Casey Anthony - guilty, or not?

[girl_dee]

I have heard that the detectives and police today are perplexed about crime shows like CSI. Juries and citizens in general expect what they see on TV to actually happen. DNA results within a moment, crime scenes which are never tainted in any way shape or form, and larger than life (and very hot) heroes who can bring the guilty party to trial without even the smallest doubt for the jury to ponder over.

That is why I still say that people have different views on what *reasonable doubt* means. Although in this case, I struggle to see what that reasonable doubt was, but I trust that the jury found something to keep them from using it.

[Beasley67]

I have never been able to reconcile the Prosecution's theory that Caylee was drugged and then suffocated with duct tape. It doesn't seem plausible. I also have wondered how much Ray Kronk (the meter reader guy) actually (and truthfully) disturbed the crime scene (or recovery site). His story changed too many times. I don't believe he did what the Defense team said. However, I don't believe he was truthful. Therefore, that put doubt in my mind about the condition of the remains.
Uglyboi and I have argued over this case from opening to closing arguments. I guess I have been looking at the facts or lack thereof. I understand that one can use logic to come to a conclusion of guilt. However, I don't think the Prosecution proved she MURDERED her child. I do believe that they proved she was present and in some way responsible for her death (through neglect or abuse). Uglyboi, however, is absolutely convinced of her guilt. UB also constantly reminds me of how Scott Peterson was convicted and sitting on death row with less physical evidence.
I just try to remind UB that 12 individuals came to the same conclusion. Then I remind UB that it is difficult to get 12 people to agree on a restaurant to eat at, let alone a verdict.

[InsatiableHeart]

I do not understand how they did not find her guilty of aggravated child abuse. She was responsible for that baby and the fact that she is now dead is at the least her fault. She did not report the child missing, did not tell the truth about where she was when she did mention her and then lied about talking with her on the phone when she was already dead.
I have no right to judge but, she will face her maker one day and she or whomever hurt that baby will have to answer then. I can only pray there really is a special place for people like that.

[Toughy]

I don't believe she was charged with aggravated child abuse. I could well be wrong.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Toughy

I don't believe she was charged with aggravated child abuse. I could well be wrong.

No she wasn't and there was no proof (any history of child protective services intervention or calls to police) of her being an abusive parent. her own parents did not make any statements of her being abusive or neglectful (of course, they practically raised this little girl). No friends or boyfriends, neighbors, etc. were on the stand that witnessed any abuse.

Sometimes with cases as horrific as this one and as widely publicized and scruitinized, based on circumstantial evidence without any DNA or some other forensic "silver bullet," really do end up with the "court of public opinion" over shadowing the lack of conclusive evidence.

I hate it that this obviously disturbed and dysfunctional young woman will be out in society. Personally, I think she either caused an accidental death or otherwise- simply an act of neglecting just how easily a little kid can drown or die of things like being left in a closed up car. Think of parents that have left kids or babies in cars for 10 minutes and caused their death or the child being abducted.

I wonder too if the state didn't blow it by insisting on a 1st degree murder death penalty jury. Jurers selected as such can be much harder to convince in a circumstantial case. They were chosen because they will impose death.

I just feel like there were many variables as to why she was found not guilty. She certainly isn't innocent of either wrong or neglectful behavior, however.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by Toughy

I don't believe she was charged with aggravated child abuse. I could well be wrong.

She was charged with it, but not convicted.

[UofMfan]

I am posting this great article here.

I know that it doesn't conform to the way the majority of people feel, including some of my friends, who in FB who are passing this petition around.

Then again, I am not a conformist, or one to have to go with the popular belief, in fact I am quite comfortable in my beliefs, no matter how different they are from the "majority". I usually feel most comfortable dealing with reason and logic than dealing with emotionally charged actions/reactions.

My friends respect me for that, and I respect them for their beliefs.

I hope time is taken to read the article. I particularly liked the following snippets:

Within minutes of the Casey Anthony verdict, much of America devolved into the mass media equivalent of a mob bearing torches and pitchforks. Twitter lit up with calls for vigilante justice, and proposals that we revoke the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy (or at least that we revoke it for Casey Anthony). Nancy Grace nearly spit fire, proclaiming, "The devil is dancing tonight." Conservative syndicated columnist Ben Shapiro wants to do away with juries altogether.

