Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I watched much of the trial and I must say I also wasn't convinced on the homicide charges. To address an earlier point, I think interpretation of evidence is always colored by a person's life and experience (regardless whether one is familiar with the law or not), so no two people will ever come to the exact same conclusion when each has a slightly different perspective. Full disclosure: I'm a law student at a very well known school but I don't think that gives me any special insight.
The biggest problem for the prosecution was the lack of a specific theory of the crime.
Cindy and George had credibility issues that went unresolved. The prosecutions experts were not entirely consistent. We heard from one prosecution expert that chloroform in the trunk of the car could be from decomposition. We heard from another that gasoline and biological compounds can create chloroform when mixed. No blow flies were found in the trunk and the carpet was free of any decomp liquids. We also heard that the person who towed Casey's car found a bag of maggot infested trash in the trunk - there's no question it stunk but how much stink is from "death" and how much from maggot infested trash? Also it was not clear that the car was exclusively Casey's since George and Cindy had keys to the car.
The strongest evidence (I think) was the cadaver dogs. Even then, the defense essentially conceded that a body may have been in the car.
It's not clear the duct tape was on the skulls face when found. Roy Kronk testified that he picked up the bag and the skull rolled out. Also, members of the family said they used duct tape to seal bags when they buried dead animals. Not only that but duct tape was in the family garage and George used it to seal his gas cans and put up posters when Caylee was "missing." Casey did not have exclusive access to duct tape nor did she purchase any.
We were told that Casey Anthony could have made chloroform but no materials necessarily to make it were found; no receipts for the ingredients to make it were presented.
Anther thing is that Casey had showed no signs of abusing Caylee and everyone who testified knew about Caylee (including Casey's then-boyfriend) and said Casey was a good mother - it wasn't a secret. The partying evidence was also vastly overstated. I think the record shows Casey went out once or twice during the time her daughter was missing and some testimony indicated that she may have worked there as a kind of promoter.
It was a difficult case but I think the right verdict was reached.
Ummm...have you ever done a case brief? I've seen case briefs in as little as three paragraphs. Sometimes you get a much clearer prospective from reading a case brief. Your mind gets all discombobulated sometimes sitting in a courtroom for weeks on end listening to lawyers and experts argue. By the end of the trial you don't know what to believe. Case brief in this situation would read "Suspect didn't report missing child to police, lied to family saying that the child was with a nanny when they wanted to see her, she lied to detectives when they were attempting to investigate Caylee's disappearance, the body was found 15 houses away from hers with duct tape on the mouth, according to decomposition experts her trunk smelled like human decomposition..." GUILTY!
Even Casey supporters like you and Morgain admit that at the least, Casey was guilty of negligent homicide, which means she should be in prison. The rest of us feel she is guilty of first or second degree murder, which means she should be in prison. Either way, the law didn't work today.
OMG!! You're suggesting trial by case brief! Btw, does the defense get to participate by submitting their own case brief?
Did the state charge Casey with negligent homicide? Was it a lesser included somewhere?
The criminal justice system worked just fine today.
Since when does a lack of evidence mean someone is innocent of a crime? All it means is the crime cannot be proven.
There is no jury verdict of "innocent." The only verdict forms are guilty or not guilty. A lack of evidence can establish a reasonable doubt that a person committed a crime.
I think they misunderstood beyond a reasonable doubt to me no doubts whatsoever. There will always be doubts. You can't even be 100% sure that you actually exist. What you do is take all of the circumstantial and substantial evidence and determine what that proves beyond a reasonable doubt, not just any doubts whatsoever. The evidence clearly proved that Casey Anthony was involved in the unlawful death of her child and tried to cover it up. Whether that was first degree murder or negligent homicide, we will never know.
Let me put it this way, what reasonable explanation is there for Casey lying to relatives about where Caylee was after disappearance, and then making up a "Zanny the Nanny" story, and deliberately lying to police during their investigation? If there is no other reasonable explanation for this behavior other than that she murdered her child, I think this proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.
They were given a specific jury instruction on reasonable doubt. I agree with the poster who said that the jury would have had a WRITTEN COPY of the jury instructions with them.
You may understand a reasonable doubt a little better if you read the jury instruction on that subject. Check out page 16 of 26 in the link below. That is the definition of reasonable doubt the jury had to follow.
Judge Perry Jury Instructions 26 Pages (http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2011-07/177483200-04090136.pdf - broken link)
Apparently, unlike you, the jury may have listened to the testimony of the "grief expert" who was put on by the defense. She gave a number of reasons for such behavior. Maybe the jury found the woman credible and felt she had the experience and credentials which indicated that she had more knowledge about such things than the average joe out her in the world. I think it's reasonable to think that Casey lied because she was afraid she would be sent to jail for something that was an accident. Casey had a very distinct pattern of lying about any and all issues which were stressful and extremely challenging for her to deal with directly. Whatever action in response to this situation which may have been easy and logical for me, or even most of us, may have been very challenging and scary for her.
