Mitch Cronin Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Who speaks for Caylee? Who sees that she gets justice? ... Something reeeeealy rots in Florida today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 Who speaks for Caylee? Who sees that she gets justice? OK, so that's probably a stupid thing to say, but it's just wrong, damit! It's just flippin' wrong that someone, who ended that poor child's life, is going to appear to have gotten away with it. (she won't really, of course, she'll either be riddled with guilt that will eventually destroy her, or she's psychotic, in which case she'll have to pay for it later on sometime... But She'll get hers! ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I didn't follow any of this until I heard about it today. I have to say though that any case tainted by the opinions of the slug known as Nancy Grace is suspect. Have peoples' opinions and expectations of the outcome been based on facts in evidence or on Grace's personality and popularity?Something here stinks. It would seem the jury made a decision based upon what they heard which presumably did not include that stupid lawyer turned personality/broadcaster (in that order). The speed of their verdict also seems to back this supposition.Notwithstanding, the woman on trial does not sound like a responsible adult. For that, she should be executed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Like you, I spent none of my time folowing this case, and it's mainly because of Nancy Grace. In a profession that has seen its' fair share of publicity-seeking shysters, she is a complete disgrace. CNN should never have given her a chance to speak publicly in the first place. Had they only known the monster they were about to create. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 Well guys, I wouldn't know this Nancy Grace person if I tripped over her dog and found my head in her lap.... All I know is this girl spent the first month after her daughter had disappeared, partying, getting a "Bella Vita" tatoo on her shoulder, entering a "hot body" contest, and lying to everyone about the whereabouts of poor little Caylee.... This is not a woman mourning the loss of her daughter!People - surely even the most messed up of people, don't take an accidental death and make it look like murder. Accidental death doesn't lead to duct tape wrapped around the head and mouth of the deceased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Well guys, I wouldn't know this Nancy Grace person if I tripped over her dog and found my head in her lap.... All I know is this girl spent the first month after her daughter had disappeared, partying, getting a "Bella Vita" tatoo on her shoulder, entering a "hot body" contest, and lying to everyone about the whereabouts of poor little Caylee.... This is not a woman mourning the loss of her daughter!People - surely even the most messed up of people, don't take an accidental death and make it look like murder. Accidental death doesn't lead to duct tape wrapped around the head and mouth of the deceased.If you found your head in her lap, she'd bite your ear off. As much as I feel for the child, and as much as the evidence suggested Casey was a BAD MOTHER, the jury only got to hear admissible evidence. And came to a remarkably quick decision. The prosecution set a very high bar - charging her with first degree murder. One analysis I heard was that by charging her with murder 1, the prosecution triggered a requirement for a 12-person jury - versus six for manslaughter - and it required a high degree of proof she planned and intended to kill the child. Yet the cause of death was never established and the motive offered by the prosecution seemed too far-fetched to be believed. As such, the case for premeditated murder was as weak as the explanation given by the mother. But the mother didn't have to prove accidental death. The prosecution had to prove first degree murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 ...which means she was probably not charged correctly. As D.A.'s in the 'States are elected officials, there may have been overwhelming local pressures to use the Murder-1 charge thereby emasculating their case.A sad situation nonetheless, but in the 330 million population, probably an isolated instance.I don't want to sound insensitive. Child abuse is such a rampant and under-reported phenomena in all societies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I heard the reading of the verdict on the news last night and there were multiple counts for the jury to rule upon, including manslaughter. She was found not guilty on all of them except for the ones involving lying to the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Caylee is lost to history and the family that loved and cared for her. Meanwhile, it’s likely the sociopathic Casey will go on to profit from her deeds, make more babies and party her “beautiful life” away.The news just advised; the authorities intend to release Casey in some ‘secret’ way, ‘for her protection’? Thank God for the taxpayers of Florida and their willingness to spend to ensure poor little Casey’s safety is guaranteed?Any notion of so-called ‘justice’ for Caylee is gone, but the case did strike the public nerve. That being the case, I’m of the belief that an ‘Avenging American Angel’ will ultimately deliver some form of richly deserved justice upon Miss Anthony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 Mitch: this was a trial distorted by the media. The jury heard all of the evidence, not just what was thrown up by the media. So I am not sure how one can conclude that their verdict was wrong. Trial by media is getting more and more popular, esp. in the US . We all know how distorted the coverage is of actual events regarding air transportation so why should we conclude that their coverage of this story was accurate??????The facts of the case are not distorted by media or anything else. Caylee is dead. She was found with duct tape around her mouth and nose. Her mother did party it up in the first month after her disappearance. She did not report her disappearance. She lied about Caylee's whereabouts until her own mother called the police, and still she lied! None of that needs