Casey Anthony Trial -- a Verdict has been reached...

[elizabeth]

I guess it's upsetting to see that "justice is not done," but honestly, murders go unsolved all the time. This is just a famous one, with a particularly bad parent at the center of it.

 

I don't think Casey Anthony is a danger to society, so it's not as though a serial rapist, murderer, or child sexual predator is on the loose. She probaby won't even kill any of her own children, since she's a celebrity.

 

I hope she has the opportunity to repent of whichever aspects of her life are most displeasing to God, whether that be bad parenting or murder.

 

Doesn't matter to me if she "does time" or not.

http://books.google.com/books/about/The_sociopath_next_door.html?id=mU05YWM2aUUC

I have no words. You are calling this bad parenting????? You are wrong that she will not fatally harm others again,she will kill or destroy other people in her path . She falsely accused her father of sexually abusing her after telling Baez that her brother could be the baby's father. If she were my neighbor I would move as I would be afraid of being her next victim. Duct tape, reputation, sanity, etc are all thrown under the bus by this she devil. Yes I do believe that people can be intrinsically evil. She is and she gets away with it because her wickedness is not visible to all.

[Mary in VA]

You "simply" have to find that a preponderance of the evidence points to guilt.

 

 

No, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal cases, which is a higher standard than "a preponderance of the evidence." A preponderance is the greater weight of the evidence, and it is used in civil cases, not criminal.

 

Mary

[Mrs Mungo]

But looking at the evidence that the prosecutor presented, can I say 100% that she did? No, I cannot.

 

A juror doesn't have to be 100% sure, that is not what reasonable doubt means.

[Hunter's Moon]

But the vast majority of cases are not convicted on 100% certainty. We'd only convict people of murder if they were videotaped then (and only if the videotape had been analyzed by every expert in the field and authenticated). You "simply" have to find that a preponderance of the evidence points to guilt.

 

I don't think there are very many cases in the past 200 years where a jury of disparate people can all honestly say that they believed in convicting someone of a crime 100%. Elizabeth, do you know of any cases like that?

 

Of course they don't have to believe 100%. But it seems to me like the prosecutor was more worried about putting holes in the defense's story. I understand that is what they're supposed to do, but they never proved their own scenario. If they had come up with their own scenario that could be proven in some way, not 100%, but at least shed a bit of light on the situation, she may have been proven guilty. But, their witnesses were easily pulled apart by the defense.

 

The duct tape points to murder or at least a cover up, but the coroner couldn't figure out HOW she died. If she saw abuse on her bones or some kind of evidence pointing towards a life of abuse or pointing towards physical trauma that could result in murder, then I believe she would have been proven guilty. But there was nothing proven by the prosecution. Obviously, the chloroform in the trunk wasn't enough for the prosecution to go on, because they didn't really follow up on that as hard as they could have.

 

While the defense's story was ridiculous, it was never really disproven because no cause of death was found and since the prosecution didn't shed any light on it, that was all they had to go off of.

[Scarlett]

I have followed the case somewhat, neither closely nor superficially. The strongest part of the state's case was the behavior of the mother after the child went missing,.

 

The 31 days that she didn't report child 'missing' was a big deal but FAR from the strongest evidence. Not all of the evidence presented WAS rebutted by the defence experts. And some of the defense 'experts' were laughable. The grief expert that never even examined Casey? A joke.

 

The child went missing while in Casey's care and she has not yet provided the details of where she left her and in whose care she left her. (except for the lies that have been proven to be lies and for which she was convicted today.) THAT alone is evidence. BIG evidence.

 

It cannot be compared to a grown woman going missing and ending up dead.

 

I think Casey Anthony did it or knows who did; it could have been a hook-up of hers for all we know. I just don't think we can equate a jury's not guilty verdict with assuming that they thought she was innocent. I am willing to give the jury the benefit of the doubt on the "reasonable doubt" issue.

 

There is no evidence that a hook-up ever came to the Anthony house.

 

And I do not give the jury the benefit of the doubt. They threw out their common sense.

[Hunter's Moon]

A juror doesn't have to be 100% sure, that is not what reasonable doubt means.

