It wasn't just that the prosecution couldn't find a cause of death, it was also because they never said in court "and that's how Casey murdered her". There was no evidence that linked Casey to the murder. There was also no evidence that someone else couldn't have done it. Casey's parents lived there too. They also lied to the police, but the charges were dropped.
It depends how you look at the circumstancial evidence. In a case like this, that's what you need to look at, something I feel, the jury dismissed out of hand. See, the jury was begging for hard evidence, but you can't always have that, so you need to look at the circumstances surrounding the hard evidence you do have. Like it or not folks, circumstancial evidence is perfectly legitimate.
The jury was basically bought and sold on the idea that Casey Anthony didn't do it, but they never truly, at least this is how it seems, looked for anything more than physical proof. This just goes to show the failing of our system. Relying on a group of people, a group of average people, to analyze evidence, especially in a case based heavily on circumstance, is just as likely to convict as to acquit.
Now, I'm not saying Casey is guilty, but I'm not saying she innocent. Surely she had some deeper role than what that jury suspected. However, they had made up their minds long before they bothered to consider what was at hand. Did no one else find it suspicious that Ms. Anthony didn't report the daughter missing for over a month? It's those questions that should be asked and then compile it against what hard evidence you have. At the very least that should count as criminal negligence.
Strangely enough a number of people on this thread have pointed out that exact thing. She may not have killed her, but she certainly wasn't worried enough to report the girl as missing. The question is how many of them are willing to serve on a jury, because as I've pointed out before, the reason juries are 'stupid' is because those smart enough to be of actual aid find a way to get out of it.
I agree. We have no idea whether or not she really killed the girl, even though their are plenty of biased opinions. Just because she was acquitted though, doesn't mean she didn't. There just wasn't enough evidence to prove she had murdered, if she did, her child. Obviously she had some issues as a parent, but that doesn't label her as a/the murderer.
And, because of Double Jeopardy in the constitution, she could technically walk out of the courthouse the second the case ended and confess to the murder. Funny, how that is.
People are so stupid... Justice system sucks, the defense changed stories so many times, and the last one was that her kid drowned... Why was there duct tape around the skull then? And a video of her talking to her parents, the parents said "Oh well there's a new story going around", "what is it this time?" "they're saying she drowned" "figures"... Shouldn't that debunk her whole drowning case right there, that that was the first time that scenario had ever crossed her mind?
To Wyrzen... How was it not evidence with a false story of a babysitter taking her (complete lie), or idk maybe the Neck breaking/chloroform/etc found on HER computer? 100% guilty.
To Wyrzen... How was it not evidence with a false story of a babysitter taking her (complete lie), or idk maybe the Neck breaking/chloroform/etc found on HER computer? 100% guilt
I realize what i'm about to say is totally not on the same par but, If someone googled "How to kill children" on your laptop as a joke and a child is killed in your neighborhood and you're totally innocent but they check out your computer, would you consider it evidence then?
If my computer was ever taken for a search i'd have a lot to answer for with my google searches which are out of interest, knowledge and nothing more.
Circumstantial as it may have been, when mixed with the repeated change stories it should've resulted in some kind of suspicion. the fact that the jury seemed to completely ignore this just irritates me.
I realize what i'm about to say is totally not on the same par but, If someone googled "How to kill children" on your laptop as a joke and a child is killed in your neighborhood and you're totally innocent but they check out your computer, would you consider it evidence then?
If my computer was ever taken for a search i'd have a lot to answer for with my google searches which are out of interest, knowledge and nothing more.
I totally agree. In my mind, she cannot be 100% guilty of murder unless she admits it. Evidence isn't always true.
...but the "REASONABLE" part of reasonable doubt indicates that you can have some doubt about whether or not they did it to convict someone. You can admit to things and not even have done them. Unless there is irrefutable video evidence that has you doing the act, then there is "doubt." If we render an "innocent" verdict every time we can prove there is some doubt in them doing it then we'll almost never convict anyone.
IFF the following is true (or I was convinced of it whilst being a juror), then I may have chose differently from the jury. If you know that your 2-3 year old child is in a potentially life threatening situation (ie... MISSING for 30 days) and you do nothing to make her absence known, then you may has well have been the one to break the child's neck. How can teachers be held accountable for hearing kids (that may or may not be joking when they hear them say it) say they're going to either mutilate themselves or do some crime when they didn't report their saying that to some other official... when a mother (in our day and age... you pretty much know that a stolen child may or may not be harmed in anyone or more of numerous ways.) can neglect the fact that her child has been missing for a month and not even be found guilty of anything other than lying? Why are we going to hold a teacher to a higher standard than we do for the parents that feed, house, and clothe the children?
I'm a little lost and confused on this issue. Maybe the prosecution just didn't bring up the right charges...
Just read the article. The jury knew that Anthony was guilty, it's just that their hands were tied by the poor presentation skills of prosecutors of the evidence. They wanted so badly to lock her up forever, but the standard of evidence required to convict someone on a criminal charge is very high, and the prosecutors didn't have a strong enough case for 1st degree murder. They could have charged her with a lesser crime, and she would have been nailed.
They could have charged her with a lesser crime, and she would have been nailed.
Really? Because there was plenty evidence support criminal negligence, or even criminal negligence resulting in manslaughter. Hell there was enough evidence FOR manslaughter. So, they had evidence for lesser charges, but still did nothing. It's times like this where my faith in justice is crushed, but then I remember why I'm so cynical and jaded to begin with.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
