Casey Anthony - Am I the only one

[mom4him]

That is not convinced she is guilty? I have to admit, I am not convinced she is innocent either but from some things I have read I question whether her father doesn't play a bigger part in the child's death than the babies mother.

Just wondering if I am the only one that isn't convinced.

[AvasMom]

Yeah I have no idea either. I think it's very suspicious that she partied as she did while Caylee was missing. However, the prosecution did not prove its case here.

[Guest momk2000]

Honestly I haven't followed it much, but based on the little I've accidentally seen on the news I'm not convinced either.

 

:iagree:

[Hunter's Moon]

I've been scared to say it, but yeah, I don't see her as "100% there is no doubt in my mind" guilty.

 

Obviously, her behavior was strange afterwards. But, that doesn't make her guilty of murder.

 

My mom looks like she wants to smack me when I say nothing points directly to her :tongue_smilie:

[GinaPagnato]

There's all sorts of weirdness going on with that family. Who knows what the full story really is? The girl is a highly disturbed individual, and whether this runs in the family, is a result of the family, or some mixture of those, she's been convicted in the court of public opinion, which may be more punishing than what the courts can deliver.

[Lady Florida.]

For personal reasons I haven't followed the trial closely, but I don't live under a rock. Being in the Orlando tv market it's hard to avoid news about the trial unless I avoid local news all together. I'm not convinced she's guilty. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. Our forefathers set it up that way with good reasons. Reasonable doubt is the standard of proof in our legal system. Obviously, for whatever reason, those jurors had reasonable doubt. When jury members are given instructions, they're told that if they have reasonable doubt as to the person's guilt, they are supposed to return a not guilty verdict.

 

Remember Jon-Benet Ramsey? People tried and convicted her parents publicly and were sure one or both of them were involved in their child's murder. How about the girl who was kidnapped from her bedroom and recently found having been kept prisoner in a backyard shed? Her stepfather was vilified and also publicly convicted. Now it's true those people weren't put on trial like Casey, but it shows how easily someone can appear guilty and not be guilty.

 

Do I think she's probably guilty? Yeah, I do. But I'm not convinced. This was a death penalty case. As a jury member I'd have to be dam(n) sure I was right before I convicted someone I knew would be put to death based on my verdict.

[TXBeth]

I absolutely 100% without a doubt believe she is a lousy mother and is happy her child is dead. However, that doesn't automatically mean she killed her. I think she did, but it definitely wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[lmrich]

She may not be guilty, but she sure knows more about her daughter's death than she is admitting.

 

Who is the child's father?

[OH_Homeschooler]

Yeah, she's not a good person, that's for sure. But I wasn't on the jury and I don't know all the evidence they saw. I remember seeing something on Dateline or something similar where they ran a practice trial and that jury also voted not guilty. The pretend jury members basically said they felt she was guilty but the evidence just wasn't there. They weren't happy to vote not guilty, they were just doing as instructed based on the information in front of them. I suspect that's the case with the real trial as well. I just don't know but I believe the jury did the best job they could. I wouldn't have wanted to be on that trial.

[twoxcell]

I have no idea how baby Caylee died, but she is guilty as sin for not calling the police the instant her daughter died/was killed/went missing. She instead waited 31 days, in which she partied and got a tatoo? This whole thing is just sick and wrong. I'm convinced she knows what happened to her and either had a hand in it or covering it up.

Edited July 5, 2011 by twoxcell

[OH_Homeschooler]

I have no idea how baby Caylee died, but she is guilty as sin for not calling the police the instant her daughter went missing. She instead waited 31 days, in which she partied and got a tatoo? This whole thing is just sick and wrong.

 

Which is probably part of why she was convicted of 4 counts of providing false information.

[Cindyz]

I think she caused her child's death, but I don't know how it happened. She admits that she died in her care, but if her story is true, then why the duct tape? Why was there chloroform in the back of her car after she searched for it on google along with neck breaking?