 

I understand that. I suppose what I meant to say was, the facts that the prosecution presented were not strong enough in my mind to point to murder. Obviously, I'm not the only one who felt this way or she wouldn't have got off.

 

Leaving now, before any tomatoes are thrown :leaving:

[Jennifer3141]

I understand that. I suppose what I meant to say was, the facts that the prosecution presented were not strong enough in my mind to point to murder. Obviously, I'm not the only one who felt this way or she wouldn't have got off.

 

Leaving now, before any tomatoes are thrown :leaving:

 

Stephanie, I don't think anyone is going to throw tomatoes at you!! You are entitled to your opinion and obviously, at least someone on the jury thinks/feesl the same as you. :grouphug:

[Scarlett]

I understand that. I suppose what I meant to say was, the facts that the prosecution presented were not strong enough in my mind to point to murder. Obviously, I'm not the only one who felt this way or she wouldn't have got off.

 

Leaving now, before any tomatoes are thrown :leaving:

 

As was stated earlier by Mrs. Mungo, juries are clearly not understanding what can be considered strong enough evidence.

 

I can't believe 12 people agreed on that in 10 hours.

[Murphy101]

Anyone able to answer my questions?

 

Don't make me dig thru google search with one thumb on my iPhone please!

(nursing newborn ;) )

 

I know there are all kinds of forms and regulations that make life heck if not followed, but that doesn't always make legal requirements. It certainly doesn't always make them criminal offenses when not done.

 

Just curious.

 

Also I wonder if anyone will go after her in civil court similar to the PJ mess?

[Jennifer3141]

What creeps me out almost as much as the idea of a sociopath getting off is wondering today how many innocent people were convicted or railroaded into accepting guilty pleas...

[Scarlett]

What creeps me out almost as much as the idea of a sociopath getting off is wondering today how many innocent people were convicted or railroaded into accepting guilty pleas...

 

Anyone ever read that book by John Grisham about that man falsely convicted and sent to Death Row in OK? Fascinating read. It is the only Non-fiction he's ever written.

[Jennifer3141]

Ok Martha, it took me a second to realize who "PJ" was. I sat here thinking, "Wow. Is there a serial killer out there named PJ?"

 

PJ just seems too innocent to me. It's pajams for crying out loud!! :D

Edited July 5, 2011 by Jennifer3141

[Jennifer3141]

Anyone ever read that book by John Grisham about that man falsely convicted and sent to Death Row in OK? Fascinating read. It is the only Non-fiction he's ever written.

 

YES!! It was a great read!!

[Murphy101]

Ok Martha, it took me a second to realize who "PJ" was. I sat here thinking, "Wow. Is there a serial killer out there named PJ?"

 

PJ just seems to innocent to me. It's pajams for crying out loud!! :D

 

Ug! Stupid autocorrect! OJ! sorry. Lol

[Jennifer3141]

Ug! Stupid autocorrect! OJ! sorry. Lol

 

That's alright!! It's not like OJ didn't come to everyones' minds today. I got it pretty quick. :)

[TXMary2]

Anyone ever read that book by John Grisham about that man falsely convicted and sent to Death Row in OK? Fascinating read. It is the only Non-fiction he's ever written.

 

I read that and while it was a riveting story, it was really a rant against the Death Penalty and I wanted my $6 back.

 

Today's verdict, while sickening, is what it is. The system sometimes works and sometimes it doesn't. We have to take the good with the bad. I hope I am wrong, but she will probably have a reality show six months from now.

[Chris in VA]

Was the chloroform found in the mother's car, or the grandparent's car?

Has anyone posited the idea that Casey might have drugged her kid so that she could go out and the kid not wake up, or taken her with her to party but kept her asleep in the car, using the chloroform, perhaps even with duct tape on her mouth, in case she woke up crying? Maybe she overdid the chloroform and Caylee died, still with the tape on her mouth. Then she hid the body.

 

It's my understanding the body was too decomposed to tell if the tape was on when she was alive or if it had been added onto her mouth when she died, right?

 

 

Just a theory, and not a very good one.

