casey anthony wll not be guilty
- Thread starter Demarcus Cousins
- Start date
There's no proof she didn't do it. If there were, she wouldn't be on trial in the first place. The burden of proof isn't on the defense, it's on the prosecution. The defense just has to provide a reasonable doubt.
I would never want to be on a jury like this. Render a guilty verdict and there’s a chance you’re sending an innocent woman to jail for life based on circumstantial evidence. Render an innocent verdict and there’s a chance you’re letting a murderer walk free due to a lack of physical evidence. That's WAY more than I want to be responsible for!
I would never want to be on a jury like this. Render a guilty verdict and there’s a chance you’re sending an innocent woman to jail for life based on circumstantial evidence. Render an innocent verdict and there’s a chance you’re letting a murderer walk free due to a lack of physical evidence. That's WAY more than I want to be responsible for!
Last edited:
I would never want to be on a jury where harm or death to a child is involved. However, circumstantial evidence can be almost as strong as physical evidence. And real life is not like CSI, where they always find physical evidence.
If she is convicted, she would at least be partly at fault for telling so many different stories about what happened, otherwise known as lying. It was so sad to see her mother lie on the stand for her. I don't see how Casey could sit there and let her mother do that, go through that.
It may be harder to find that it was a premeditated act. If the jury has reasonable doubt about premeditation, but thinks she's responsible, then they could find her guilty of a lesser charge and the death penalty would be off the table.
If she is convicted, she would at least be partly at fault for telling so many different stories about what happened, otherwise known as lying. It was so sad to see her mother lie on the stand for her. I don't see how Casey could sit there and let her mother do that, go through that.
It may be harder to find that it was a premeditated act. If the jury has reasonable doubt about premeditation, but thinks she's responsible, then they could find her guilty of a lesser charge and the death penalty would be off the table.
Last edited:
And it can also be completely circumstantial (hence the term) and prove nothing. That's why you need hard physical evidence, a witness, a confession, etc. We're talking about taking someone's freedom away for life and possibly taking their life itself away. You have to be certain. Just pretty sure because that's how it looks doesn't cut it.
Exactly. From the outside looking in, you can be convinced of something. But when you are on the jury, and you're given instructions on how to reach a verdict, things are a lot different. To say "this woman is lying, I don't trust her, she's probably guilty" is one thing. But you can't find her guilty because of that. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the crime for which they are being charged, based on the evidence admitted into the case. The woman could be a pathological liar and the prosecution could discredit her all day long, but that's not nearly as important as proving, based on the evidence, that she's guilty of murder. They couldn't do that.
BTW, I was making a general comment, I didn't watch much of the trial or care to watch. I hate all the talking heads, pontificating and generally biased. They don't report, they blather not helping justice at all. I think they interfere with justice.
Anyway, since I heard little of the testimony, I had formed no opinion of her guilt or innocence.
Anyway, since I heard little of the testimony, I had formed no opinion of her guilt or innocence.
Last edited:
I keep seeing people calling the jurors idiots. Kind of worries me that people don't understand how a trial by jury works. In this case, the motive the prosecution tried to prove was so outrageous, and the lack of forensic evidence to prove the accused had anything to do with the death was so glaring, for the jury to find her guilty would have required that they ignore the instructions given to them. The fact that all 12 jurors refused to talk to the press -- at least for now -- makes me think that they are unsettled about their verdict, torn even, but you can't find a defendant guilty as charged if the prosecution doesn't prove it.
Some legal analysts are saying that the prosecution should have tried her on lesser charges, where there's less burden of proof. Then the flimsy motive they pushed would have been less of an issue.
Some legal analysts are saying that the prosecution should have tried her on lesser charges, where there's less burden of proof. Then the flimsy motive they pushed would have been less of an issue.
It appears lack of physical evidence and no solid motive probably doomed this from the start.
I just wish we didn't have a verdict of either guilty or not guilty. I believe in Britain, the verdict is "not proven." Since innocence is presumed under our justice system (or is supposed to be), a more appropriate verdict would be "guilt not proven," so the presumption of innocence stands.
All I know is a little girl is dead and the mother has made it inexplicable forever.
I just wish we didn't have a verdict of either guilty or not guilty. I believe in Britain, the verdict is "not proven." Since innocence is presumed under our justice system (or is supposed to be), a more appropriate verdict would be "guilt not proven," so the presumption of innocence stands.
