Casey Anthony Did Not Kill Her Child and What the Defense Alleges is Entirely True

im pretty sure all those other charges were dropped earlier because the prosecution wanted to go exclusively for the murder one


the jury can only decide on the charges that are put on the table

 

And that's fucked up, it doesn't matter how poor you are, they should need proof to convict you, not just a gut feeling and the fact that you make funny faces at the wrong times.

 

Isn't this stupid case over yet? Just ignore it and it will go away, there's plenty of more important things to be concerned over and to protest about. It's a bad thing, sure, but things like this happen every hour of every day all over the world in the system we have now.

If we change the system then we won't have to worry about things like this anymore.

 

Things like what?

While this case has gotten waaaay too much publicity, the one thing I am thankful for is that it renewed my faith in the justice system.. If only a little.

 

Seriously, you think that things are broken.... and that if they where fixed, she WOULD have been convicted?

Likewise! I'm quite relieved, it's excellent that the jurors can make intelligent arguments and defend themselves against nancy grace, and make a fair decision without letting emotion get in the way. I expected her to be convicted, and am more hopeful for america's future than I was before this dog and pony show.

 

So, I heard an, uh, interesting fact on the news tonight. Casey Anthony waited 31 days before reporting her child missing...? What the fuck.


Has anyone heard her explanation for this? I'd be interested in hearing it.

 

^ Her explanation is that there was no missing child to report. The child was dead.

 

Right, but according to her she didn't know the child is dead.

You don't either assume your child is dead, then wait a month to report it, or figure your child has been missing for a month, and then report it.


She must have been asked in court why she waited 31 days to report her missing daughter, what could she have possibly responded with?

 

Her defense was that she knew her kid was dead all along but that the death was an accidental pool drowning.

 

Oh, she actually admitted to that. To be honest I didn't follow the thing very closely, however for the past three days every news channel has been covering it so I caught bits and pieces here and there.

So in the end was it basically like an OJ thing; "We know you did it but we can't prove it." ?

How could she admit to knowing her daughter was dead and not get in shit for it? Did she admit to hiding the body and whatnot?

 

Read the OP

 

What an excellent point! (especially since I didn't make it, it might not be flamed upon...) And really tho'...just what was her answer? Must've been pretty good since according to these learned posters she received the "correct verdict".
(gagging sounds here)

 

^ Because maybe you actually have a life.

She admitted hiding the body and got 4 yrs. for lying to the police but with time served she'll be out in less than a week.

Law enforcement fucked this up by not doing a thorough enuff search for the body which was skeletonized by the time the meter reader found it in the Anthony's backyard. No way to determine a cause of death. No witnesses. Now everyone is blaming the jury.

 

Okay, I've read the op. So she didn't physically kill her daughter, but she and her family covered up the death like it was a half assed mafia hit. I don't understand how there isn't a law for that sort of thing.


Edit: Okay, I read Eavesdrop's last post. I understand.

 

There is, but the prosecuting attorney was dumb as fuck.

Edit: wait, wasn't that the reason? I admit to not paying very close attention to the case, but I was under the impression that they could have convicted her of manslaughter (for leaving the little girl home alone) had the prosecution tried at all to make it happen.

 

There's lots of laws, they could have put her the fuck away. All kinds of negligence, manslaughter of a dependant by negligence (I dont know exactly what its called, but something like that) destruction of evidence, and just any everything else. They could have put her away until her hair's all grey.

The prosecutor wanted to make a name for himself, which he knew would happen wether he won or lost. So he went with murder 1. A charge which he did NOT have evidence for, because law enforcement fucked up, as was said above.

You can't convict her of murder because you can prove she did the wrong thing, but she's only charged with murder.

"she did something wrong" doesn't mean you can see evidence where there is none, or simple accept the wrong charge from the prosecutor because he doesn't provide the right one. That would totally break the balance that the trial by jury introduces into the system.

If you think she should have gotten more than her time served, then you should be very angry at the prosecutor for trying to break the american justice system, while simultaneously letting her off with 4 years. It's not the jury's fault, part of a good jury is one that won't bend the rules or convict for things that they don't see evidence for. They are the check against malicious prosecution, and they did an excellent job.

I wrote this in a hurry and the grammar's fucked, sorry....

 

So can they still charge her for manslaughter now or what?

 

I'm not sure.

I think double jeopardy might protect her from a new charge on the same crime.

Either way, they won't get her on shit now.

The prosecutor fucked shit up.

And if they COULD try her for manslaughter, I'd say no: take that money, fire the prosecutor, and use that money to find a better one.

 

i'm almost positive that this is true

 

She can't be charged with anything else arising out of the same set of facts as her first trial.