Laws named after crime victims and dead people are usually a bad idea. They play more to emotion than reason. But they're disturbingly predictable, especially when they come after the death of a child. So it's really no surprise that activist Michelle Crowder is now pushing "Caylee's Law," a proposed federal bill that would charge parents with a felony if they fail to report a missing child within 24 hours, or if they fail to report the death of a child within an hour. What's surprising is just how quickly the Change.org petition for Caylee's Law has gone viral. As of this writing it has more than 700,000 signatures, and is now the most successful campaign in the site's history. For reasons of constitutionality and practicality, it seems unlikely that Caylee's Law will ever be realized at the federal level. But according to the AP, at least sixteen state legislatures are now considering some version law. That's troubling.

This is a bad way to make public policy. In an interview with CNN, Crowder concedes that she didn't consult with a single law enforcement official before coming up with her 24-hour and 1-hour limits. This raises some questions. How did she come up with those cutoffs? Did she consult with any grief counselors to see if there may be innocuous reasons why an innocent person who just witnessed a child's death might not immediately report it, such as shock, passing out, or some other sort of mental breakdown? Did she consult with a forensic pathologist to see if it's even possible to pin down the time of death with the sort of precision you'd need to make Caylee's Law enforceable? Have any of the lawmakers who have proposed or are planning to propose this law actually consulted with anyone with some knowledge of these issues?

While Caylee's Law could quite conceivably ensnare innocent grieving parents, it seems unlikely that it will prevent a single child's death. Consider: Is a father who is depraved enough to kill his own son really going to be dissuaded by a law that says he must notify the authorities of his son's death within an hour of having killed him? He's already committing murder. The law isn't likely to affect a parent who kills a child in a fit of anger or rage, either. By definition, crimes of passion are perpetrated in the heat of the moment, with little consideration of consequences.

[Heart]

By and large, I agree.

I just wish people would stop and think for a minute what it could mean to THEM to be a parent wrongly accused. Parents have brought their children to emergency rooms only to be reported and arrested for abuse and neglect because a doctor or nurse misinterpreted/misdiagnosed. I'm no fan of our criminal justice system or of juries, given that they tend to be as racist and sexist as the society they reflect, BUT I wouldn't want to be tried in the court of public opinion either.

Heart

[girl_dee]

Originally Posted by UofMfan

I am posting this great article here.

I know that it doesn't conform to the way the majority of people feel, including some of my friends, who in FB who are passing this petition around.

Then again, I am not a conformist, or one to have to go with the popular belief, in fact I am quite comfortable in my beliefs, no matter how different they are from the "majority". I usually feel most comfortable dealing with reason and logic than dealing with emotionally charged actions/reactions.

My friends respect me for that, and I respect them for their beliefs.

I hope time is taken to read the article. I particularly liked the following snippets:

Within minutes of the Casey Anthony verdict, much of America devolved into the mass media equivalent of a mob bearing torches and pitchforks. Twitter lit up with calls for vigilante justice, and proposals that we revoke the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy (or at least that we revoke it for Casey Anthony). Nancy Grace nearly spit fire, proclaiming, "The devil is dancing tonight." Conservative syndicated columnist Ben Shapiro wants to do away with juries altogether.

Laws named after crime victims and dead people are usually a bad idea. They play more to emotion than reason. But they're disturbingly predictable, especially when they come after the death of a child. So it's really no surprise that activist Michelle Crowder is now pushing "Caylee's Law," a proposed federal bill that would charge parents with a felony if they fail to report a missing child within 24 hours, or if they fail to report the death of a child within an hour. What's surprising is just how quickly the Change.org petition for Caylee's Law has gone viral. As of this writing it has more than 700,000 signatures, and is now the most successful campaign in the site's history. For reasons of constitutionality and practicality, it seems unlikely that Caylee's Law will ever be realized at the federal level. But according to the AP, at least sixteen state legislatures are now considering some version law. That's troubling.

This is a bad way to make public policy. In an interview with CNN, Crowder concedes that she didn't consult with a single law enforcement official before coming up with her 24-hour and 1-hour limits. This raises some questions. How did she come up with those cutoffs? Did she consult with any grief counselors to see if there may be innocuous reasons why an innocent person who just witnessed a child's death might not immediately report it, such as shock, passing out, or some other sort of mental breakdown? Did she consult with a forensic pathologist to see if it's even possible to pin down the time of death with the sort of precision you'd need to make Caylee's Law enforceable? Have any of the lawmakers who have proposed or are planning to propose this law actually consulted with anyone with some knowledge of these issues?

While Caylee's Law could quite conceivably ensnare innocent grieving parents, it seems unlikely that it will prevent a single child's death. Consider: Is a father who is depraved enough to kill his own son really going to be dissuaded by a law that says he must notify the authorities of his son's death within an hour of having killed him? He's already committing murder. The law isn't likely to affect a parent who kills a child in a fit of anger or rage, either. By definition, crimes of passion are perpetrated in the heat of the moment, with little consideration of consequences.

I bolded the part I mostly agree with. I also feel if a toddler is missing within ONE hour the police should be called.. they could have left the state within a few....

[NJFemmie]

No, anyone who is going to kill their child would more than likely not report it. It isn't made for the majority of people in the world, and it was duly stated in that way -- but for the smaller percentage that it would more than likely affect - it acts as a deterrent - and perhaps an added sentence. It was already stated that if this law was to be in effect while Casey Anthony was on trial - she would have been sentenced 15 years in prison (at the very least) for not reporting her child missing.

Perhaps there is little consideration for the consequences of killing anyone in the heat of a moment - but it certainly doesn't justify the action. There should always be a consequence outside of self defense.

Not every state agrees with the time limitations - which is why they are creating their own version of the law.

[girl_dee]

I do agree NJFemmie that anything is better than nothing, and this was a highly emotional case, so something HAD to be done.

It's better than nothing, at least this bitch would be in jail for SOMETHING right now.

Sometimes you have to take what you can get, until things can get better. Bad breath is better than no breath at all.....

[NJFemmie]

Originally Posted by sassy_girl

Sometimes you have to take what you can get, until things can get better. Bad breath is better than no breath at all.....

LOL ... I'll have to remember that ....

[UofMfan]

Yes, the nice people of Arizona thought it a good idea and better than nothing to pass a law that would use racial profiling to get rid of undocumented immigrants. A deterrent. To them, it was a good law.

The death penalty, another deterrent, has been proven to be ineffective.

The 1996 immigration and terrorist law was supposed to deter terrorism. Then we had 9/11.

What these laws have done is tear families apart and executed hundreds of innocent people.

Patriot Act, that seemed like a good idea too.

I could go on and on.

[Gentle Tiger]

Originally Posted by UofMfan

Yes, the nice people of Arizona thought it a good idea and better than nothing to pass a law that would use racial profiling to get rid of undocumented immigrants. A deterrent. To them, it was a good law.

The death penalty, another deterrent, has been proven to be ineffective.

The 1996 immigration and terrorist law was supposed to deter terrorism. Then we had 9/11.

What these laws have done is tear families apart and executed hundreds of innocent people.

Patriot Act, that seemed like a good idea too.

I could go on and on.

Why do you insist UoffactsMfan on confusing the issue(s) with facts? Why, I ask you? Next thing you know brains will be exploding from people having independent thoughts for crying out loud!

[girl_dee]

I am easily confused by facts, it's true!

[NJFemmie]

One day, when the world becomes perfect ....

If nothing is done, there is an outrage. When something is proposed, there is an outrage.

I wish to be beamed up now, Scotty.

[Corkey]

I have no problem with a well thought out Constitutionally agreeable law that would protect kids from their parents. I sure don't want one that is a knee jerk reaction to a horrifying emotional crime/accident. Laws that effect the parent who by accident in an hour looses track of their kid could potentially go to jail for 15 years. Bit harsh don't you think?

[NJFemmie]

From what I have read, the sixteen states that has so far considered this law has been amending and appending to consider certain circumstances and scenarios. They are considering the fact that there could be circumstances that would delay or prevent someone from reporting a child missing .... and I agree with that. It would be hopeful that the law would know the considerable difference between a mother that has sincerely lost track of her child and someone who may be involved in foul play. (But we all know how "hope" plays in the matter....)

[Corkey]

We do, and that is what scares the crap out of me.

[NJFemmie]

I am sure you have seen your fair share.