Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How the Casey Anthony Case Came Apart
13 WMAZ ^ | 07/05/2011 | 13 WMAZ

Posted on 07/06/2011 12:09:07 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour

On Tuesday, the jury acquitted Anthony, 25, of murdering her child in June 2008.

The reason, legal analysts and court watchers said, is that despite the seemingly endless hype surrounding the investigation and trial, the prosecution's case simply didn't hold up. There was no forensic evidence such as DNA or fingerprints directly linking Anthony to her daughter's death. In fact, the precise cause of the girl's death was unclear.

"The prosecution put out a lot of dots, but they couldn't connect them,"

(Excerpt) Read more at 13wmaz.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: anthony; caylee
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-107 next last
To: CodeToad

Hundreds or perhaps thousands of parents have small children go missing without calling the cops????

We DO have problems!


51 posted on 07/06/2011 12:44:14 PM PDT by The Toll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

Every mother who murders her children in this country will now use the “my father sexually abused” me defense.


52 posted on 07/06/2011 12:44:31 PM PDT by LowTaxesEqualsProsperity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mjaye
Check out Cheney Mason’s remarks on this case as a “talking head” prior to his joining the defense team:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er2G0OszXEk

We know what these people are.

It's just a question of the price.


53 posted on 07/06/2011 12:45:44 PM PDT by Iron Munro (The more effeminate & debauched the people, the more they are fitted for a tyrannical government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad; The Toll
“then same child turns up dead. YOU’RE GUILTY!

You left out the part of the comment about reporting it to the police!

You would make an ideal juror.

54 posted on 07/06/2011 12:46:08 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (When the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn (Pr.29:2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan

We have a SERIOUS problem with dumbed down jurist not understanding the meaning of reasonable doubt. Here is what Marcia Clark said about this today:

“By confusing reasonable doubt with a reason to doubt. Some believe that thinking was in play in the Simpson case. After the verdict was read in the Simpson case, as the jury was leaving, one of them, I was later told, said: “We think he probably did it. We just didn’t think they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.” In every case, a defense attorney will do his or her best to give the jury a reason to doubt. “Some other dude did it,” or “some other dude threatened him.” But those reasons don’t necessarily equate with a reasonable doubt. A reason does not equal reasonable. Sometimes, that distinction can get lost.”

The O.J. trial had DNA and the dumb-ass jury still relied on what THEY definded as ressonable doubt....with that jury, ONLY a video of him killing Nicole could have convicted...they were guilty, as was the jury in the Anthony case, of leaning on ANY doubt...not resonable doubt.


55 posted on 07/06/2011 12:47:55 PM PDT by Moby Grape (Formerly Impeach the Boy...name change necessary after the Marxist won)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

>>Justice was not served in this case - Casey got off on slimy, unethical legal tactics.<<

And the irony is, there are those who say they think Casey was guilty (as I do), yet the fact that she got off is proof that “the system worked.”

HUH?????


56 posted on 07/06/2011 12:48:38 PM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
...the prosecution and the police screwed up the investigation and focused too much on her being a bad mother.

Agreed. Enough to despise her, but not enough to convict her. I saw this coming a mile away. I told anyone who was willing to ask that the jury would acquit, but it seemed that everyone was so emotionally convinced that she was guilty that they didn't want to believe it.
57 posted on 07/06/2011 12:49:28 PM PDT by Sopater (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. - 2 COR 3:17b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamontea

Excellent post.

The Buckley quote is a true gem.

The man was not only a towering intellect, but prescient as well.


58 posted on 07/06/2011 12:49:55 PM PDT by EyeGuy (2012: When the Levee Breaks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
I think everyone is too focused on first degree murder.
The jury acquitted on ALL charges except for lying to the police.

Seems to me that knowing your kid is in a plastic bag half submerged in a swamp, while spending over a month partying and telling people she is with a runaway baby sitter, is at least child neglect.
Or maybe you can't abuse a child if they are already dead?

Further, lots of people have been convicted solely on circumstantial evidence. Often far less than was introduced here.
I think the ground rules are motive (check), access (check), and means (check); Prosecution's closing was that ONLY Casey had all three.