 

I just have experience with parents threatening to tape their kid's mouth shut if the kid didn't stop making noise. And I have experience with parents drugging their kid (not with chloroform, tho) and bringing them sleeping to wait in the parking lot while they partied.

 

Sick and sad.

[Jennifer3141]

I read that and while it was a riveting story, it was really a rant against the Death Penalty and I wanted my $6 back.

 

Today's verdict, while sickening, is what it is. The system sometimes works and sometimes it doesn't. We have to take the good with the bad. I hope I am wrong, but she will probably have a reality show six months from now.

 

OMG. A reality show!! Of course! She'll be on "Dancing with the Stars" or "American Idol" next. God help us, and I make that plea as an avowed atheist. :glare:

 

And of course you didn't like the book. Doesn't Texas do drive through executions?? I wouldn't expect a Texas-er to feel any other way. That's part of what makes you all down there such a fun state. You don't mess with a Texas girl. She'll blow your head off and then go help the cattle birth or build an oil rig, and keep her hair coiffed at the same time too! :D

 

(I've got a good friend from Texas. She laughs at my state for not having the death penalty.)

Edited July 5, 2011 by Jennifer3141

[cin]

:iagree:

 

I am stunned. More stunned than I was by the OJ verdict.

 

Me too. OJ was a celebrity. Nobody wants to think OJ could do something like that! Plus he had money (maybe...) But Casey WAS a 'nobody'.

 

I am also sickened that there is nobody to be upset that the alleged killer of this baby girl walks free.

 

And I cannot imagine how a mother could/would pretend that nothing is wrong, when her child is DEAD and/or MISSING a MONTH???? Good Lord. Could you just go on like NOTHING happened? Unfortunately, some of you have walked this road and you know that you can't just box up your grief to only show between midnight and 7 AM. Surprise things trigger it.

 

Ok, I need to leave before I pop a vessel...

[TXMary2]

OMG. A reality show!! Of course! She'll be on "Dancing with the Stars" or "American Idol" next. God help us, and I make that plea as an avowed atheist. :glare:

 

And of course you didn't like the book. Doesn't Texas do drive through executions?? I wouldn't expect a Texas-er to feel any other way. That's part of what makes you all down there such a fun state. You don't mess with a Texas girl. She'll blow your head off and then go help the cattle birth or build an oil rig, and keep her hair coiffed at the same time too! :D

 

(I've got a good friend from Texas. She laughs at my state for not having the death penalty.)

 

 

Hey now! Don't make fun of my big hair. ;) I didn't like the book because I am pro-death penalty, I didn't like it because the motive for writing it was very clear. I just like true crime stories, I didn't want a sermon.

 

I am undecided these days on how I feel about the death penalty, but I will say Casey is lucky she wasn't on trial here.

[pdalley]

Was the chloroform found in the mother's car, or the grandparent's car?

Has anyone posited the idea that Casey might have drugged her kid so that she could go out and the kid not wake up, or taken her with her to party but kept her asleep in the car, using the chloroform, perhaps even with duct tape on her mouth, in case she woke up crying? Maybe she overdid the chloroform and Caylee died, still with the tape on her mouth. Then she hid the body.

 

It's my understanding the body was too decomposed to tell if the tape was on when she was alive or if it had been added onto her mouth when she died, right?

 

 

Just a theory, and not a very good one.

 

I just have experience with parents threatening to tape their kid's mouth shut if the kid didn't stop making noise. And I have experience with parents drugging their kid (not with chloroform, tho) and bringing them sleeping to wait in the parking lot while they partied.

 

Sick and sad.

 

I have always felt that's what happened. I never really thought it was premeditated. I thought the little girl was an obstacle to Casey partying and it was an accident.

 

The chilling thing was the way she didn't really seem to care and appeared to be annoyed that others did. No mother fails to report her child missing for thirty odd days. It defies common sense. It goes against every maternal instinct I've ever had.

 

Shame on the jury for taking so little time to deliberate when a lesser charge could have been considered. Juries seem to have this idea that if the defense can plant some suspicion on ONE piece of evidence that it taints all of it. It doesn't.