OMG!! You're suggesting trial by case brief! Btw, does the defense get to participate by submitting their own case brief?
Did the state charge Casey with negligent homicide? Was it a lesser included somewhere?
The criminal justice system worked just fine today.
"Negligent homicide" is not a crime in Florida. The nearest equivalent would be "manslaughter." Manslaughter in most common-law jurisdictions requires negligence-plus (something more than just a lack of due care). Usually it's called gross negligence or recklessness (knowing the danger but still proceeding).
Nevertheless, you can't answer the mens rea question before you establish a causal link between the killing and the defendant.
Also a "case brief" is usually a memorandum on a point of law. A statement of facts usually comes in the form of an affidavit, a deposition, or a witness statement. All of which can be used to impeach witnesses during a trial. Lawyers typically don't write factual summaries of the issues (unless it's for a closing argument or opening statement and even then it's shortened and simplified).
Yet ... that mother's love came out in Cindy again when she lied on the stand about the computer searches.
I will never believe Caylee drowned. Casey Anthony is dangerous and the jury is letting her walk free. Casey would have been safer in prison where she couldn't ever do further harm to any one.
I wonder if the 12 jurors are sleeping well tonight.
I watched much of the trial and I must say I also wasn't convinced on the homicide charges. To address an earlier point, I think interpretation of evidence is always colored by a person's life and experience (regardless whether one is familiar with the law or not), so no two people will ever come to the exact same conclusion when each has a slightly different perspective. Full disclosure: I'm a law student at a very well known school but I don't think that gives me any special insight.
The biggest problem for the prosecution was the lack of a specific theory of the crime.
Cindy and George had credibility issues that went unresolved. The prosecutions experts were not entirely consistent. We heard from one prosecution expert that chloroform in the trunk of the car could be from decomposition. We heard from another that gasoline and biological compounds can create chloroform when mixed. No blow flies were found in the trunk and the carpet was free of any decomp liquids. We also heard that the person who towed Casey's car found a bag of maggot infested trash in the trunk - there's no question it stunk but how much stink is from "death" and how much from maggot infested trash? Also it was not clear that the car was exclusively Casey's since George and Cindy had keys to the car.
The strongest evidence (I think) was the cadaver dogs. Even then, the defense essentially conceded that a body may have been in the car.
It's not clear the duct tape was on the skulls face when found. Roy Kronk testified that he picked up the bag and the skull rolled out. Also, members of the family said they used duct tape to seal bags when they buried dead animals. Not only that but duct tape was in the family garage and George used it to seal his gas cans and put up posters when Caylee was "missing." Casey did not have exclusive access to duct tape nor did she purchase any.
We were told that Casey Anthony could have made chloroform but no materials necessarily to make it were found; no receipts for the ingredients to make it were presented.
Anther thing is that Casey had showed no signs of abusing Caylee and everyone who testified knew about Caylee (including Casey's then-boyfriend) and said Casey was a good mother - it wasn't a secret. The partying evidence was also vastly overstated. I think the record shows Casey went out once or twice during the time her daughter was missing and some testimony indicated that she may have worked there as a kind of promoter.
It was a difficult case but I think the right verdict was reached.
IMO, that ^^^ was a great summary of the evidence!
"Negligent homicide" is not a crime in Florida. The nearest equivalent would be "manslaughter." Manslaughter in most common-law jurisdictions requires negligence-plus (something more than just a lack of due care). Usually it's called gross negligence or recklessness (knowing the danger but still proceeding).
Nevertheless, you can't answer the mens rea question before you establish a causal link between the killing and the defendant.
Also a "case brief" is usually a memorandum on a point of law. A statement of facts usually comes in the form of an affidavit, a deposition, or a witness statement. All of which can be used to impeach witnesses during a trial. Lawyers typically don't write factual summaries of the issues (unless it's for a closing argument or opening statement and even then it's shortened and simplified).
I didn't say that negligent homicide was a crime in Florida. I was asking someone esle that question because they indicated that Casey should have been found guilty of negligent homicide.
As for the "case brief" comments, it was suggested by another poster that this would be a good way to proceed with a jury trial, and you were reading my response to that post.
I've actually had occasion to take witness statements and affidavits in criminal cases.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Btw, does the defense get to participate by submitting their own case brief? 
IMO, that ^^^ was a great summary of the evidence!