Place Your Bets: Casey Anthony Trial

[Coito ergo sum]

"Well, I hope that this is a lesson to those of you who have indulged in media assassination for three years. Bias, prejudice and incompetent talking heads saying what would be and how to be. I'm disgusted by some of the lawyers that have done this, and I can tell you that my colleagues from coast to coast and border to border have condemned this whole process of lawyers getting on television and talking about cases that they don't know a damn thing about. And don't have the experience to back up their words or the law to do it. Now you learned a lesson, and we appreciate the jury and those of you that have been objective and professional. We like it. Others, we're going to be talking to again. Thank you very much," Cheney Mason, one of Casey Anthony's defense attorneys said at a press conference after the verdict was announced.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... esson.html

That's the defense giving a big middle finger to all the talking heads and pundits and legal "experts" that called them incompetent and pronounced their client unequivocally guilty throughout the trial. The big "fuck you muthafuckas!" from the defense.

[laklak]

Wow, didn't expect a not guilty verdict.

Just as well though, infanticide is just another form of pro-choice except it gives you the opportunity to kick the tires first so to speak.

I think you should be able to take them out until they're paying their own way. Would make the teenage years a LOT easier if "I'm going to kill you now" actually meant "I'm going to kill you now".

[mistermack]

And what part has the death penalty played in this decision?
The jury have a pretty unpalatable choice. They don't KNOW what happened. They can be pretty sure she colluded in killing her daughter. But convict, and you might be sending her to her death.
That's the second big problem with the death sentence.
I would have done the same as the jury.

But suppose it wasn't a pretty young girl in the dock. Would they be more likely to inflict the death penalty on an older, uglier woman or man? Probably yes.
.

[Coito ergo sum]

And what part has the death penalty played in this decision?

Unknown.

The jury have a pretty unpalatable choice. They don't KNOW what happened.

That's why they acquitted her of murder. The main question that anyone on a jury wants to know the answer to is what happened.

They can be pretty sure she colluded in killing her daughter.

There was no allegation that she colluded. The prosecution said they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she intentionally killed her daughter, or at least that she abused her child resulting in the child's death.

But convict, and you might be sending her to her death.
That's the second big problem with the death sentence.
I would have done the same as the jury.

I would have acquitted her too, but mainly because the prosecution couldn't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

But suppose it wasn't a pretty young girl in the dock. Would they be more likely to inflict the death penalty on an older, uglier woman or man? Probably yes.
.

Guaranteed, I would say. Had this not been a highly publicized case, under no circumstances would she have been allowed 3 years to prepare, hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money for various expert witnesses, not to mention multiple attorneys, etc. Without the media blitz she would have been tried in about a year, maybe some feeble expert testimony, and the trial never would have gone on for six weeks.

Had she been a fat, black woman, or a single, white, father - things would have been way different.

[Ian]

Casey Anthony...you know..the sorta hot in a slutty sort of way, whorebag who was alleged to have chloraformed her kid and tossed her in a swamp.

Thanks for the summary. I managed to not look at a single second of the trial (which apparently was all over Headline News for a few weeks, and for some reason that's the channel shown in my building's cafeteria), but I wanted a one-sentence synopsis.
I try to ignore media sensationalism. I managed to not watch one bit of the OJ Simpson trial back in '95. Easier said than done, let me tell ya.

[mistermack]

In your rush to contradict me, you're contradicting yourself again.

First you say that they very properly found her not guilty because of the doubt. Then you say that the verdict would have been different for a black, old, or ugly person.
You can't have it both ways ! The attractiveness of the defendant doesn't change the element of doubt.

Plenty of US juries ignore the doubt and convict innocent people. And acquit guilty ones.

And if you are claiming that the death penalty has NO effect on verdicts, you're dreaming.
.

[Gallstones]

Wow, didn't expect a not guilty verdict.

Just as well though, infanticide is just another form of pro-choice except it gives you the opportunity to kick the tires first so to speak.

I think you should be able to take them out until they're paying their own way. Would make the teenage years a LOT easier if "I'm going to kill you now" actually meant "I'm going to kill you now".

I think a better idea would be to force them into indentured servitude and get some work out of them while knocking the stupids and the rebelliousness out of them.

[Tero]

What would be a punishment, typically, for aggravated child abuse?

[Warren Dew]

I'm actually really impressed that the jury managed to resist the impulse to scapegoat the nearest defendant. From what I've seen the defense theory of what happened is no less plausible than the prosecution theory, so unless the jury saw evidence that I didn't that would have changed my mind, I think they came to the right verdict.

And what part has the death penalty played in this decision?
The jury have a pretty unpalatable choice. They don't KNOW what happened. They can be pretty sure she colluded in killing her daughter. But convict, and you might be sending her to her death.

So what you're saying is, without a death penalty they would have convicted her even though they didn't know what happened? Oh, she's probably guilty, single parents usually are in these situations, let's convict her and get it over with? If that's the case, it's a good thing they have the death penalty to keep them honest.

The attractiveness thing cuts both ways, too. If Caylee hadn't been such a cute toddler, the press and public wouldn't have been so quick to convict Casey before the trial even started.