 

We know she did something, the problem with the case is that we don't know WHAT she did. I still think the jury should have at least found her guilty of manslaughter.

 

I think this is why they are taking so long with the Kyron Horman case. Everyone knows the step mother did it, but if they don't have enough evidence to take her to trial, it will turn out just like this case.

[Cindyz]

I have no idea how baby Caylee died, but she is guilty as sin for not calling the police the instant her daughter went died/went missing. She instead waited 31 days, in which she partied and got a tatoo? This whole thing is just sick and wrong. I'm convinced she knows what happened to her and either had a hand in in or covering it up.

 

...but her daughter didn't go missing. Her story is that her daughter died in the pool and she was scared to tell anyone so she covered it up. She admits she died in her care and that she covered it up.

[twoxcell]

...but her daughter didn't go missing. Her story is that her daughter died in the pool and she was scared to tell anyone so she covered it up. She admits she died in her care and that she covered it up.

 

Woops I edited my post I meant died.

[twoxcell]

She should of at least have been charged for abuse and manslaughter.

[catz]

That is not convinced she is guilty? I have to admit, I am not convinced she is innocent either but from some things I have read I question whether her father doesn't play a bigger part in the child's death than the babies mother.

Just wondering if I am the only one that isn't convinced.

 

I think she is guilty of *something*, but what, I'm not sure. I understand the jury's decision given what they had to work with.

[Stacy in NJ]

The burden of proof is no reasonable doubt, not any doubt whatsoever.

 

I've been scared to say it, but yeah, I don't see her as "100% there is no doubt in my mind" guilty.

Obviously, her behavior was strange afterwards. But, that doesn't make her guilty of murder.

 

My mom looks like she wants to smack me when I say nothing points directly to her :tongue_smilie:

[Love2Smile]

:iagree:

That is not convinced she is guilty? I have to admit, I am not convinced she is innocent either but from some things I have read I question whether her father doesn't play a bigger part in the child's death than the babies mother.

Just wondering if I am the only one that isn't convinced.

:iagree:

 

Not convinced she is guilty either...

[WIS0320]

I think there is still some reasonable doubt about Casey specifically killing Caylee alone with premeditation. I do think she is a narcissist and was a terrible mother. The entire family seems incredibly dysfunctional and obviously Caylee was murdered by someone in that family but I have no idea what the circumstances and who was involved.

 

Bottom line is that it is better for a guilty person to go free than an innocent person to lose their life to a life term prison sentence or the death penalty. I suspect Casey is guilty but I think the jury did their job since it wasn't proved 100% that she did it.

[AvasMom]

Remember Jon-Benet Ramsey? People tried and convicted her parents publicly and were sure one or both of them were involved in their child's murder. How about the girl who was kidnapped from her bedroom and recently found having been kept prisoner in a backyard shed? Her stepfather was vilified and also publicly convicted. Now it's true those people weren't put on trial like Casey, but it shows how easily someone can appear guilty and not be guilty.

 

Do I think she's probably guilty? Yeah, I do. But I'm not convinced. This was a death penalty case. As a jury member I'd have to be dam(n) sure I was right before I convicted someone I knew would be put to death based on my verdict.

 

:iagree:

[twoxcell]

Casey is not an innocent person. Even if she did not kill caylee herself she is still guilty of not reporting a murder/and or accident(I do not believe it was an accident. Why would you hide or cover up an accident?) of her own child. Instead she lead police on a wild goose chase after her dd had been gone for 31 days.

[twoxcell]

Remember Jon-Benet Ramsey? People tried and convicted her parents publicly and were sure one or both of them were involved in their child's murder. How about the girl who was kidnapped from her bedroom and recently found having been kept prisoner in a backyard shed? Her stepfather was vilified and also publicly convicted. Now it's true those people weren't put on trial like Casey, but it shows how easily someone can appear guilty and not be guilty.

