by sooner7nc 102 Replies latest jw friends
The prosecution had a SHIT case. You can infer that she was guilty, but solely looking at the evidence presented said otherwise. There was not sufficient info for a guilty rendering - the prosecution should have offered a plea deal up front instead of being so pious. It was ALL or NOTHING for them, and they lost.
Nancy Grace is the ultimate DRAMA QUEEN - god I hate watching her...
The defense did their job.
They showed reasonable doubt that she was the murderer. I thought it was a good manuver to cast a shadow over her father and her brother including the police taking DNA samples from both of them to establish paternity of the child. They brought the mother in with her claim of using the computer to look up chloroform. They had enough fingers pointing at other people that I don't think they could conclusively point it at her..and that's all the defense had to do.
It doesn't take away from her actions after the disappearance and death of her kid, all the lies - but it appears there was no concrete proof of her actually committing the murder or disposing of the body. I imagine that somewhere there is a movie script being written up from which she could make a tidy sum of money - and the defense attorney has established himself as a winner and thus stands to make a lot of cash for himself through the publicity.
sammies
The child is dead and I still don't know how she dies and her mother waits all that time to report it and then lies. This is not over yet , the parents walked out together and if there is anything else to say they may be ready to talk.
Better be happy she got off because next time it could be you in that court room. All the prosecution had was circumstantial evidence and allegations of unrelated behavior. Maybe she wasn't a good mother, maybe the media blew it a bit out of proportion as they usually do. You would really have to take a good look at the FACTS presented in order to make a good judgment. The fact that some make a judgment based on media reports is proof something basic is wrong with the education of the American public on their basic civil rights.
wow I thought this thread was about something TOTALLY different
Yes, it's shocking to me also that she was found not guilty. Wow, just wow...
Um ok if my kid was missing for five minutes I would have every breathing person on the planet looking for her. i wouldnt be out getting tattoos dancing drinking and only crying when i was found not guilty. she will never walk the streets safely guilty or not God knows her life is over!
It's shocking, but I think the media follows different rules than the Constitution. It's hard not to be manipulated by it. The jurors were unanimous and they decided in two seconds. It's something to think about. I still have no opinion on what happened. She's obviously not "innocent", but murder charges are very serious when you can't even prove the death was a murder. Was there an accident and did she freak? Did someone else do something? Why did the prosecution introduce junk science? (air samples) Why would they ever have to do that?
The entire thing is sad beyond belief. Yet I still can't dismiss that unanimous and quick verdict. Casey Anthony is not likable and she didn't invoke their sympathies. Still they didn't hesistate.
NC
@NewChapter
The prosecution introduced junk science because it would set a precedent. They thought they had a open and shut case as she was 'obviously' guilty and introducing junk science would legitimize the practice.
How do you think fingerprinting and DNA evidence came into such heavy use? There is no proof or studies that show either is unique (mathematically actually it's fairly probable that 2 people have the same) and there is actually scientific proof and case reports that show most of the common DNA tests do not test extensive enough to be used as a unique identifier.
I agree NC.
When this first happened, I was apalled at her behavior and everything pointed to her guilt. At least on the surface. No doubt she has major issues - none at all. She isn't likeable as you said. A jury found her innocent of some pretty sick stuff and I wasn't there and they were, so the evidence that was brought up in court to them, must have provided enough doubt that they could not give her the death penalty or life in prison.
A person who is found guilty must be found so beyond reasonable doubt.
I think there was enough reasonable doubt for them.
I think the woman has some screws loose but I'm not so certain about the rest of the family either. I think there are a lot of secrets yet to be told but I don't think the parents will divulge them...Casey maybe, but not her parents. The baby can't come back - so a killer still remains at large and I wonder how the papers will spin that. sammies
Well, she probably got a more impartial hearing than any judicial committee! The problem is that she may be guilty and probably is of either killing her daughter or covering up someone elses murder or accidental death. But, I can see where jurors have to act on the facts...none of us would want to be judged on emotions. Too many people let emotions get in the way of what the law IS or IS NOT. It is done. I am sure we may hear more from the family in the future. For now, I am tired of continuous coverage!