[Tyrannical]

Well, maybe her and OJ can go look for the real killers now.

[Warren Dew]

Well, maybe her and OJ can go look for the real killers now.

Very different cases. For example, here's one expert who testified that the duct tape on Caylee's skull was placed after death and decomposition, rather than as a murder weapon, based on the lack of any skin cells on the sticky side of the tape and how it adhered to the skull:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/20 ... der-weapon

Here's the same expert regarding the OJ, where he testified that the cuts on OJ's hand were caused by fingernails, not by the knife OJ described:

http://articles.nydailynews.com/1996-11 ... wn-simpson

Here's more information about his history as one of the most experienced forensic anthropologists in the U.S.:

http://www.med.wayne.edu/wayne%20medici ... living.htm

If he'd testified in the OJ murder trial, rather than just in the wrongful death suit, maybe OJ would have been convicted.

Unlike the OJ prosecution, which was botched, the case against Casey Anthony was simply weak. I mean seriously, web searches that Caylee's grandmother did are evidence that Caylee's mother was the murderer? Why aren't they evidence that grandma was the murderer?

[Coito ergo sum]

In your rush to contradict me, you're contradicting yourself again.

I contradicted neither you, nor myself.

First you say that they very properly found her not guilty because of the doubt.

True.

Then you say that the verdict would have been different for a black, old, or ugly person.

Yes, quite possibly for a number of reasons, and that's not contrary to them very properly finding her not guilty. Not the least reason is that the trial would not have been so elaborate, and the defense would not have had the resources to present its argument as deliberately and in as much detail, and with as much counter-expert testimony to controvert the prosecution's experts. If the trial had not received the media hype that it it did, and it wouldn't have if it was an inner city black mother, or a white single father (non-celebrity).

You can't have it both ways !

Why not? The two statements are not in the least logically contradictory.

The attractiveness of the defendant doesn't change the element of doubt.

It changes how people perceive the defendant, and it very much changes how the media treats the case, and as noted the media hype is what caused the court to provide the defense which such extraordinary funding and resources. That changes everything.

Plenty of US juries ignore the doubt and convict innocent people. And acquit guilty ones.

Absolutely, as do plenty of non-US juries. You could have simply said "plenty of juries ignore the doubt and convict innocent people." The main thing, though, is that the doubt doesn't make one innocent. The doubt means that the prosecution hasn't proved its case to the required standard. Different thing altogether. And, what a jury sees and hears is directly dependent on the level of defense lawyer the defendant can avail herself of, and the amount of monetary resources they can avail themselves of to hire experts and the like. In the real - non-casey-anthony - world, people don't get that kind of defense paid for by the state. She got special treatment.

And if you are claiming that the death penalty has NO effect on verdicts, you're dreaming.
.

Where in the world did you imagine I claimed that?

[Coito ergo sum]

Casey Anthony...you know..the sorta hot in a slutty sort of way, whorebag who was alleged to have chloraformed her kid and tossed her in a swamp.

Thanks for the summary. I managed to not look at a single second of the trial (which apparently was all over Headline News for a few weeks, and for some reason that's the channel shown in my building's cafeteria), but I wanted a one-sentence synopsis.
I try to ignore media sensationalism. I managed to not watch one bit of the OJ Simpson trial back in '95. Easier said than done, let me tell ya.

I watched just enough to know what it was about. After the closing arguments, I was sure about the OJ verdict, and got it right, and after closing arguments, I was sure about the Casey Anthony verdict, and got that one right. Based on the bits I saw of each, I would have voted to acquit in both cases.

[Coito ergo sum]

What would be a punishment, typically, for aggravated child abuse?

I think the defendant could get up to a maximum of 30 years in prison.

[Tyrannical]

Well, maybe her and OJ can go look for the real killers now.

Very different cases. For example, here's one expert who testified that the duct tape on Caylee's skull was placed after death and decomposition, rather than as a murder weapon, based on the lack of any skin cells on the sticky side of the tape and how it adhered to the skull:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/20 ... der-weapon

Here's the same expert regarding the OJ, where he testified that the cuts on OJ's hand were caused by fingernails, not by the knife OJ described:

http://articles.nydailynews.com/1996-11 ... wn-simpson

Here's more information about his history as one of the most experienced forensic anthropologists in the U.S.:

http://www.med.wayne.edu/wayne%20medici ... living.htm

If he'd testified in the OJ murder trial, rather than just in the wrongful death suit, maybe OJ would have been convicted.

Unlike the OJ prosecution, which was botched, the case against Casey Anthony was simply weak. I mean seriously, web searches that Caylee's grandmother did are evidence that Caylee's mother was the murderer? Why aren't they evidence that grandma was the murderer?

Meh, I'd have had her hung years ago. Not reporting the child missing, and the constant lying to authorities is all the evidence I need to remove any reasonable doubt. If she somehow didn't do it, well, it's her own fault for doing everything she could to make herself look guilty. If it was an accidental death and panic on her part, oh well. That boat has sailed and she shouldn't have made those mistakes.