any distortion to look and smell really rotten. How about a new charge of failing to provide the necessities of life, or child abandonment, or something?? This sad excuse for a mother should not be walking free! I wonder if such a thing can happen in American "justice"? UpperDeck? You here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpperDeck Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 The facts of the case are not distorted by media or anything else. Caylee is dead. She was found with duct tape around her mouth and nose. Her mother did party it up in the first month after her disappearance. She did not report her disappearance. She lied about Caylee's whereabouts until her own mother called the police, and still she lied! None of that needs any distortion to look and smell really rotten. How about a new charge of failing to provide the necessities of life, or child abandonment, or something?? This sad excuse for a mother should not be walking free! I wonder if such a thing can happen in American "justice"? UpperDeck? You here?Personally, I believe criticism of the verdict is criticism of the jury and is unwarranted. Those individuals gave up their lives for 6 weeks and moved away from their homes and they were sequestered to ensure that the only evidence upon which they made determinations of fact was the evidence properly admitted at trial. I do not know what evidence they heard. No one on this forum knows what evidence they heard. They made findings of fact and applied the law given to them by the judge to determine whether the guilt of the accused was proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." It bears repeating; the jury did NOT find the accused innocent; they found that her guilt of the offences charged was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.I can say that the case before them was based upon circumstantial evidence and in order to convict, they were told that the evidence must all be consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with any other result. Any explanation of any of the evidence that was not consistent with guilt thereby interrupted the "chain" of evidence.I was and remain of the belief that a conviction of OJ would have been perverse given the evidence before the jury. I don't know much of the Anthony story but be assured that both sides---defence and prosecution----did their utmost to persuade the jury of the justness of their cause. The jury arrived at and rendered its verdict(s). How can one reasonably ask for more in a free and democratic society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 Upperdeck,I don't intend to criticize anyone. I just don't think it's right that it should appear that such a sad and serious crime is going to go unpunished. Hell, she may even profit from it!My question is, can she now be charged with something like child abandonment causing death, or reckless mothering causing death, or anything related to the death of Caylee? ....or is she now protected from any further charges at all relating to this crime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 I never said I disagreed on the legaleze of the verdict. Yes, nobody proved she killed her daughter and I guess the jury felt there was reasonable doubt, but you can see from all the evidence [yes, much of which was and probably still is available on the internet... Some of the court case, if not all of it, was broadcast live on the internet... I did watch some of it.] ...she certainly didn't give a damn that it happened, apparently not until she landed in jail anyway. All the jury's decision means is the crown failed to prove their case. The hair found in her car (that showed post-mortem growth rings) should be enough to charge her with some sort of crime... Heck, isn't concealing someones death a crime?Someone killed that girl. The lying tramp excuse for a mother has poured out a non-stop stream of lies about what happened to her, since she first disappeared, and she is probably the only one who knows the truth. That alone should keep her in hot water until the truth is known, at least! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 The Jury did its job as prescribed. Alternatively, I think Mitch and most everyone that knows something of this case may eventually come to believe the 'system' worked as was intended, but can’t forget the reality, any notion of 'justice' was surrendered to a legal process. Seemingly, this process doesn't provide support for the public's 'need' for true justice. Unfortunately, this kind of failure provides seed for the vigilante. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpperDeck Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Upperdeck,I don't intend to criticize anyone. I just don't think it's right that it should appear that such a sad and serious crime is going to go unpunished. Hell, she may even profit from it!My question is, can she now be charged with something like child abandonment causing death, or reckless mothering causing death, or anything related to the death of Caylee? ....or is she now protected from any further charges at all relating to this crime?Mitch..Response to question....."ultra fois acquit"---she cannot be charged with any offence that is inconsistent with the acquittal. Since all possible charges (excepting the lying to the police charges) have as their actus reus (the "meat" of the charge) her "causing" of the death, she cannot now be charged with any similar offence.In the US, as I understand, they have both voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Involuntary is a "lesser included" of manslaughter so acquittal on manslaughter necessarily includes all "lesser and included offences" including those offences grouped under "involuntary manslaughter" such as "reckless endangerment". Failure to provide the "necessaries of life" causing death would be included.Note----CYA---I am not "learned in the law" as it relates to the US---and some (those bastards!!) ---would include Canada in that disclaimer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp fa Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I have been following the case, but not to the point of reading actual testimony, and not watching Nancy