( I'm guessing he paid off the cops to hide it or destroy it )
There's no reason to suggest that. Whoever committed the crime left no conclusive evidence trail, the same stands for this case. If she did it karma will surely hit her.
This kinda reminds me of the OJ Simpson trial. they couldn't try him because they couldn't find any evidence to convict him. ( I'm guessing he paid off the cops to hide it or destroy it ). Everyone knew he was guilty just like the awful mother here. Hope she gets what she deserves one way or another
Similar? Yes, but hardly identical.
In the O.J Simpson case the prosecution had a case, unfortunately there was some controversy with evidence tampering. The defense used this, mind you, they were bumbling their case so badly it's a miracle O.J wasn't charged.
So, what did save him? Well for one, he was famous. And two, once more the jury failed to comprehend the legal jargon that the prosecution blurted out. Oh, and the famous line for the defense, "If the glove does not fit, you must acquit." Did they glove fit? No. Did any one bother explaining why? No.
The glove they found was leather. It had been found blood soaked. Blood, as we all know, is a liquid, therefore, wet. So what happens if leather gets wet, then dries? It shrinks.
Sentencing has been handed down for Anthony, she will serve 4 consecutive terms of 1 year, and pay a fine of $1000 per charge. Anthony will also be given credit for time served which shall be decided at a later date.
The defense made an interesting argument against these charges by claiming that because all of the incidents happened on the same day, and apparently in the same interview, there was "no temporal break" allowing her to reevaluate her statement, charging her with multiple counts would be a violation of double jeopardy.
tl;dr
Rather than four different lies it was one giant lie and she should only be charged for that.
No, it was absolutely not a mistrial. It's all about reasonable doubt here, and it's rather obvious even from the little the press has released on the trial that the prosecution could not prove that she committed the murders beyond a reasonable doubt. Just because it seems obvious that someone murdered someone else doesn't mean that a not guilty result is a mistrial. We've all become horrendously biased from the news coverage and Casey's less-than-optimal public image, and quite frankly due process is a lot more reliable than the nigh bloodthirsty public is.
I agree with that. The prosecution never said that Casey killed her directly. You're right about the bloodthirsty public too. They don't want justice, they want retrebution. No matter what you'd do to Casey (or anyone else if someone else ends up confessing to it, although that's highly unlikely), Caylee isn't coming back.
This kinda reminds me of the OJ Simpson trial. they couldn't try him because they couldn't find any evidence to convict him.
They found lots of DNA and other evidence against him, more than enough to convict anyone, but the cop that found most of the evidence made racist comments (including the n-word) at the crime scene. Therefore, most of the evidence was not credible due to his bias.
If the prosocution just mentioned the fact that when casey called her friends, she was mad at them because the didnt feel sorry for her, just the child
So you're suggesting to keep re-trying it with different people until they are convicted? Or just trying it one more time?
Not necessarily convicted, but proven innocent, I would prefer that the defense have a job other than simply casting suspicion on the claims and finds of the prosecution.
I believe our system is the way it is because the ones who set it up admitted to themselves that we are human and we make mistakes. The way it is set up makes it more likely for a Barabbus type figure can beat the system than it is for an innocent person to burn. I wouldn't prefer it be the other way around. If they could not prove it, then so be it. ...granted it can and has happened the other way around, it is still the better system for protecting the innocent people who are thought to be criminals. If she does this again (or legitimately does it for the first time), then I'm sure she'll have a much harder time getting out of it. I just hope it doesn't happen again.
Well it's a sad notion that people can get away with murdering another human being that's unable to defend themselves but I suppose they could of gathered more evidence to this case and in my opinion the trail was set way to soon and it's horrible that justice was unable to prevail because of that and another person may be free who had no remorse about her actions and no justice will be served for a little kid that passed away before her time.
I just feel that, if it isn't already, the action of not telling officials for long periods of time that your child is missing should be a punishable crime. The real criminal is out and about because of Casey's desire to go party and get tattoos for a full month before notifying authorities. If she died b/c of an accidental drowning in the pool, then covering up the death of the child should be a crime. ...I guess my sense of what justice should be is warped and ignorant
Telling the police that the child was missing the day it happened could have saved her life or could have led them to her body before the marshy environment had ruined all trace of evidence. Hiding the fact that the child is missing is endangering the child's safety as for every moment she hadn't told is another moment no-one was looking to find her. Every moment she hid the fact her child was missing was another moment that her body decomposed a little bit further. You don't have to be the one pulling the trigger to have helped commit the crime. ...just like a teacher who hears a student say they are going to kill themselves or commit a crime. If the teacher doesn't report it then they can be held responsible for the actions of the student because they knew about it and didn't tell anyone. I'm just applying that to the mother.
I suppose they could of gathered more evidence to this case and in my opinion the trail was set way to soon
They had over 2 years to gather evidence and found little. I doubt another few months of searching would've turned up much. How much later should the trial have been? Don't forget the "Speedy trial" part of the 6th amendment.
The only reason she got away with it is because she is a woman. If the killer was a man he would have gotten the death penalty. I can't believe the only thing she was charged for was lying. This proves how biased and screwed up our judicial system is.
The only reason she got away with it is because she is a woman. If the killer was a man he would have gotten the death penalty. I can't believe the only thing she was charged for was lying. This proves how biased and screwed up our judicial system is.
You have a point, to an extent. However, you're sounding ignorant.
The reasons she got off were several. Mainly, the prosecution aimed too high. That being said, I did manage to catch something on tv about the case. It was an interview with two alternate jurors who would have also said "not-guilty". Much of their reasoning was, "well they never could tell me how she died." See, here's the problem with the jury system, it's filled with stupid people, and stupid people are easily manipulated. The reason why they could not conclusively determine the cause of death, was because when they found the body it was so bady decomposed there was nothing they could do. Seriously, did no one bother to think about that?