 

Do I think she's probably guilty? Yeah, I do. But I'm not convinced. This was a death penalty case. As a jury member I'd have to be dam(n) sure I was right before I convicted someone I knew would be put to death based on my verdict.

 

 

From what I remember those people did not cover up, and hide the deaths. In fact they called police right away. Casey carried on with business as usual for 31 days while her dd was dead in a garbage bag.:ack2: How in the world does a mother do such a thing. It is unfathomable for my mind.

 

Edited because I quoted the wrong person.

Edited July 5, 2011 by twoxcell

[Laurie4b]

I think that the jury probably did not like their own verdict either. All the emotional pull would have been to convict to bring justice to an adorable child. Additionally, the accused is a person who generates disgust, not sympathy. Based on what I've read, there could have been reasonable doubt in the case brought by the prosecution and it's the prosecution's case that must hold up. The cause of death was not established: prosecution experts were refuted by defense experts on the presence of chloroform in the trunk, stains in the trunk, maggots in the trunk, the odor in the trunk. The body was tampered with (whether for good reason or not) by the finder: he admitted to sticking his meter stick into the skull to see if it was indeed a skull. It's up to the jury whether they found prosecution or defense experts more credible. I read that some experts, both from the prosecution and defense experts went a little too far on their evidence. I think that seriously undermines jury confidence when it's a prosecution witness. ( Plus I live in a state where the state lab and other labs have been found to have conspired to hide exculpatory evidence (not just been accused of), as have prosecutors. Rarely does a prosecutor face any penalty when they hide evidence. So any hint of a prosecution witness "stretching things" would create suspicion in my mind. I would rather a prosecution witness understated rather than overstated their case. I would find it more credible. )

 

The prosecution established that Casey Anthony lied and behaved despicably in the aftermath of the child's death. The jury believed that she was a liar. It apparently did not establish grounds for a guilty verdict in their minds.

 

The hardest to acquit on would be the aggravated manslaughter of a child, but that requires that her neglect have caused the death. Maybe the prosecution never made that case either, thinking they would get a murder conviction. I didn't follow the case obsessively, but did follow it.

 

I give the jury the benefit of the doubt.

[MariannNOVA]

I think she is guilty --

 

My thoughts:

 

Why in the world if the child died as a result of an accident (i.e., drowning in a swimming pool) would one not call 911 and report the accident; why would one choose to treat an 'accident' as a missing person/murder?

[mmasmommy]

I think she is guilty --

 

My thoughts:

 

Why in the world if the child died as a result of an accident (i.e., drowning in a swimming pool) would one not call 911 and report the accident; why would one choose to treat an 'accident' as a missing person/murder?

 

:iagree:

 

This is where you lose me on her innocence.

[Kari C in SC]

I have no idea how baby Caylee died, but she is guilty as sin for not calling the police the instant her daughter died/was killed/went missing. She instead waited 31 days, in which she partied and got a tatoo? This whole thing is just sick and wrong. I'm convinced she knows what happened to her and either had a hand in it or covering it up.

 

:iagree:

 

As a mother that has lost her child, I cannot fathom or even comprehend how she could do what she did in those 31 days. THAT tells me she did something to her child. What she did? I do not know and do not think the state proved, but deep down I am positive she did something to her baby girl. In the 31 days after my son died - I was barely breathing myself. In the 13 months since he died - I struggle every. single. day. to keep on going and take care of my other two children. No sane mother does what she did in those 31 days.

[melissad2]

There's all sorts of weirdness going on with that family. Who knows what the full story really is? The girl is a highly disturbed individual, and whether this runs in the family, is a result of the family, or some mixture of those, she's been convicted in the court of public opinion, which may be more punishing than what the courts can deliver.

:iagree:

[6packofun]

I think it was an accident, but not in the pool.

 

The evidence, to ME, points to a scenario where she found out how to make or use chloroform so that she could use it to keep the child asleep while she was partying and could leave her in a hotel room or the car, etc. She wanted to party and maybe didn't want her family to know just how much she was going out as a single mom or maybe they were tired of babysitting. I think she was extremely immature and selfish and the child accidentally died--suffocation, chloroform that was too strong or something like that.

