Skip to comments.Casey Anthony Case May Not be Over - New Charges Possible
Posted on 07/13/2011 7:10:03 AM PDT by MindBender26
We all know it's not over until the fat lady sings, and here in Orlando we hear the fat lady in the form of the Orange County Sheriff's Office may only be getting warmed up.
Contacts at the Sheriff's Office say they are actively investigating the possibility that at least one witness was tampered with, and now the Sheriff has confirmed this. The talk at breakfast this morning with some retired senior LEOs was that the most probable targets were either "River Cruz", the woman who undermined George Anthony's testimony by claiming she had an affair with him, or the son of meter reader Roy Kronk who found the body. The son gave testimony claiming his father was "only in it for the money." The defense spun that out that out to Kronk had lied, moved the body, etc.
Of course at this time, none of this is proven, but we do know it is being actively worked. Local LEOs still very strongly suspect that Casey killed her daughter, either through an active act of premeditated murder, or anger. A third possibility also exists that if she did not intend the child to die, Casey is at the least guilty of criminally negligent neglect or acts so outrageous (such as an intentional chloroforming that went bad) that she should have been convicted, at a minimum, for aggravated manslaughter.
It's a long shot, but if it can be shown that someone connected with Casey and/or her defense did bribe or otherwise improperly influence a witness, the case could be reopened. Although she was acquitted in state court, double jeopardy does not attach if she would be accused of depriving her daughter of her civil rights in the federal court system. That's what happened in the Rodney King case. The cops were acquitted of assault and related charges in the California state court (isn't everyone,) but then convicted in the federal courts of depriving King of the civil rights.
An even more interesting concept might be the state's possible ability to retry Casey on murder/manslaughter charges. Although it is rarely invoked, there is a concept under the law that Casey Anthony is certainly entitled to a fair trial, but so are the People of the State of Florida. If it can be shown that the People of the State of Florida did not get a fair trial due to bribed witnesses or the like, there are operations of law that would allow Ms. Anthony be retried. It would be rare and the misconduct by the defense would certainly have to be egregious, but it is a possibility. With the anger now circulating in the local law enforcement community, it is certainly not an impossibility.
History is shown there is probably only about a 10% chance that anything in this will ever pan out, but it is certainly something that a number of newsies are watching very closely. We'll let you know when we hear more
The volunteers have no case what so ever. The Zanuti lady MAY have a case, but has limited damages.
Either way, they could only secure a portion of her future wages. As it stands she has no assets and is destitute.
I am sorry if I made you mad. It was never my intention.
Please, Explain it to me as you would a child. As I have more than explained why you are wrong based upon what you wrote.
I also have explained that the jury DID their job. You may not agree with the outcome, but that is irrelevant as you where not a member of the jury and not privileged to the deliberations.
Disparaging the jury only shows your lack of understanding of the law and the court procedures.
I would hope that you would believe it, it is an indisputable fact. The jury was a random sample of registered voters who had the misfortune of being pressed into service.
I would hope that in the event that you are accused of a crime, a jury can be found that could impartially sit in judgment of the evidence against you and dispassionately render a decision based on the facts and not their emotions and biases.
That there is a real legitimate other side.
Btw, I guess my 12 years in legal litigation count for nothing.
I wish them luck, I however find their task difficult.
They may be judged to have standing, they may have a court hearing. They may even get a judgment. However,the likelihood of collecting on the judgment is slim to non.
It is unfortunate since it is likely that she is at leastcomplicite in her child's death, if not solely responsible for killing her. But that is life. That is the legal system.
I looked into the eyes of Lawson Lamar, the States Attorney, and the sheriff as they spoke.
They are both political hacks and incompetent boobs. They would both be better off to pretend they never heard the name "Casey Anthony".
You do not have to guess, I can assure you that whatever experience you have counts for nothing in this case. Your own experience should already have told you that. It should also have told you never to second guess a jury. They should be respected for their service. They are in a difficult position.
And you would be wrong.
If you don't like our opinions, go somewhere else.....no one is forcing you to post!