 

Ron and Nicole's DNA did not jump into OJ's shower drain and his house was so well guarded by his people I'm not about to believe it was planted. But because they established doubt about the glove then the jury felt it could disregard for all the other pieces of evidence. Not true. Not at all.

[Laurie4b]

The duct tape points to murder or at least a cover up, but the coroner couldn't figure out HOW she died. If she saw abuse on her bones or some kind of evidence pointing towards a life of abuse or pointing towards physical trauma that could result in murder, then I believe she would have been proven guilty. But there was nothing proven by the prosecution. Obviously, the chloroform in the trunk wasn't enough for the prosecution to go on, because they didn't really follow up on that as hard as they could have.

 

of.

 

This is it exactly. If you are unsure how she died, it's hard to say "beyond a reasonable doubt" that she was murdered or the victim of aggravated child abuse. That seems to me to be a basic building block of a prosecution's case.

The aggravated manslaughter of a child would have been the easiest one to convict on, but even that means that Casey's neglect preceded the death and actually caused the death of the child. She was clearly neglectful after the fact--by failure to report the child missing or dead. I'm just not sure if any of the counts gave the jury the option to convict on something based soley on Casey Anthony's after the fact behavior or her character alone.

 

The emotion in the case would have been strongly in favor of conviction. Casey Anthony is not a person with whom most people would identify or empathize. I think the comparisons to OJ Simpson are based only on people not liking a "not guilty" verdict. With Simpson, you had a celebrity with whom people did identify; you also had jurors whose life experiences led them to be suspicious of police misconduct, and you had some evidence of police misconduct. But I see no emotional pull whatsoever to acquit Anthony. The natural reaction is to want to see someone pay for the death of an adorable child. And Anthony's behavior afterwards was reprehensible.

 

If you read the jury profiles, there were people with education on the jury, there were people for the death penalty, parents of young children, etc. This was not a stupid, bleeding-heart jury who would not have convicted Al Capone.

 

I think coming up with a verdict that goes against the emotional pull is a strong message that the prosecution failed to present its case beyond a reasonable doubt. So I'm giving the jurors the benefit of the doubt.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Laurie4b
to keep a kitten from dying and spelling

[elegantlion]

Was the chloroform found in the mother's car, or the grandparent's car?

Has anyone posited the idea that Casey might have drugged her kid so that she could go out and the kid not wake up, or taken her with her to party but kept her asleep in the car, using the chloroform, perhaps even with duct tape on her mouth, in case she woke up crying? Maybe she overdid the chloroform and Caylee died, still with the tape on her mouth. Then she hid the body.

 

It's my understanding the body was too decomposed to tell if the tape was on when she was alive or if it had been added onto her mouth when she died, right?

 

 

Just a theory, and not a very good one.

 

I just have experience with parents threatening to tape their kid's mouth shut if the kid didn't stop making noise. And I have experience with parents drugging their kid (not with chloroform, tho) and bringing them sleeping to wait in the parking lot while they partied.

 

Sick and sad.

 

I find this more plausible than drowning in the pool. But that would have shown her guilty. Poor blessed child. These are the days I want to believe dearly that God himself holds children like that, just to remind them that someone loves them.

[cjbeach]

I knew she was going to get off. They might have had lots of evidence but it didn't prove that SHE did it, it could have been, well, anybody. I do think she is guilty though.

Totally. I think she did it but I think the prosecutor's office found little to no evidence to prove she did it. They proved she's a liar, but that was it.

[elizabeth]

CASEY did NOT accuse her father of sexual abuse. There was absolutely NO evidence presented regarding sexual abuse by her father. There was an accusation made by Baez in his opening statement, but opening statements are NOT evidence! Casey did not testify and no other witness gave testimony regarding sexual abuse. So it was only the statement by Baez that left the taint hanging out in the air.