Grace - her voice makes me want to pierce my ear drums.I think what happened here was that the defence team threw as much shit as possible at the wall, to see what would stick - in order to create "reasonable doubt", and since the prosecution's case was only circumstantial, even though it was an avalanche of circumstantial evidence, the jury gave her the benefit of the doubt.She's about as "not guilty" as OJ is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Specs Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I Don't know a single thing about this story but reading some of the posts on here does raise some questions in my mind.If she was as bad as she seems to be portrayed, why did she have the child in the first place? She came from a middle class family that I presume could have afforded an abortion. Having the child hardly seems the selfish or 'sociopathic' thing to do. Does a drowning baby automatically equate to neglect by a parent? I can easily envision circumstances where I wouldn't make that conclusion. I might add that a drowning baby likely wouldn't make a sound. If this was simply a case of incredibly bad judgement being exercised on the family's part to avoid neglect/manslaughter charges, then wouldn't their whole the whole house of cards fall completely apart fall apart if she didn't go out to bars but simply stayed home and went into mourning? I’m not saying it’s sensible but it is consistent. In the end - A jury of 12 impartial reasoned men and women rendered their verdict. Can't ask for a fairer judgement than that. Shouldn't we all then just respect their decision, at least until their debrief with Dianne Sawyer or Baba Wawa or whoever in a few weeks where we may get some insight into how they came to their conclusion and wehat if any errors were made in the bringing of charges? Until then, if you really want to get upset:Where are all the missing girls? G & M article - 160 million girls missingI've never really developed a strong personal opinion on Abortion or Right to Life but I'm starting to think something is really wrong here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted July 7, 2011 Author Share Posted July 7, 2011 No, no, no, no.... You folks who don't know much of anything about this case are getting it wrong, and attempting to answer the wrong question.Why the jury found her "not guilty" of the charges is not the issue. Why they chose that verdict isn't the question. The reasons are obvious. This young mother (Casey) --who, according to her own defence attorney, was a part of an intensely dysfunctional family -- was responsible for the life of her child.... For a full month after anyone had last seen the child, she lied to everyone about her daughter's whereabouts. She made up a job and a Nanny and the nanny's family and more and more, for a full month.... meanwhile living the life of a party whore. Her lies continued after she was jailed and awaiting trial, they changed, but they continued... They have tapes of her phone calls from prison with her parents... she clearly didn't care at all about the loss of her daughter, or her parents. She is a narcissistic, pathological liar..and is probably psychotic ...and is probably a murderer who got away with it because, before being discovered, her daughter's body had decayed to the extent it was impossible to discover the cause of death.If she now profits from this horror story, that'll almost be like watching that poor little girl being tortured. I won't be surprised if some vigilantly justice does come her way. I feel ashamed to say I'd almost be wiling to see to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Justice has many faces. Justice was not served in court but may very well be served in a dark alley somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 She will be released from jail next Wednesday, being given time off for good behaviour.It's unfortunate that she didn't exhibit good behaviour before she was incarcerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azure Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 No, no, no, no.... You folks who don't know much of anything about this case are getting it wrong, and attempting to answer the wrong question.Why the jury found her "not guilty" of the charges is not the issue. Why they chose that verdict isn't the question. The reasons are obvious. This young mother (Casey) --who, according to her own defence attorney, was a part of an intensely dysfunctional family -- was responsible for the life of her child.... For a full month after anyone had last seen the child, she lied to everyone about her daughter's whereabouts. She made up a job and a Nanny and the nanny's family and more and more, for a full month.... meanwhile living the life of a party whore. Her lies continued after she was jailed and awaiting trial, they changed, but they continued... They have tapes of her phone calls from prison with her parents... she clearly didn't care at all about the loss of her daughter, or her parents. She is a narcissistic, pathological liar..and is probably psychotic ...and is probably a murderer who got away with it because, before being discovered, her daughter's body had decayed to the extent it was impossible to discover the cause of death.If she now profits from this horror story, that'll almost be like watching that poor little girl being tortured. I won't be surprised if some vigilantly justice does come her way. I feel ashamed to say I'd almost be wiling to see to it.The only way she could profit is if some sick society members decide to buy the book/movie. Otherwise, the family is in a whole hell of a lot of debt to the lawyers I'm sure, lets let them wallow in their financial doom and not be fooled into supporting "their" version of the truth. I never watch cnn so I don't know details, but hell, interference with a dead body at the very LEAST! God save America, you got money....your free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp fa Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Casey Anthony was declared "indigent" before the trial started - which means that her legal fees were paid for by the taxpayers of the state of Florida. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.