 

I think that much of the evidence was mis-read. Chloroform might be used by someone to subdue a victim, or just knock someone out for convenience. Casey could have been out partying because she was a cold, heartless killer, or someone who is trying to create the illusion that no child is missing. It could have been buying her more time before having to admit to someone that the child was gone. Ditto for why she didn't call 911--she may be guilty of planning some elaborate lie to cover up the accidental death that makes her look like the completely selfish person that she really is, but it doesn't mean she murdered the child with intent. And so on.

 

I honestly hate defending this woman in even the slightest way, but I am pro-life and that includes anti-death penalty. But I sure wish the prosecution had given the jurors more to work with and lesser charges that weren't so all-or-nothing.

[Cindyz]

I think it was an accident, but not in the pool.

 

The evidence, to ME, points to a scenario where she found out how to make or use chloroform so that she could use it to keep the child asleep while she was partying and could leave her in a hotel room or the car, etc. She wanted to party and maybe didn't want her family to know just how much she was going out as a single mom or maybe they were tired of babysitting. I think she was extremely immature and selfish and the child accidentally died--suffocation, chloroform that was too strong or something like that.

 

I think that much of the evidence was mis-read. Chloroform might be used by someone to subdue a victim, or just knock someone out for convenience. Casey could have been out partying because she was a cold, heartless killer, or someone who is trying to create the illusion that no child is missing. It could have been buying her more time before having to admit to someone that the child was gone. Ditto for why she didn't call 911--she may be guilty of planning some elaborate lie to cover up the accidental death that makes her look like the completely selfish person that she really is, but it doesn't mean she murdered the child with intent. And so on.

 

I honestly hate defending this woman in even the slightest way, but I am pro-life and that includes anti-death penalty. But I sure wish the prosecution had given the jurors more to work with and lesser charges that weren't so all-or-nothing.

 

I agree with this 100%

[MariannNOVA]

But I sure wish the prosecution had given the jurors more to work with and lesser charges that weren't so all-or-nothing.

 

:iagree:

[Laurie4b]

I think it makes a difference whether you are talking about whether she is guilty as in "she did something wrong" versus whether there was enough evidence for a legal conviction.

 

The woman did something wrong. The child disappeared while in her care. She lied about it forty-five different ways. I believe Casey either killed her--whether accidentally or on purpose--or that she knows who did.

 

That's different, though, from whether the jury was given enough evidence by the prosecution to convict her on the charges that they were given to choose from. Apparently, they didn't think they were. That doesn't mean that they think she's innocent , either. It means the prosecution didn't do a good enough job. I would be really angry to be on a jury like that and feel that I had to return a not-guilty verdict when in my gut I thought someone was guilty. But that's what a juror is supposed to do--because our gut is not always right.

[twoxcell]

But I sure wish the prosecution had given the jurors more to work with and lesser charges that weren't so all-or-nothing.

:iagree:

I agree with this also. I think they should not have gone for the death penalty unless they had stronger evidence, but Casey should not have walked basically free and clear.

[Scarlett]

I think it makes a difference whether you are talking about whether she is guilty as in "she did something wrong" versus whether there was enough evidence for a legal conviction.

 

The woman did something wrong. The child disappeared while in her care. She lied about it forty-five different ways. I believe Casey either killed her--whether accidentally or on purpose--or that she knows who did.

 

That's different, though, from whether the jury was given enough evidence by the prosecution to convict her on the charges that they were given to choose from. Apparently, they didn't think they were. That doesn't mean that they think she's innocent , either. It means the prosecution didn't do a good enough job. I would be really angry to be on a jury like that and feel that I had to return a not-guilty verdict when in my gut I thought someone was guilty. But that's what a juror is supposed to do--because our gut is not always right.

 

I am curious what kind of evidence you think the jury needed?