 

Mary

 

True. But it is no less an accusation because once the jury hears it, even if it is deemed inadmissable and they are instructed to disregard opening statements as evidence. No juror understands that. Once it's out there, that possibility is still there in their minds. It was underhanded , it was slimy, and if you saw her father's face when the verdict was read it was also false. He looked like he had been sucker punched when that verdict came down. As a lawyer, you can pull one of those fiascos one time in court. You do it twice, you're going to get slapped by the Bar Association because it is not ethical to allude to false statements in opening statements knowing full well that you have not a shred of evidence to back it up. At least no one can accuse Baez of having any ethics whatsoever. You know what? We're going to the grocery store because we had to wait until some cases were finalized . Yes, really. But I can look in the mirror at night and not hate myself. I know Baez cannot say the same.

[Pink Fairy]

I read that and while it was a riveting story, it was really a rant against the Death Penalty and I wanted my $6 back.

 

 

 

I'm actually against the death penalty, and I still hated the preachy tone--it ruined the book for me, and I didn't finish it.

[pdalley]

True. But it is no less an accusation because once the jury hears it, even if it is deemed inadmissable and they are instructed to disregard opening statements as evidence. No juror understands that. Once it's out there, that possibility is still there in their minds. It was underhanded , it was slimy, and if you saw her father's face when the verdict was read it was also false. He looked like he had been sucker punched when that verdict came down. As a lawyer, you can pull one of those fiascos one time in court. You do it twice, you're going to get slapped by the Bar Association because it is not ethical to allude to false statements in opening statements knowing full well that you have not a shred of evidence to back it up. At least no one can accuse Baez of having any ethics whatsoever. You know what? We're going to the grocery store because we had to wait until some cases were finalized . Yes, really. But I can look in the mirror at night and not hate myself. I know Baez cannot say the same.

 

That made me so sick! I knew it was just smoke and mirrors by Baez. They also tried to make it seem her brother had molested her but again - they never offered a shred of proof.

 

Elizabeth, I am so glad there are lawyers like you that have ethics and stand for something. :grouphug:

 

I haven't lost faith in the justice system but I have lost faith in the intelligence and critical and logical thinking skills of jurors.

[elizabeth]

Of course they don't have to believe 100%. But it seems to me like the prosecutor was more worried about putting holes in the defense's story. I understand that is what they're supposed to do, but they never proved their own scenario. If they had come up with their own scenario that could be proven in some way, not 100%, but at least shed a bit of light on the situation, she may have been proven guilty. But, their witnesses were easily pulled apart by the defense.

 

The duct tape points to murder or at least a cover up, but the coroner couldn't figure out HOW she died. If she saw abuse on her bones or some kind of evidence pointing towards a life of abuse or pointing towards physical trauma that could result in murder, then I believe she would have been proven guilty. But there was nothing proven by the prosecution. Obviously, the chloroform in the trunk wasn't enough for the prosecution to go on, because they didn't really follow up on that as hard as they could have.

 

While the defense's story was ridiculous, it was never really disproven because no cause of death was found and since the prosecution didn't shed any light on it, that was all they had to go off of.

 

FYI circumstantial evidence is far more reliable than witness statements as those are often very unreliable . Most cases, if not all, are proved by circumstantial evidence. In order to get a murder conviction, one doesn't even need a body or a motive to prove their case. The prosecutors here were not up to standards. And, frankly, the very obviously perjury-loving sociopath mother who begat the sociopathic daughter did not help at all. So I hope she lives the rest of her days seeing that little girl's face look up at her and wonder why, why didn't you love me? Why didn't you protect me? Any parent with half a brain cell would know that someone who worked for minimum wage does not have a nanny thank you very much. These parents knew there was something wrong with their daughter, they have been collaborators in this nightmare and believe me, I have seen it before. Any other lawyer who has practiced for more than a decade at least will say sociopaths are not only born, they are made. Mrs. Anthony created a doozy. There is no way they could have thought for a moment she was anything but a negligent, constantly intoxicated, irresponsible mother and they should have sought guardianship of that child from the day she was born. I've done this before, people. That child did not have to die. Those parents needed to take the blinders off and see that little monster Casey for what she really was. But of course, that meant dropping the facade of middle-class respectability and that's all these people cared about. If I'm wrong, I'll eat my shoe. And I wear big shoes.

[stephanier.1765]

I hope I am wrong, but she will probably have a reality show six months from now.

 

Or a spread in Playboy. :glare:

[melmichigan]

I would like to be the fly on the wall when those jurors go home and back to the real world. I wonder if their views will change?