It is your opinion that jury did their job correctly. The only fact is that they did come to a decision, not that they did it as effectively as is required or came to the best conclusion.
I don’t get this concept some like you have here that the results of a jury are unimpeachable and can’t be criticized. This is the same as saying an elected politician cannot be criticized for their actions in office simply because the people elected them to that position. Seems counter-intuitive with the purpose of freerepublic, to be honest...that we can’t be critical of the outcome of a legal or political events. Strange.
If you where truly an officer of the court you would be in complete agreement with me.
The prosecutor believes that she did it, yet he is duty bound NOT to disparage the jury and he has not. Of course he disagrees with them, however he would never call them stupid. Heck, he helped to seat them.
You are sa fool and every utterance that dribbles from your drooling pie hole only goes to further prove that fact.
The jury was sequestered. Thy where wholly engaged in the process. Why do you consider yourself more informed of the relevant information than them?
The fault lies squarely with the prosecution. This shouldn't even have bean a death penalty case. There was absolutely no evidence that there was premeditation. There was no evidence that there was malice of fore thought, both of which are required for a death penalty conviction of First Degree Murder.
The prosecutor over reached and over charged the defendant. He should have indicted on manslaughter, lying to authorities and obstruction of justice, This the result of the lying.
That being said. A manslaughter conviction would have been difficult enough due to the fact that they could not establish a cause of death with any certainty.
Whether anything comes of this or not, worth discussing if only to give Anthony some sleepless nights.
You are one angry person.
Jury duty sucks. That is why everybody wants to get out of it. It is boring, monotonous and mind numbing process. It is also one that caries a great deal of anxiety because they are taxed with a very serious duty.
You didn't sit on the jury. You didn't engage in deliberations. You watched the case at home ab=nd was tainted by analysts and court procedures not privy to the jury.
As for doing there job correctly, the fact that they where able to come to a decision on all counts is enough to prove they properly did their job. Coming to a consensus is their job.
You are attacking the jury. Question their motives and intelligence and generally being an idiot.
You accuse with venom, I coolly smack your arguments down. It isn't difficult, your arguments are silly and unintelligent. You accuse me of being illiterate so I illuminate your stupidity. It isn't difficult. It is right there an the screen. You confuse your prejudice with facts. You believe conjecture is proof. Like I said, I am not angry, I love a good argument. What anger I have is not for you, the system or even the defendant. I reserve my anger for things that effect me directly. This case and your opinion of it do not.
Because you are.
You're so dramatic...
Another one resorts to namecalling. Gees, it’s getting old. Keep your chin up! Love seeing your comments. I find you to be fiesty and committed to justice no matter what anyone else around here says.
I see. Good thing you are are in position to cast your opinions on us lowly posters, but we don’t dare have the right to offer our opinion of the vaunted jurors in this case. I see how it works. Get off your damn high horse and move on to other threads so we can find out how we should be reacting to those issues, too.
Don’t waste your time on that guy. You’re right, and he’s wrong.
I know. My chin is up and thank you. I appreciate it.
O K then
The jurors where twelve individuals. They all come from separate backgrounds and are of a multitude of races, colors and creeds, yet they all agreed on six counts after weeks of trial in less than a day. That is pretty impressive. It shows how week the case really was. If it was the least bit stronger you would think at least one juror would have held out for a guilty verdict, but not one did, not even for a little bit.
I highly doubt that you could get 12 of your friends and relatives to agree to where and when you should meet to have a dinner party in less than twelve hours and you know and presumably like all of those people. That is not to disparage you or any of your friends. That is just to get you to realize how difficult it is to get twelve individuals to agree on anything.
The point is that the jury decided. The did their job. A juries job is to come to a unanimous consensus on a verdict in each and every indictment. They are tasked to do so to the best of their ability by following the instructions they where given by the judge. This is a near impossible task. Yet, they did it so quickly, Why? Because the prosecutions case was very week on all counts except her lying to the police and the defense basically stipulated to that during the course of their defense. You are taking all of this very personally. You have become emotionally involved in this case and that emotion is clouding your reason. Take a step back and look at what they where really able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
I believe the reason why it has gotten so much exposure is because the mother was young and attractive and so was the child. And let's not forget that they are white and from a middle class upbringing.
The day this case started in Florida a case started in Dayton against a woman that killed her infant child by putting the baby in a microwave. An unimaginable and disordered crime. Yet not a word in the national media.
Right now a case is going on here in Cleveland concerning Anthony y Sowel. This man raped and killed at least 11 women and buried them in his home and in his back yard. It is a major serial killer case. Eleven women all raped and murdered and that is the ones they know about.
None of these women where reported missing by their families, not one of them. They where all on the edges of society separated from there families by drug and alcohol abuse.
Not one national story about it this week, not one! Why?
The defendant and the victims in these cases are all black and poor. Nobody missed them and nobody cared. Eleven women. Three additional victims have testified that they where raped and escaped. The police NEVER followed up.
As tragic as the Casey Anthony case is, it is only one case of a killing in a country of 45 murders on average a day. Over 17,000 per year.
I agree with you about Casey being young and attractive and her baby being cute.
Of course she is. That kid was so cute and it is terrible what happened to her, But it tragically happens dozens of times a year to so many children and that is just after they are born. Over 1.5 million children are killed by their mothers every year before they eve have the chance to be born. Almost every one of these parents are tried in open court and many are acquitted for just the same reasons that Casey Anthony was. Yet almost none of these children are heard of outside of their home towns.
That is allot of what i am saying. We have to have perspective about this case.
By your reasoning, most conversations would be “irrelevant.” When a little evil witch leaves her 2 year old to rot in a swamp and then 12 idiots let her go free, you can bet there will be “conversation” about it. And it’s more “relevant” than the drivel about weather, sports and the latest program on TV.
PS were you on the jury?
“They did what they believe was right. It doesnt mean they dont believe that she did it.”
Umm, HOW COULD THEY HAVE DONE WHAT THEY BELIEVED IS RIGHT when they thought her guilty yet voted NOT GUILTY?????
I understand you find it a hard concept, but it is really quite simple. I believe in God. I know there is a God. But I certainly can not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
I know I love my Mother. How can I prove it beyond a reasonable doubt?
The Burden of the State in a criminal case is very high. It should be high. We are talking about removing the liberty and possibly the life of a citizen. They better show proof of the manner of death and they had better be able to prove that the defendant can be tied to that manner of death. The state of Florida was unable to show either of these in the eyes of the jury.
They can think it is most likely that she was involved in her daughters death, but they couldn't even rule on a cause of death and weather Casey was present at the death.
As for any body elses thoughts on the relevance of the evidence., If you weren't on the jury your beliefs about her guilt and the states case are irrelevant. They have no bearing on the case in any way . Nor should they.
I am not emotionally involved in the case, in fact, I did my best to ignore it despite being surrounded by the case in Orlando. I still don’t get why you feel others on this board are not able to have an opinion on the quality of the verdict.
By your standards, every jury in US history has come the correct conclusion....that a jury can not be flawed simply because they are members of a jury. This makes no sense. Do you take the position that every verdict by jury in US history was correct? If not, why is this jury somehow immune from criticism?
The jury simply collectively believed that the state didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty of murder. Based on the evidence that has been shown: no conclusive cause of death, no forensic evidence that the child was ever in the trunk, no witnesses, no DNA, no fingerprints, no direct evidence of any kind. The jury came to the conclusion that the state didn't prove guilt of murder.
Regardless, the outcome has exonerated Anthony and any further action against her criminally would go against the spirit, if not the letter, of double jeopardy.
How many times should the government be able to try a case? until they come to a decision that you agree with or the one that they want? come on, the case is over.She has been judged not guilty!
There is no reasonable conclusion to be made about the jury other than the fact that they judged the states evidence insufficient to conclude guilt.
Remember, we are talking about twelve people, not two or three, twelve. It would be amazing that twelve people of diverse back grounds would all believe that state failed to meet it's burden so quickly had the state actually had a reasonable amount of evidence to convict.
What makes so many of the people on this forum believe that they know something better than the twelve citizens forced by law to endure a six week trial? nothing! They simply are upset because their perception of the case was warped by 24/7 coverage and analysis. The jury saw only the case that the state was allowed to show by law. Based on that evidence twelve people concluded the state couldn't meet it's burden of guilt for the murder charges.
As you have posted numerous (15+) times and I agree the trial is OVER!
But one thing that I wish you in your Great Wisdom would relate to me and maybe others, is a trial a Search for the Truth, or acquiring Justice? There can be only one Truth!
If it is the later, Justice for the Victim or the Antagonist?
By the way we in Florida probably wish the Anthonys would have stayed in OHIO! :-}
I was not on this jury, but I have been on four juries. 2 civil cases and 2 criminal cases including a rape case and a murder case.
I have actually been called to jury duty serve times since I first registered to vote at 18. Just lucky I guess. Some people never have to serve or even get called. In the rape case we concluded that a pilot for Continental Airlines raped a female member of his flight crew at a hotel in Downtown Cleveland. It was a case that was difficult to come to a decision on because we, as jurors where not privy to all the information. For example: It seems this guy was suspected of drugging her with ruffies. Everybody else knew he drugged her, including the media, but The prosecution was NOT allowed to present this part of the case because there was no evidence that the victim had drugs in her system. By the time she went to the hospital, she was back home in Houston and enough time had passed that there was no conclusive toxicology report. We did, however with the benefit of the remaining direct evidence and victim testimony, along with eyewitness accounts of what others saw and heard, we come to a decision of guilty of rape and he is now resides at the Grey Bar Motel.
The murder case was dismissed after the prosecution rested because the judge decided that there was not enough evidence to warrant the continuation of the case. The defendant in that case was later convicted of killing his mother and is spending life in prison. Every body on the jury, as well as the judge and the prosecution felt that the guy was at least involved in the murder, but they didn't have enough PROOF. Sound Familiar? Had the trial gone to the jury for a decision. There was no way we would have convicted. Yet, we thought (believed) he was involved. There was simply no proof to sustain a conviction after five days of the prosecutions case. After FOUR 10 hour days of deliberation we finally agreed to a unanimous verdict on all three indictments. Guilty on two counts, including rape. Not guilty on one count.
In all reality the jury did what they had to do based on the evidence.
Why is it so hard for so many to understand that a decision of twelve individuals is hard to reach? A consensus of twelve is difficult, a unanimous decision is almost impossible. However through our system of FORCING a group of twelve people to decide unanimously on a case we have built the best legal system in the World.
We also have been able to secure the liberty of most people who are unjustly accused. This does lead to the vindication of some people who most certainly are guilty of the crimes they are accused. That assures that a truly innocent person has every opportunity to not be denied their liberty by the State.
It is certainly more just to allow a guilty person his liberty than to deny an innocent person of their liberty. That is the essence of our criminal justice system and why a person is presumed innocent of all charges until the state convinces a jury of their peers that the defendant is guilty.
Clear enough for you?
Serve = seven
Maybe she just got crazy from the heat.
“Clear enough for you?” NO!
You still did not answer my basic question!
Your multiple Treatises on this subject are boring the hell out of me so rather than “discuss” Truth vs Justice with you, I’ll withdraw from the field and let you battle on against the Windmills of Your Mind.
Without Truth there is no Justice! “cest la vie”
Stay safe and God Bless you and yours.
When she gets out Sunday and having spent a few years in PC she will definitely be in HEAT! I am going to lock up all my sons and Grandsons to bar any ANT’s catastrophes in my family. I have no females in my progeny, or it would be the same.
By the way I live within 10-12 miles of the ANTs.
Have a Great day!
That is funny!
A court of law is among the last places to look for the truth! It is called a court of law, not a court of justice.
Thanks for posting this. Wouldn’t put anything past this sleazy defense team.
Not saying this is happening here, but HLN was just reporting that the defense team was actually sending people out on various boards to (a) see how public opinion was going, and (b) influence it if possible. Sure are some hardliners here, regardless of who they might or might not be working for.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.