Finally:
I can accept a verdict while still believing that the jury, for some reason, simply wanted to set her free going into the case.
However, if momma Anthony does not serve serious jail time for blatant perjury I'll have to revisit that acceptance.
As to emotion..."daddy and little brother raped me", "daddy hid the body", and "don't you understand my f&*%!ng involvement here?" are all pretty emotion laden statements.
And, there's much being made about imaginary friends, jobs, and fantasies in general, how come no one thought of that before the trial and determined Casey was too nuts to be held responsible?

59 posted on 07/06/2011 12:50:11 PM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

I was a prosecutor for 18 years. I learned early on that if a detective brought me a case and tried to sell it by telling me what a bad person the suspect was, I knew right away their actual evidence sucked and the officer knew it. That assessment was never wrong.


60 posted on 07/06/2011 12:54:37 PM PDT by henkster (Ethanol belongs in a beer can, not a gas tank.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: hecht

This is your second time posting this silly comment; “Even if they couldn’t prove murder, they proved abuse...”

The first time was over here...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2744616/posts?page=40#40
...where I asked you to substantiate you assertion. To which you provided no reply. So, let’s try this again, as I repost the same question to you...

Please cite the specific evidence that the prosecution presented to the jury of “child abuse”, or even “neglect” (for which she was not even charged).

And by this question, I’m asking for the SPECIFIC evidence the prosecution allegedly presented to the jury....NOT your personal interpretations, or opinions. Please post the factual evidence that was presented that “beyond a reasonable doubt” showed “child abuse”.

Lastly, before you reply, allowing someone else to have care of your child is not “abuse”, nor is not reporting that your child is deceased, evidence of “child abuse”


61 posted on 07/06/2011 12:55:28 PM PDT by woollyone ("The trouble with socialism is you run out of other people's money to spend." Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: The Toll

Actually, yes, many children go missing and no one calls the cops until much later. The wife was a case worker with the county. She found case after case of parents missing a kid and not wanting to call the cops. People do not trust the cops. The cops only point the finger at the parents and blame them. Of course, in most of those cases the parent was negligent, such as being drunk or stoned off their ass and the child wandered off. However, calling the police means to them exactly what you just said: Have a missing kid means you’re GUILTY! No one wants to call the cops only to have to happen. Not everyone lives in a pristine suburban world as you do.


62 posted on 07/06/2011 12:55:52 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: outpostinmass2
The murderer got away with it because of her lies that delayed the finding of the body and her parents were not willing to help the police.

This is complete BS... the meter reader told the police 3 or 4 times where the body was but the cops felt their job was to yell at him for laughing when one of the porkers fell into some mud, instead of searching for the body.

Had the cops listens to the meter reader the first time the body would have been collected into evidence 4 months earlier.

Blame the arrogant and stupid cops for that one...

63 posted on 07/06/2011 12:55:52 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour (With The Resistance...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

NOTE: To everyone who thinks Casey was guilty, yet celebrates this as a case where “the system worked”...

Because of our legal system, it is unavoidable that guilty people will go free. I would rather see guilty people go free than innocent people convicted.

But this is not a cause for celebration, and not a fact to be accepted gladly.

It is a tragic and unfortunate reality. Caylee is still dead.

If justice was denied for Caylee (as I believe it was in this case), it is certainly not a “good” thing. If the murderer went free, the system did NOT work. It’s just that we have no better alternative system of justice.

This is the best system that’s ever been devised.

Maybe it’s not time to rejoice as much as accept the solemn fact that sometimes murderers go free.


64 posted on 07/06/2011 12:55:52 PM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNDude
the Jury was thinking “Me following legaleeze. Me be smart juror” instead of asking “Did that woman kill her child?”

The jury is supposed to be thinking "did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she killed her child?". The answer was a unanimous "no".
65 posted on 07/06/2011 12:56:28 PM PDT by Sopater (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. - 2 COR 3:17b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad; MNDude
“the Jury was thinking “Me following legaleeze. Me be smart juror” instead of asking “Did that woman kill her child?””