[Elaine]

Was the chloroform found in the mother's car, or the grandparent's car?

Has anyone posited the idea that Casey might have drugged her kid so that she could go out and the kid not wake up, or taken her with her to party but kept her asleep in the car, using the chloroform, perhaps even with duct tape on her mouth, in case she woke up crying? Maybe she overdid the chloroform and Caylee died, still with the tape on her mouth. Then she hid the body.

 

It's my understanding the body was too decomposed to tell if the tape was on when she was alive or if it had been added onto her mouth when she died, right?

 

 

Just a theory, and not a very good one.

 

I just have experience with parents threatening to tape their kid's mouth shut if the kid didn't stop making noise. And I have experience with parents drugging their kid (not with chloroform, tho) and bringing them sleeping to wait in the parking lot while they partied.

 

Sick and sad.

 

I agree with this, and I believe that she regularly drugged Caylee. Nanny Zanny? That is a drug reference to Xanax. It is very possible that she drugged her with Xanax, and then gagged her with the tape and chloroform case she woke up. I believe that killing her was an accident, but that does not make her any less culpable.

[Scarlett]

This is it exactly. If you are unsure how she died, it's hard to say "beyond a reasonable doubt" that she was murdered or the victim of aggravated child abuse. That seems to me to be a basic building block of a prosecution's case.

 

I do not understand why it is hard for anyone to believe that a 2 year old found with duct tape on her mouth was murdered 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' As the county medical examiner said, 'no child should have duct tape on her mouth and it is more than reasonable to think that child died as a result of homocide.'

[Pretty in Pink]

I do not understand why it is hard for anyone to believe that a 2 year old found with duct tape on her mouth was murdered 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' As the county medical examiner said, 'no child should have duct tape on her mouth and it is more than reasonable to think that child died as a result of homocide.'

 

Exactly. There is no reason to duct tape the head/mouth/face of a corpse. You only do that to a live victim.

[nov05mama]

I agree with this, and I believe that she regularly drugged Caylee. Nanny Zanny? That is a drug reference to Xanax. It is very possible that she drugged her with Xanax, and then gagged her with the tape and chloroform case she woke up. I believe that killing her was an accident, but that does not make her any less culpable.

Yup! :iagree:

[kitten18]

Dexter???? Yoooo Hooooo???? Looking for a real-life Dexter.............

[hsmamainva]

Elizabeth -- you might know the answer to this....is Casey entitled to any sort of protection after she's released from prison?

 

I know folks were mad at O.J. after he was found not guilty, but he had millions and could afford to hire bodyguards.

 

Casey doesn't have the money for bodyguards.

 

Hundreds of folks volunteered to search for Caylee in the Orlando area and I'm sure they will be none to pleased to have her walking the streets.

 

I don't see how Casey will be able to go out in public without being harassed (at the very least!!).

[Elaine]

Dexter???? Yoooo Hooooo???? Looking for a real-life Dexter.............

 

Oh, my! I was thinking the same thing when I heard the verdict!

[pdalley]

I do not understand why it is hard for anyone to believe that a 2 year old found with duct tape on her mouth was murdered 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' As the county medical examiner said, 'no child should have duct tape on her mouth and it is more than reasonable to think that child died as a result of homocide.'

 

How could they convict her of lying to the police if she's not guilty of Caylee's death? (Be it manslaughter or whatever)

 

I mean if she lied to the police then she lied about something, right? She lied about her child disappearing. But then the jury thinks she didn't have something to do with it? So why did she lie to the police then?

 

The jury should have deliberated much longer. Much much longer.

 

As far as Casey getting protection I'm sure her attorney is taking care of that.

[FaithManor]

OJ was a sports hero, an actor, considered handsome, wealthy, and a celebrity.

 

It was a case, among other things, that was a vehicle though which American values (shown in terms of time spent, money spent, energy, and focus) truly manifest.

 

 

That's the truth!!!

 

Faith

[Elaine]

How could they convict her of lying to the police if she's not guilty of Casey's death? (Be it manslaughter or whatever)

 

I mean if she lied to the police then she lied about something, right? She lied about her child disappearing. But then the jury thinks she didn't have something to do with it? So why did she lie to the police then?

 

The jury should have deliberated much longer. Much much longer.

 

As far as Casey getting protection I'm sure her attorney is taking care of that.

 

It is like a slap in the face, that short deliberation time. They should have looked more closely at the evidence.

[TXMary2]

I agree with this, and I believe that she regularly drugged Caylee. Nanny Zanny? That is a drug reference to Xanax. It is very possible that she drugged her with Xanax, and then gagged her with the tape and chloroform case she woke up. I believe that killing her was an accident, but that does not make her any less culpable.

 

Wow. I wonder if anyone on this investigation considered that.

[Scarlett]

Wow. I wonder if anyone on this investigation considered that.

 

Oh yes. Alluded to many times by various people.

[TheAutumnOak]

Stupid question -

 

Is there a law that missing people of any age have to be reported to police?

 

Is there a law that deaths must be reported?

 

Just what a 100 years ago? Less? Many babies didn't get birth certificates or death certificates. When did death certs bc mandatory for everyone?

 

 

Is this a serious statement?...I would be under the jail if my kid was missing and I didn't say anything for a month...

[TXMary2]

Oh yes. Alluded to many times by various people.

 

Oh, OK. I didn't really follow this case, just read an article here and there. Thanks :)

[hsmamainva]

Is this a serious statement?...I would be under the jail if my kid was missing and I didn't say anything for a month...

 

Not according to the verdict today!

 

She not only didn't tell them where Caylee was or what happened to her, she lied to them about people that didn't exist, a kidnapping that didn't happen, and a job she didn't have.

 

So...apparently...as long as you don't leave any DNA or fingerprints at the scene...and they don't discover the body until it's decomposed...you can get off scott free.

 

Well, except for the lying to police charges, of course.

[Murphy101]

Is this a serious statement?...I would be under the jail if my kid was missing and I didn't say anything for a month...

 

Serious statement of what?:001_huh:

 

Some pp had asked what all she could be held accountable under the law for. I asked if reporting a missing or dead person, regardless of age or relationship, was actually a legal requirement and if so, when did this become law.

 

I did not make any statement, serious or otherwise. I asked a question.

[TheAutumnOak]

Not according to the verdict today!

 

She not only didn't tell them where Caylee was or what happened to her, she lied to them about people that didn't exist, a kidnapping that didn't happen, and a job she didn't have.

 

So...apparently...as long as you don't leave any DNA or fingerprints at the scene...and they don't discover the body until it's decomposed...you can get off scott free.

 

Well, except for the lying to police charges, of course.

 

The whole thing is outrageous...I rarely get upset about this kind of stuff, but this is just ridiculous...

[Murphy101]

It would appear that at most, CPS would charge with neglect/endangerment in civil court, which likely would not include any jail time either?

[TheAutumnOak]

Serious statement of what?:001_huh:

 

Some pp had asked what all she could be held accountable under the law for. I asked if reporting a missing or dead person, regardless of age or relationship, was actually a legal requirement and if so, when did this become law.

 

I did not make any statement, serious or otherwise. I asked a question.

 

Okay, I should have said question instead of statement, but yes, you do have to report your child missing because as a parent, you are legally responsible for them...If I claim to not know where my child is for a month and something happened to them, I would expect to be arrested...

[Murphy101]

Okay, I should have said question instead of statement, but yes, you do have to report your child missing because as a parent, you are legally responsible for them...If I claim to not know where my child is for a month and something happened to them, I would expect to be arrested...

 

Really? Are you sure that is the LAW?

 

Because I am not finding ANYTHING that says it is a criminal offense to not report it.

 

Do not get me wrong. I'd be a total spaz if I couldn't find my 2 year old in 15 minutes or less. I'm not questioning at all that sane parents (even if they aren't caring!) would have called it in pronto.

 

But what I asked is whether it is always legally required and under what conditions.

 

IOW there is normative behavior it is considered neglectful to not do and there is illegal behavior. I'm asking if this is BOTH out of curiosity, not bc I think it is okay.