 

Searches for how to make chloraform on the computer when everyone else was at work

A dead body in her trunk

Child last in her care

No explanation (not proven as a lie) for where she left Caylee

31 days of not reporting her child missing/dead

Continuing to lie for 3 YEARS after her mother drug her home and called 911

 

That is a lot of evidence.

 

Borrowing a neighbor's shovel

Backing her car into the garage (something the neighbor had never known her to do) while her parents were at work

Edited July 5, 2011 by Scarlett

[TheAutumnOak]

For personal reasons I haven't followed the trial closely, but I don't live under a rock. Being in the Orlando tv market it's hard to avoid news about the trial unless I avoid local news all together. I'm not convinced she's guilty. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. Our forefathers set it up that way with good reasons. Reasonable doubt is the standard of proof in our legal system. Obviously, for whatever reason, those jurors had reasonable doubt. When jury members are given instructions, they're told that if they have reasonable doubt as to the person's guilt, they are supposed to return a not guilty verdict.

 

Remember Jon-Benet Ramsey? People tried and convicted her parents publicly and were sure one or both of them were involved in their child's murder. How about the girl who was kidnapped from her bedroom and recently found having been kept prisoner in a backyard shed? Her stepfather was vilified and also publicly convicted. Now it's true those people weren't put on trial like Casey, but it shows how easily someone can appear guilty and not be guilty.

 

Do I think she's probably guilty? Yeah, I do. But I'm not convinced. This was a death penalty case. As a jury member I'd have to be dam(n) sure I was right before I convicted someone I knew would be put to death based on my verdict.

 

I think that is different...None of the above mentioned people were looking up drugs and different types of poison and partying after the death (and found missing) status of their child...This is more like the Lacey Peterson case to me, a sociopath who this time got away...

 

I guess you can tell I think she is guilty...

[cin]

Casey is not an innocent person. Even if she did not kill caylee herself she is still guilty of not reporting a murder/and or accident(I do not believe it was an accident. Why would you hide or cover up an accident?) of her own child. Instead she lead police on a wild goose chase after her dd had been gone for 31 days.

 

How about inciting panic? Gross Abuse of a corpse? Neglect? And while I truly believe in my heart that she did something terrible to/with her daughter (How else could a mother carry one like that for 31 days!) I can understand the jury's verdict. So, when I say "OMG I can't believe she's walking free" it's not directed at the jury.

[sunflowerlady]

There were lesser charges to choose from . They did not have to convict for first degree/death penalty. They could have gone for second degree or manslaughter.

[TheAutumnOak]

I am curious what kind of evidence you think the jury needed?

 

Searches for how to make chloraform on the computer when everyone else was at work

A dead body in her trunk

Child last in her care

No explanation (not proven as a lie) for where she left Caylee

31 days of not reporting her child missing/dead

Continuing to lie for 3 YEARS after her mother drug her home and called 911

 

That is a lot of evidence.

 

:iagree: People have been convicted with much less evidence than this...An eye witness account?...Much easier for an "eye witness" to be mistaken or just plain lying...

[Cindyz]

There were lesser charges to choose from . They did not have to convict for first degree/death penalty. They could have gone for second degree or manslaughter.

 

The problem was that the prosecution didn't really present evidence for manslaughter. So if the jury didn't buy the first degree murder, they had nowhere else to go but to acquit.

[Laurie4b]

I am curious what kind of evidence you think the jury needed?

 

Searches for how to make chloraform on the computer when everyone else was at work

A dead body in her trunk

Child last in her care

No explanation (not proven as a lie) for where she left Caylee

31 days of not reporting her child missing/dead

Continuing to lie for 3 YEARS after her mother drug her home and called 911

 

That is a lot of evidence.

 

Borrowing a neighbor's shovel

Backing her car into the garage (something the neighbor had never known her to do) while her parents were at work

 

There was not unrefuted evidence presented that there was a dead body in the trunk. Some of the evidence presented by prosecution experts was regarded by some as stretching things beyond what science proved. Additionally, defense experts had their own interpretation of the physical evidence.