The jury's duty is to determine whether the prosecution has made its case in demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt its assertion, against the presumed innocence of the accused, that the accused is guilty. That is, the jury is not to try to determine, in spite of the prosecution's bungling of a case, whether they believe the accusation, and convict anyway. They are there solely to determine the adequacy of the prosecution's case beyond a reasonable doubt. They are not there to stir in a package of "Prosecution Helper" in order to assist the prosecution in getting a conviction. Even if they believe the accused may be guilty, if the prosecution has failed to establish this--and that doesn't mean "influence the feelings of the jury"--then they are to acquit. In other words, the jury is there to judge the prosecution's case, not the guilt or innocence of the accused.

In addition, a second important duty of the jury, in the instance of the prosecution of a case which is just nuts (not necessarily this one), is to say, "Hey, you've proved your case, but the case should never have come to trial because it's based on an insane law and we're sending you guys a message about this by throwing it out."
66 posted on 07/06/2011 12:57:38 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: EyeGuy
Yes, Buckley was. I miss him. That line of his has stuck with me since I read it. How true it is--even more so today than when he said it.


67 posted on 07/06/2011 12:58:11 PM PDT by Cinnamontea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Moby Grape

“The O.J. trial had DNA and the dumb-ass jury still relied on what THEY definded as ressonable doubt....with that jury, ONLY a video of him killing Nicole could have convicted...they were guilty, as was the jury in the Anthony case, of leaning on ANY doubt...not resonable doubt.”

####

With the racist pigs on the Simpson jury, I doubt whether even THAT would have sufficed: “Too dark. Too grainy. Looks like George Bush holding the knife”.

Besides, Johnny Cochrane just made up another toddler level rhyme that tickles our Flipper-level intellect.


68 posted on 07/06/2011 1:00:02 PM PDT by EyeGuy (2012: When the Levee Breaks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: MNDude; CodeToad
What part of common sense says that she didn’t kill the girl?

Oh, that's brilliant. Why don't we just arrest everyone that can't prove that they didn't kill the girl as long as there is some aspect of "common sense" indicating that they may have had opportunity or motive to do so.
69 posted on 07/06/2011 1:00:25 PM PDT by Sopater (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. - 2 COR 3:17b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

You are exactly right. The jury is not there to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Their job is to determine if the state has made its case beyond a reasonable doubt. I’ve been on several juries (nothing as serious as this) where I knew the defendant was probably guilty but the prosecutor just didn’t get get it done and we aquitted. Burden of proof means something.


70 posted on 07/06/2011 1:00:47 PM PDT by beelzepug (" Shaved ice for me and my monkey, please.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamontea

The problem is reasonable doubt as to what? As the prosecutor said, someone in that house killed Kaylee, but they never really proved who or how, or whether it was first degree murder, negligent homicide, manslaughter, or something else.

They went for first degree murder with the death penalty. When you seek the high bar, you better makes sure you can clear it. They didn’t. Manslaughter or something lighter they may have got.

As I said, she is guilty, but the prosecution didn’t prove first degree murder. They should have either lowered the charges, made a deal, or put together a better case.


71 posted on 07/06/2011 1:01:24 PM PDT by Free Vulcan (Vote Republican! You can vote Democrat when you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

I live in Decatur, Ga. Look it up.

I’ve also been a juror and acquitted folks because the state just simply didn’t have the goods on them. This case was very simple to me. The nutzo did it.


72 posted on 07/06/2011 1:02:25 PM PDT by The Toll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

The case “came apart” because the jury came from public schools that no longer teach critical thinking and from watching too many CSI shows. As a result, they assumed that every case is solved by DNA and no one should ever be convicted on circumstantial evidence, no matter how overwhelming.


73 posted on 07/06/2011 1:04:21 PM PDT by SVTCobra03 (You can never have enough friends, horsepower or ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: subterfuge

A few years back Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering his pregnant wife, Lacey Peterson. There existed less evidence in that trial than in the Anthony case.

He is now on death row in California.


74 posted on 07/06/2011 1:09:10 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
And the irony is, there are those who say they think Casey was guilty (as I do), yet the fact that she got off is proof that “the system worked.”

Good point.

To me, inane statements like that are indicators that 40 years of brainwashing people to be "nonjudgmental" has taken hold, much to the detriment of us all. Being "nonjudgmental" has become a crutch and a way to avoid responsibility for making tough decisions.