All I know is a little girl is dead and the mother has made it inexplicable forever.
i told yall
this is how i see how the crime went down-
---------------------
-she wants to party
-she decides to kill baby
-she tells dad who is ex cop that she wants baby gone,but doesnt tell mom
-her and dad use chloroform and place the ducktape around mouth to kill her
-she draws heart on ducktape because this is her way of saying goodbye and mommy loves her
-dad does the rest and plants body in woods,covers up crime scene, ect
-anthony casey's mom never new about dad helping casey
-since dad was ex cop he new how to cover up crime scenes
/ case.
this is how i see how the crime went down-
---------------------
-she wants to party
-she decides to kill baby
-she tells dad who is ex cop that she wants baby gone,but doesnt tell mom
-her and dad use chloroform and place the ducktape around mouth to kill her
-she draws heart on ducktape because this is her way of saying goodbye and mommy loves her
-dad does the rest and plants body in woods,covers up crime scene, ect
-anthony casey's mom never new about dad helping casey
-since dad was ex cop he new how to cover up crime scenes
/ case.
Sounds like the jury did think she was guilty . Are we too reliant on DNA evidence these days?
Well, at least it sounds like they're aware they let a murderer go free...
Well, at least it sounds like they're aware they let a murderer go free...
Given how completely tarred even an average defendant is by even being accused, let alone going to trial, I think we can allow them the small hollow victory of a "not guilty" title. Fact is of course that every person ever dragged into court is stained by it in the minds of some, or in a case like this, in the minds of milions. Not guilty or not, their life is ruined, or at the very least altered significantly, and not in a good way.
People brought to trial are guilty until proven innocent in reality. I didn't pay any atttention to the case or the trial but what I read here and elsewhere is that a person went through a trial, the jury unanimously decided that guilt hadn't been proven, and she is still considered guilty by the public. Seems like it could be a touchy subject for this forum.
I would hazard a guess that Glenn is referring more to the perception of guilt which is usually placed on the accused by the general public. Most people who are put on trial are actually assumed to be guilty rather than innocent. I'm not saying it's right or that everyone thinks that way, but the reputation of people who are aquitted is more often than not ruined just by being accused.
I agree with everything you said there. It's become glaringly clear watching folks reactions since the verdict went down that I think she did it would be sufficient for many to render a guilty verdict. Kind of scary. I've never been on a jury and I don't pretend to be a legal expert but I do know that our legal system is based on the principle that you're innocent until proven guilty, not innocent until they you guilty, or innocent until people think you're guilty.
Maybe Anthony did it, and maybe she didn’t. The important part is that the prosecution wasn’t able to prove she did. In a case that lacks sufficient evidence, It’s better to error on the side of caution and take the chance that you might be letting a guilty person go free than it is to rush to judgement and take a chance of sending an innocent person to prison for the rest of their lives.
Maybe Anthony did it, and maybe she didn’t. The important part is that the prosecution wasn’t able to prove she did. In a case that lacks sufficient evidence, It’s better to error on the side of caution and take the chance that you might be letting a guilty person go free than it is to rush to judgement and take a chance of sending an innocent person to prison for the rest of their lives.
Last edited:
I still like the "not proven," if the average person understood that the defendent then was still presumed innocent. On the other hand, I totally agree that irregardless of whether it was "guilty" or "not proven" that person's life is ruined, innocent or not.
[edited for probably being too political]
[edited for probably being too political]
I hope you're not as stupid as you sound. So because you have some imagination of how it happened, you'd convict someone based on your fairy tale imagination?
The only thing she's proven herself guilty of is craziness and being a sociopathic liar. Not a killer.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution. It's better to let 10 guilty people walk free than to confine an innocent man. Innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution had more than enough to try for criminal negligence, at the very least, possibly more. But going for homicide requires PROOF. No motive, no weapon. Her parents had testified that they were more than willing to take her in (Caylee).
Instead, you have fools like Nancy Grace, a travesty of a former prosecutor, who has zero respect for the legal system she used to serve. She attacks the jurors, the defense, etc, playing judge, jury, and executioner, when she isn't exactly privy to any of the details of the case that the jury is.
I'm going into law--and trust me, as a DA, if you win a case like that, it takes months and months of preparation. I'd celebrate too, Nancy. And the jurors did their job. It was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the mother killed her daughter.
Maybe someday you'll find yourself on the end of some heinous accusation and be grateful that the idea of reasonable doubt is in place.