 

Borrowing a neighbor's shovel and backing the car into the garage counts as evidence? Only if the rest is very strong.

 

The cause of death was not proven. The prosecution had a theory, but the defense did offer rebuttal to that theory. Some of their rebuttal was reasonable; some was far-fetched. But the jury must have given credence to some of that rebuttal--or they decided that prosecution experts were stretching things and couldn't be believed.

 

 

Most critically, however, what evidence did the prosecution present that Casey Anthony was responsible for the death and not covering for someone else who was responsible for the death? Every single charge--other than lying to law enforcement, required that the jury believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony herself caused the death if I understand them correctly. If the prosecution did not prove this, then the jury had to render a not guilty verdict. Either the state does not have a statute that would cover something like accessory after the fact, or the prosecutors decided not to present that kind of thing as an option to the jury. They surely have a statute of neglect, which they did prove (last person known to have the child in her care, failure to report the child missing, etc), but they didn't offer that option . Perhaps there were other options that the jury would have convicted on.

 

I cannot imagine the juror who would not prefer to convict. An adorable child is dead. The person on trial evokes disgust. All one's emotions would push toward conviction. Additionally, if you read the jury profiles, they were considered a jury tipping toward prosecution. One juror even stated that he believed she was guilty but thought he could be impartial. He was accepted onto the jury. There were nurses on the jury. There were parents of young children on the jury. They believed the defendant is a liar. So why didn't the jury convict? I think they had a true reasonable doubt

 

 

I totally agree with you that the mother was responsible for her child. I believe that she either did it or covered for someone who did. But as I read the evidence, I do not see that the prosecution proved that she was the one who actually caused the death. People are convicted for less--sometimes wrongly. I give the benefit of the doubt to the jury. They think she's a liar but they didn't convict her of any of the charges before them.

 

I also think we should not castigate jurors for unpopular verdicts when we ourselves didn't hear all the evidence and weren't there in person to develop our own sense of who we believed and who we didn't. Our justice system will become be more damaged than it is if good people are afraid to be on juries in controversial cases lest they be hounded by the public after what is already a very stressful duty.

[Daisy]

I haven no clue. I haven't followed the trail. I prefer to refrain from declaring someone guilty unless I've sat on the jury.

[OrganicAnn]

As far as I know, Caylee was last known to be with Casey and now she's dead. To me that means at the very least she is guilty of neglect and at worse murder. But whether they proved their case I don't know.

 

I think the family looks weird and is coming off as weird, because they have a media storm around them for several years. I think most families would come off looking weird/suspicious going through that.

[Homeschooling Again]

Apparently you're not the only one who isn't convinced since the jury found reasonable doubt.

[Scarlett]

There was not unrefuted evidence presented that there was a dead body in the trunk.

 

I could not disagree with you more. I thought the evidence was overwhelming that there was a decomposing body in the trunk.

 

Borrowing a neighbor's shovel and backing the car into the garage counts as evidence? Only if the rest is very strong.

 

Again, I believe the 'other' evidence IS very strong.

 

 

 

 

 

Most critically, however, what evidence did the prosecution present that Casey Anthony was responsible for the death and not covering for someone else who was responsible for the death?

 

See my list of evidence above. As far as proving that she was not covering for someone else? She is the biggest narcissist I've ever witnessed. Do you honestly believe she would cover for ANYONE? And if she did, would she do it for THREE years? It doesn't make sense. It defies common sense.

 

I think they had a true reasonable doubt

 

Again we will just have to disagree.

 

 

I also think we should not castigate jurors for unpopular verdicts when we ourselves didn't hear all the evidence and weren't there in person to develop our own sense of who we believed and who we didn't. Our justice system will become be more damaged than it is if good people are afraid to be on juries in controversial cases lest they be hounded by the public after what is already a very stressful duty.