We see the results in jury trials like this and in the thoughtless "zero-tolerance" policies in schools. Too many people no longer have the ability to discriminate between good and bad, truth and lies, harmless and harmful.

One of the jurors even said she didn't like judging others and did not want to serve on the jury. But the judge would not allow her to be discharged. How can a person like that be trusted to make a fair and responsible evaluation of guilt or innocence?


75 posted on 07/06/2011 1:11:22 PM PDT by Iron Munro (The more effeminate & debauched the people, the more they are fitted for a tyrannical government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: CitizenReporter

What would be the motive for 12 independent strangers to conspire to acquit? Not race like some accused in the OJ trial. Not opponents of the death penalty, because they had to be approved by the prosecution as death penalty qualified. Not idiots, seem to be productive members of society. Could it possibly be that the prosecution did a lousy job from beginning to end? They should have never made it a death penalty case, even Susan Smith didn’t get the death penalty. Never had cause of death. And their biggest mistake was Mr. Crunk and George Anthony. Casey Anthony was attacked, rightfully so, for her actions while her daughter was missing, but what about George Anthony. He sleeps around with the volunteers that are looking for his missing granddaughter. WTF is that about. If the best you have is circumstantial evidence you better have extremely credible witnesses. Prosecution should have known better and went for aggravated manslaughter. It would have been a sealed deal rather then an acquittal.


76 posted on 07/06/2011 1:12:25 PM PDT by jerseyrocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

The prosecution has to prove she killed the child beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond the shadow of a doubt. Casey’s behavior in that month where she would not even admit that Caylee was missing and went out of her way to deny that Caylee was missing does it for me. I don’t think Casey’s parents had a thing to do with the murder, but because the defense attorney was able to accuse the father in court, the idiots on the jury felt they had all they needed to vote not guilty. I’m not saying Casey killed her child with premeditation or even on purpose, but she is responsible for the Caylee’s death and disposal.


77 posted on 07/06/2011 1:15:35 PM PDT by carola
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan
They went for first degree murder with the death penalty. When you seek the high bar, you better makes sure you can clear it. They didn’t. Manslaughter or something lighter they may have got.

The jury had the option of finding her guilty of the manslaughter charge but came back with a verdict of not guilty.

78 posted on 07/06/2011 1:15:53 PM PDT by Iron Munro (The more effeminate & debauched the people, the more they are fitted for a tyrannical government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Moby Grape

>>The O.J. trial had DNA <<
but the fact that the defense showed that over 3cc’s of OJ’s blood sample was MISSING - and the DNA evidence was not collected in the first week after the crime -
there is a reasonable doubt


79 posted on 07/06/2011 1:16:09 PM PDT by patriotsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears

I ditto your comments and add that the government officials responsible for prosecuting this case did a lousy job.

If anyone is angry because they believe Casey is guilty then they should be angry at those that failed to convince a jury. Just saying Casey was a lousy mother and attempting to get a conviction on emotion is not something I want in my justice system.

As another poster said, the DA could have relaxed and monitored Casey for proof of guilt through wiretaps and other means instead of jumping to random circumstantial evidence needing an emotional jury for conviction.

I, for one, am proud of that jury for not succumbing to emotion and, instead, relying on presented evidence that was horribly lacking. The LE and DA in this case did a lousy job and wasted not only tax payer monies on this joke of a trial but wasted what might have been justice for the little girl, Caylee.

The judge did his part in presenting an impartial courtroom with a proper decorum. The defense did their part in refuting the prosecution’s case. The prosecution did a horrible job in that they both failed to wait for trail until proper evidence could be presented for conviction and in presenting terrible evidence. The prosecution’s presentations on the party habits of the mother have no bearing in deciding if she killed her child. That was simply relying on emotion for conviction.


80 posted on 07/06/2011 1:17:19 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamontea

Nice post...attorneys are on my shite list right now

till next time I need one..lol


81 posted on 07/06/2011 1:20:04 PM PDT by wardaddy (Palin or Bachman..either with Marco....but Bachman bashers can kiss my ass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: carola

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Saying she must have killed her kid because we can’t think of anyone else that might have done it is not proof. Saying someone “acted guilty” is not proof.

You would be amazed at the emotional instability that sets in on a person once they feel the eyes are watching. People no longer act like you might expect. Even you would act guilty of a crime you knew someone else committed in another State you never even knew if you thought someone was watching you for signs of guilt.


82 posted on 07/06/2011 1:22:57 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: FourPeas

Why did the jury ignore DNA evidence of Caylee’s post-mortem hair found in the trunk of her mothers car that she abandoned? The woman was her mother, who’s job it was to look after her, maintain her safety and know her whereabouts at all times. To abrogate her responsibility in doing this for a full month while partying it up and allow her to turn up dead without giving truthful answers as to her whereabouts is reason enough for a child endangerment conviction had the child been found alive. But since she died we’re supposed to have a higher standard of evidence?


83 posted on 07/06/2011 1:25:27 PM PDT by vigilence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I see 5 major errors on the part of the "Law and Order" side that led to this travesty of justice.
  1. The police blew the August search and would have had the body four months earlier. Who knows how much evidence was lost by fraidy cop? (apologies to Monk).
  2. Misreading the evidence and saying there were 84 searches for "how to make chloroform" was a hugh and series credibility blow to the prosecution.
  3. While doing a good job in discrediting Cindy's testimony that she did the chloroform search, the prosecution should have followed Baez's lead and posterboarded the full search sequence so it was clear in the jury's mind as to what exactly was being researched by Casey, the only one who was there at the time(s). It might have helped recover from the "84 searches" gaffe.
  4. Casey NEVER reported her child missing; it was Cindy and only after confronting her daughter on day 31. The jury recognized the lies (4 counts guilty) but had no lesser charge on which to hang Casey not reporting the child missing on day one. I presume they found that not enough evidence was present to meet the "aggravated" child abuse count but would likely have jumped on a lesser charge had it been available. Casey might be serving additional time had this happened.
  5. The body was disposed of where Casey and her friends partied. We heard about how the family buried their pets in the yard with ceremony but not how Casey and their friends buried animals at the dump site, smoked grass there, etc. Perhaps they could not get testimony from her childhood chums but that was far more important circumstantial evidence to tie her to the site than was the heart sticker ...
  6. which makes error 6, the 60 foot traveling heart. That was another credibility destroyer for the prosecution.
We may well learn the truth, however. Casey has already been subpoenaed and there are more civil trials to come. The one thing she did right through this ordeal was to keep her mouth shut and that really hurt the prosecution. However now that she is immune from further prosecution due to double jeopardy, her 5th Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination is moot since she cannot be charged. May the coming depositions be withering.

IANL

84 posted on 07/06/2011 1:27:46 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (From her lips to the voters' ears: Debbie Wasserman Schultz: "We own the economy" June 15, 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

“They are won because the defendant cannot afford a legal team.”

Who is paying the defense lawyers? I have not followed it too closely, but she doesn’t have money, does she?


85 posted on 07/06/2011 1:35:58 PM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: The Toll

“I live in Decatur, Ga. Look it up.”

So, what does that have to do with any of my posts?


86 posted on 07/06/2011 1:41:07 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: vigilence

“child endangerment conviction “

If we locked up every parent that ever had a child go missing even for a few minutes not a single parent would escape jail. I prefer not to live in a police state.


87 posted on 07/06/2011 1:43:11 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

Unanswered questions:

When did she die? We don’t know.
Where did she die? We don’t know.
How did she die? We don’t know.

Given the above, how could the prosecution believe it could get a Murder One?

Plenty of blame to go around that evidence was lost...but lost it was.

If there had been a charge of gross negligence (culpa lata) we would still be bitching....but at least Casey would be incarcerated for a number of years.

The prosecution simply sought higher charges than the evidence supported.


88 posted on 07/06/2011 1:47:02 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers

Unanswered questions:

When did she die? We don’t know.
Where did she die? We don’t know.
How did she die? We don’t know.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I’m glad the Scott Peterson prosecutor wasn’t deterred by these unanswered questions.


89 posted on 07/06/2011 1:50:33 PM PDT by Mjaye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Mjaye
Scott Peterson was a man and not a celebrity like O.J. The burden of proof is lower.

Men also can't sleep with underage girls or be declared insane when they drown their kids in a bathtub.

Women as the courts have proved can do these things.

90 posted on 07/06/2011 1:59:31 PM PDT by outpostinmass2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Mjaye

I did not follow the Scott Peterson case so I have no opinion.


91 posted on 07/06/2011 2:03:51 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: outpostinmass2

Well said! If it were a single father with the same evidence, there would now be someone on death row.


92 posted on 07/06/2011 2:19:23 PM PDT by MNDude (so that's what they meant by Carter's second term)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

No, I would not act guilty if I had not committed a crime just because someone was watching. If I had accidentally and unintentionally killed my child I’d call 911. If my child disappeared I’d call 911. Casey’s child was missing and she didn’t call 911. Instead she went out and partied. That’s because she knew where her child was and she knew she was responsible. She didn’t want anyone else to know. Once the child was disposed of her only problem was keeping her nosy parents out of the picture. Obviously she wasn’t thinking long term, but she was free to have a good time while it lasted.


93 posted on 07/06/2011 2:31:31 PM PDT by carola
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers

I did not follow the Scott Peterson case so I have no opinion.<<<<<<<<<<

The point is that there are many, many murder cases successfully prosecuted without the when, where and how
known. The thing that bothers me about the Anthony case is that I suspect the unproven assertions made by the defense in their opening statement influenced the jury, despite the judge’s admonition.

I’m curious why the alternate juror giving interviews seems to speak to how the regular jurors were thinking, since they were not supposed to ever have discussed the case.


94 posted on 07/06/2011 2:35:49 PM PDT by Mjaye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: LowTaxesEqualsProsperity
Every mother who murders her children in this country will now use the “my father sexually abused” me defense.

I am not a father/grandfather but I am 'stunned' the men of America did NOT see how easily it is to accuse without evidence of horrific crimes and never have to provide one shred of evidence of said accusation.

95 posted on 07/06/2011 2:48:32 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: carola

You know what another tragedy is? It is second to the mother possibly killing her own child, but what about those parents, friends, neighbors, and whoever. What about their knowledge of her actions? It seems not only did the little girl’s mother take part in some way if not directly but a whole bunch of other people must have known something but did and said nothing. I don’t want a nation of nosey busybodies but Casey wasn’t in her right mind. Unfortunately, too, we all see people act badly such as that and say nothing. Society almost expects people to act badly. We are told to say nothing and not be judgmental.

How many children will die at the hands of their parents directly and indirectly and if anyone says or does anything they are chastised as being in the wrong for doing so.


96 posted on 07/06/2011 3:18:55 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: carola

“No, I would not act guilty if I had not committed a crime just because someone was watching. If “

You would be surprised how subtle your actions, words, atitude, and routines change under such conditions.


97 posted on 07/06/2011 3:20:55 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan

“They went for first degree murder with the death penalty. When you seek the high bar, you better makes sure you can clear it. They didn’t. Manslaughter or something lighter they may have got.

As I said, she is guilty, but the prosecution didn’t prove first degree murder. They should have either lowered the charges, made a deal, or put together a better case.”

Caylee’s mom named in murder indictment

October 14, 2008|From Natisha Lance Nancy Grace Producer

From the article-

“Anthony is charged with first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and four counts of providing false information to police.”

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-10-14/justice/caylee.grand.jury_1_caylee-anthony-murder-indictment-capital-murder?_s=PM:CRIME


98 posted on 07/06/2011 3:27:30 PM PDT by Mila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

Since you know Casey wasn’t in her right mind she must be aquitted. Sounds like the same logic the jury used. I just watched a video of the alternate juror who’s talking. He is an idiot. No question. It seems to me the defense managed to put the whole family on trial and so since Casey’s not the only lying dysfunctional person in the family, Casey has to be acquitted.

One big difference is, Casey’s parents were distraught even before they knew for sure that Caylee was missing. Casey, on the other hand, didn’t give a damn, as demonstrated by her behavior.


99 posted on 07/06/2011 3:39:20 PM PDT by carola
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: carola

” It seems to me the defense managed to put the whole family on trial “

Actually, the prosecution did that. They opened the door to further family discussions. Again, they simply didn’t present evidence to say she killed her child, they presented evidence that she was a bad mommy. So, of course the defense was going to hold open that door and present all it had.


100 posted on 07/06/2011 4:53:40 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-107 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson