries don't get it right (maybe) most of the time (according to Lithwick), where does that leave us?


----------



## coffeegirl (Jan 1, 2008)

But we have no complaints with the jury system when they seem to "work" and give us a verdict that makes sense to/agrees with the general public, yk? I think in this case, the prosecution really should have done more. In the closing, specifically, they should have hammered the evidence they had instead of focusing on CA's really bizarre behavior.

I have a question for any lawyer or law students here...we've been talking about child neglect laws in re: to the proposed Caylee's Law. Now I know CA can't be re-tried on any of the charges she was acquitted on. Since the baby was hers and was in her custody, even if she died accidentally it was in her custody, so could the state or anyone else bring a charge of child neglect against her? Or would the double jeopardy rule still apply since they did charge her with child neglect at some point? (I think that was the first charge in '08, after Caylee was reported missing and before the body was found).


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coffeegirl*
> 
> But we have no complaints with the jury system when they seem to "work" and give us a verdict that makes sense to/agrees with the general public, yk? I think in this case, the prosecution really should have done more. In the closing, specifically, they should have hammered the evidence they had instead of focusing on CA's really bizarre behavior.
> 
> I have a question for any lawyer or law students here...we've been talking about child neglect laws in re: to the proposed Caylee's Law. Now I know CA can't be re-tried on any of the charges she was acquitted on. Since the baby was hers and was in her custody, even if she died accidentally it was in her custody, so could the state or anyone else bring a charge of child neglect against her? Or would the double jeopardy rule still apply since they did charge her with child neglect at some point? (I think that was the first charge in '08, after Caylee was reported missing and before the body was found).


I'm not sure who this "we" is you are speaking for. If you haven't read any of the articles I've posted, you may enjoy reading this or this. Neither deal (directly) with this case. According to the latter article, prior to this verdict, "The criminal justice system tied newspapers for 9th place on Gallup's 2011 Confidence in Institutions measure, out of 16 institutions rated." Super~Single~Mama shared an interesting article and the author closed by saying, "Juries don't get it right all the time, or maybe even most of the time" and I, personally, think that's worth "complaining" about.

Why you're hearing about the outrage is because this is a very public case. You won't necessarily have millions of people outraged when only 1,000 people were aware of any one particular case.

Do you think justice was served in the Scott Peterson trial?

No, double jeopardy would be an issue. Also, you may not be aware, but they did charge her with aggravated manslaughter and the State was required to prove the following:

1. Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.

2. Casey Marie Anthony's act(s) caused the death of Caylee Marie Anthony.

Or

The death of Caylee Marie Anthony was caused by the culpable negligence of Casey Marie Anthony.

It is my opinion that she wouldn't have been found guilty of neglect by this incompetent jury based upon the above charge. As far as anyone else bringing a charge against her, she could be federally prosecuted, but that won't happen. What is happening is a flurry of civil lawsuits against her.


----------



## coffeegirl (Jan 1, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> I'm not sure who this "we" is you are speaking for. If you haven't read any of the articles I've posted, you may enjoy reading this or this. Neither deal (directly) with this case. According to the latter article, prior to this verdict, "The criminal justice system tied newspapers for 9th place on Gallup's 2011 Confidence in Institutions measure, out of 16 institutions rated." Super~Single~Mama shared an interesting article and the author closed by saying, "Juries don't get it right all the time, or maybe even most of the time" and I, personally, think that's worth "complaining" about.
> 
> ...


By we I mean "us"- the general public. Thank you, I did read the blogs you've posted. About Scott Peterson....AFAIK there haven't been any appeals of his conviction aside from the automatic death sentence appeal, so I'm assuming he did get a fair trial. I know that it was a circumstantial case and that he was judged in large part on his behavior. Doesn't change my belief that CA also got a fair trial.

Re: the last part....does double jeopardy apply to my question because CA has already been charged with child neglect in '08 or because child neglect is part of the aggravated manslaughter charge that she was acquitted on?


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coffeegirl*
> 
> By we I mean "us"- the general public. Thank you, I did read the blogs you've posted. About Scott Peterson....AFAIK there haven't been any appeals of his conviction aside from the automatic death sentence appeal, so I'm assuming he did get a fair trial. I know that it was a circumstantial case and that he was judged in large part on his behavior. Doesn't change my belief that CA also got a fair trial.
> 
> Re: the last part....does double jeopardy apply to my question because CA has already been charged with child neglect in '08 or because child neglect is part of the aggravated manslaughter charge that she was acquitted on?


In the second article I linked to, you would see that most of the general public was unhappy with the justice system long before the verdict on this trial went public.







I can only guess the verdict of this case furthered that dissatisfaction.

Odd, you assume he got a fair trial (I don't understand how you would base that on his appeal status.) even though you believe it was largely based on his behavior. It was a pretty weak case in terms of evidence. I will simply say Lithwick's statement on juries is very likely the reason most people don't have much faith in our justice system; juries get it wrong "maybe most of the time". The expectation for juries to understand the law (and correctly apply it) is like getting a 20-minute crash course from a CPA and being expected to run a company on that alone.

As for double jeopardy, yes, it is because she was acquitted of a similar charge. As people always say regarding double jeopardy, she can hold a press conference tomorrow telling everyone she murdered her child and she would still be free.


----------



## coffeegirl (Jan 1, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> In the second article I linked to, you would see that most of the general public was unhappy with the justice system long before the verdict on this trial went public.
> 
> ...


People always say that?! That is exactly what my mom told me when I saw the verdict and called to ask her about the possibility of her being re-tried.. I thought it was a mom "original". Sigh.

Anyhow, I have only heard (Court TV pundits and whatnot) that his behavior after Laci disappeared was a factor in their decision. At the end of the day though, the two cases are not exactly the same, even though they were both high profile circumstantial murder cases. As for SP receiving a fair trial, I have no reason assume otherwise.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coffeegirl*
> 
> I have a question for any lawyer or law students here...we've been talking about child neglect laws in re: to the proposed Caylee's Law. Now I know CA can't be re-tried on any of the charges she was acquitted on. Since the baby was hers and was in her custody, even if she died accidentally it was in her custody, so could the state or anyone else bring a charge of child neglect against her? Or would the double jeopardy rule still apply since they did charge her with child neglect at some point? (I think that was the first charge in '08, after Caylee was reported missing and before the body was found).


They would not be allowed to try her under Caylee's Law, but not b/c of double jeopardy. It would be an "ex post facto" law, which is unconstitutional, and which basically means that you can't try someone for something they did, that wasn't a crime when they did it. Does that make sense? So, since Caylee's Law wasn't an actual law when Caylee died (or was in the care of her mother), CA can't be tried under it. Only people who take an action against the law, after it becomes law, can be tried under that law. It's not the same as double jeopardy, b/c that says that you can't be tried for the same crime twice.

Other claims, though, that are similar, would be barred by res judicata, which is "claim preclusion", and prevents a matter from being litigated after already being decided. Then there's Collateral Estoppel, which refers to "issue preclusion", and prevents the re-litigation of a particular issue. So, once an issue of fact has been decided by a jury, it cannot be re-litigated if the parties did not like the result (unless there are grounds for appeal, which I don't understand fully b/c I don't have any experience with appeals). It's kind of complicated, and I'm not super great at all the little pieces yet, but its a starting point.

I generally don't like using Wikipedia as a source, but this page actually does a pretty good job of explaining what ex post facto laws are, and what it means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coffeegirl*
> 
> People always say that?! That is exactly what my mom told me when I saw the verdict and called to ask her about the possibility of her being re-tried.. I thought it was a mom "original". Sigh.
> 
> Anyhow, I have only heard (Court TV pundits and whatnot) that his behavior after Laci disappeared was a factor in their decision. At the end of the day though, the two cases are not exactly the same, even though they were both high profile circumstantial murder cases. As for SP receiving a fair trial, I have no reason assume otherwise.


I'm sorry to have disillusioned you.







(I'm joking.)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> They would not be allowed to try her under Caylee's Law, but not b/c of double jeopardy. It would be an "ex post facto" law, which is unconstitutional, and which basically means that you can't try someone for something they did, that wasn't a crime when they did it. Does that make sense? So, since Caylee's Law wasn't an actual law when Caylee died (or was in the care of her mother), CA can't be tried under it. Only people who take an action against the law, after it becomes law, can be tried under that law. It's not the same as double jeopardy, b/c that says that you can't be tried for the same crime twice.
> 
> ...


The first paragraph is true if the OP is referring to Caylee's Law, which isn't a law at this time. The OP said, "...Could the state or anyone else bring a charge of child neglect against her?", which I read to mean a charge of child neglect, not the proposed Caylee's Law.

I do not know that res judicata would apply in this case, though I would have to research that. It is possible it would apply because a charge of child neglect could have been included, but I'm not sure if that would apply in this particular case. I do not believe collateral estoppel would apply to a child neglect charge.


----------



## coffeegirl (Jan 1, 2008)

Thanks for the legal break down, SSM.

So on the news this morning: Casey Anthony is appealing the four convictions of lying to law enforcement.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> The first paragraph is true if the OP is referring to Caylee's Law, which isn't a law at this time. The OP said, "...Could the state or anyone else bring a charge of child neglect against her?", which I read to mean a charge of child neglect, not the proposed Caylee's Law.
> 
> I do not know that res judicata would apply in this case, though I would have to research that. It is possible it would apply because a charge of child neglect could have been included, but I'm not sure if that would apply in this particular case. I do not believe collateral estoppel would apply to a child neglect charge.


I believe that Collateral Estoppel would apply here, b/c all of the facts surrounding Caylee's death (including everything that CA did before, and during the month that Caylee was missing) have been litigated before a jury. And, wasn't there an "aggravated neglect" charge included in the lesser charges that we were arguing about before? If I'm remembering correctly, then res judicata could apply as well, and probably would.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coffeegirl*
> 
> So on the news this morning: Casey Anthony is appealing the four convictions of lying to law enforcement.


I'm not surprised - anyone convicted of a crime gets their first appeal as a matter of right. So, pretty much everyone appeals.


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

I can't link to it, but there is an article I read earlier from a retired Judge who believes the justice system typically works, the verdict was wrong (specifically on all lesser charges), and that the lack of understanding of circumstantial evidence is to blame for the verdict. I thought it was an interesting perspective and I can't help but hope it changes the way future instructions are given.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> I believe that Collateral Estoppel would apply here, b/c all of the facts surrounding Caylee's death (including everything that CA did before, and during the month that Caylee was missing) have been litigated before a jury. And, wasn't there an "aggravated neglect" charge included in the lesser charges that we were arguing about before? If I'm remembering correctly, then res judicata could apply as well, and probably would.


I thought we disagreed on the aggravated manslaughter charge. I am away from home and cannot access my remote connection, so it takes for-e-ver for things to load, but if she was charged with aggravated neglect, then yes, clearly collateral estoppel would apply, as would double jeopardy.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> I thought we disagreed on the aggravated manslaughter charge. I am away from home and cannot access my remote connection, so it takes for-e-ver for things to load, but if she was charged with aggravated neglect, then yes, clearly collateral estoppel would apply, as would double jeopardy.


You're right, my memory isn't working right now, I blame ds. Anyway, if she was charged with aggravated neglect, Res Judicata would apply b/c thats "claim preclusion" and would bar other neglect charges.

Collateral Estoppel bars the same issues of fact from being litigated again - and all of the events leading up to Caylee's disappearance, and all of CA's acts after Cayelee's disappearance have already been argued in a court of law, and so the issues of fact cannot be re-argued. At least that's my understanding of it.


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Here is the article I mentioned earlier. It's definitely something to think about (regarding circumstantial evidence) and in all his years, he only experienced two verdicts he deemed incorrect. Interesting, considering he has had quite a bit of experience. I don't necessarily agree that juries are wrong that infrequently, but I can't argue with his experience.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> You're right, my memory isn't working right now, I blame ds. Anyway, if she was charged with aggravated neglect, Res Judicata would apply b/c thats "claim preclusion" and would bar other neglect charges.
> 
> Collateral Estoppel bars the same issues of fact from being litigated again - and all of the events leading up to Caylee's disappearance, and all of CA's acts after Cayelee's disappearance have already been argued in a court of law, and so the issues of fact cannot be re-argued. At least that's my understanding of it.


Without researching the elements of res judicata, I would have to take your word for it because I'm just not sure. It's moot if she was already charged with aggravated neglect.

I'm not disagreeing with you that collateral estoppel would apply on neglect charges if she were already acquitted of aggravated neglect. A Judge can order a retrial (based on unusual circumstances involving severe errors), but that will not occur. Federal prosecution will not occur, either. This case is closed and the only thing to do is to learn and move forward.


----------



## mar123 (Apr 14, 2008)

Question for the legal eagles out there:

Many people who convicted crimes against people during the Civil Right's movement were found not guilty when tried in their states. YEARS later, they were tried in federal courts and found guilty. I know they were tried under federal statutes, but how was the government able to do that, but has no recourse in this case?


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mar123*
> 
> Question for the legal eagles out there:
> 
> Many people who convicted crimes against people during the Civil Right's movement were found not guilty when tried in their states. YEARS later, they were tried in federal courts and found guilty. I know they were tried under federal statutes, but how was the government able to do that, but has no recourse in this case?


Generally speaking, the dual sovereignty doctrine would allow Casey to face federal prosecution. It's pretty questionable and I do not believe it will happen.


----------



## coffeegirl (Jan 1, 2008)

What I'm still unclear on is was CA ever actually charged with aggravated neglect? I'm pretty sure she was, to start with, after the interrogation at Universal Studios....(or maybe it was just neglect.) But what happened to those charges when they subsequently charged her with murder? Did the child neglect charge just go away, or was it "transferred" (for lack of a better/more correct word) into the murder indictment? Or was she charged, convicted and served her time on the child neglect thing while the murder investigation and trial process was underway?


----------