 

I have no intention of hounding them. Unless they frequent the WTM forum they will never hear my opinion of them. However, my opinion stands. I think they did not consider the evidence. I think they rushed to judge her 'not guilty'. I am disgusted by the entire thing.

[TheAutumnOak]

I could not disagree with you more. I thought the evidence was overwhelming that there was a decomposing body in the trunk.

 

 

 

Again, I believe the 'other' evidence IS very strong.

 

 

 

 

 

See my list of evidence above. As far as proving that she was not covering for someone else? She is the biggest narcissist I've ever witnessed. Do you honestly believe she would cover for ANYONE? And if she did, would she do it for THREE years? It doesn't make sense. It defies common sense.

 

 

 

Again we will just have to disagree.

 

 

 

 

I have no intention of hounding them. Unless they frequent the WTM forum they will never hear my opinion of them. However, my opinion stands. I think they did not consider the evidence. I think they rushed to judge her 'not guilty'. I am disgusted by the entire thing.

 

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[pdalley]

I could not disagree with you more. I thought the evidence was overwhelming that there was a decomposing body in the trunk.

 

 

 

Again, I believe the 'other' evidence IS very strong.

 

 

 

 

 

See my list of evidence above. As far as proving that she was not covering for someone else? She is the biggest narcissist I've ever witnessed. Do you honestly believe she would cover for ANYONE? And if she did, would she do it for THREE years? It doesn't make sense. It defies common sense.

 

 

 

Again we will just have to disagree.

 

 

 

 

I have no intention of hounding them. Unless they frequent the WTM forum they will never hear my opinion of them. However, my opinion stands. I think they did not consider the evidence. I think they rushed to judge her 'not guilty'. I am disgusted by the entire thing.

:iagree:

 

And there is no standard of 'irrefutable evidence'. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt - not beyond any and all doubt.

 

And there is NO excuse for the very little amount of time they spent deliberating. The evidence was such they should have taken at least days. Just because one piece is questioned does not mean that all of it is bad or needs to be thrown out.

[Mosaicmind]

What if evidence shows up now that proves she did it? Can they try her again or is that considered double jeopardy? I believe she was involved somehow, someway but I don't know how. She got away with murder one way or another.

[TheAutumnOak]

:iagree:

 

And there is no standard of 'irrefutable evidence'. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt - not beyond any and all doubt.

 

And there is NO excuse for the very little amount of time they spent deliberating. The evidence was such they should have taken at least days. Just because one piece is questioned does not mean that all of it is bad or needs to be thrown out.

 

:iagree: Any one of these things may not be enough evidence in and of itself but when you add them all together, it is enough evidence...

Edited July 6, 2011 by TheAutumnOak
misplaced word

[pdalley]

What if evidence shows up now that proves she did it? Can they try her again or is that considered double jeopardy? I believe she was involved somehow, someway but I don't know how. She got away with murder one way or another.

 

No, she's been acquitted of all the charges brought against her. Including 1st degree murder and several lesser charges. It would be double jeopardy.

 

And unlike Ron Brown's family and Nicole Brown Simpson's family there is no one to pursue a civil case which I think would be the only other option. (Yes, I know she has nothing but it would be a judgement. I don't think the Browns or the Goldmans got much from OJ but it was symbolic for them at any rate.)

 

I'm sure - like OJ - that she'll do something else that will land her in jail eventually. Hopefully nothing like this. She's apparently been stealing money from anyone she could - her parents - her grandfather's retirement home account - her room mate. She's been convicted of lying to the police already. Now she probably thinks she can get away with anything.

[BamaTanya]

:iagree: Any one of these things may not be enough evidence in and of itself but when you add them all together, it is enough evidence...

 

:iagree:

[ereks mom]

There's all sorts of weirdness going on with that family. Who knows what the full story really is? The girl is a highly disturbed individual, and whether this runs in the family, is a result of the family, or some mixture of those, she's been convicted in the court of public opinion, which may be more punishing than what the courts can deliver.

 

:iagree: