Social Question

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Casey Anthony acquittal, to whom does it seem to be the O.J. trial feminine style?

Asked by Hypocrisy_Central (26829points) July 5th, 2011

Soon enough all will know of the Casey Anthony trial, unless you were living under a rock, you know her. She is the so-called party girl who killed her daughter. I know in spite of the evidence or the jury interpretation of it people will believe by her actions that she was guilty to the max. Legally the state failed to show beyond all reasonable doubt she murdered or killed her daughter in anyway. The Constitution says she is innocent until proven guilty, which the state failed to do, so she is by default innocent. Do you feel or hold to that or do you believe she was guilty but just lucky not to be found guilty? If she is guilty but got off, what does that say about the Constitution on being innocent if not proven guilty? Why take part of the Constitution and defend it tooth and nail like freedom of speech or right to bare arms but ignore the innocence part? Is it because a child is dead and someone has to pay?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

37 Answers

blueberry_kid's avatar

Spoiler Alert: She was proven non-guilty on all cases in which she was trialed for.

chyna's avatar

@blueberry_kid Not true. She was found guilty of 4 counts of lying to the police.

laureth's avatar

Re: “If she is guilty but got off, what does that say about the Constitution on being innocent if not proven guilty?”

While “innocent until proven guilty” is not in the Constitution, it was written by people who remembered a system where you were considered guilty and could be locked up with no trial or due process of law, and that they thought this was a better system. Even if the occasional guilty person got off, because they were given a fair, lawful trial by their peers, that was still better to the writers of the Constitution than the idea imprisoning innocent people.

zenvelo's avatar

There was a lot of confusing circumstantial evidence in this case, and she had no evident concern for her daughter. But there was never any evidence she killed her daughter. There was never even a cause of death given. So in that way you cannot say “party girl who killed her daughter.”.

OJ on the other hand had a lot of physical evidence but a poorly prosecuted case against a team of the best criminal defense lawyers around.

The prosecution in the Anthony trial didn’t have a very good case and could not prove she killed he daughter. She may have acted bizarrely, but that is not proof of murder.

I’d ather have a trial by jury than a trial by Nancy Grace and CNN.

Kardamom's avatar

Jurors (dumb ones like on this case) get the term “beyond a reasonable doubt” mixed up with “beyond the shadow of a doubt”. I was on a very low profile case, in which many of the jurors thought that you had to prove someone’s guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt (which is not possible) to find someone guilty.

The jurors in the Anthony case seemed to have a problem with the exact cause of death not being known. It is not necessary to know exactly what caused the child’s death. There was a case in Califonia when David Westerfield was convicted of killing his young neighbor Danielle Van Dam. The body had been missing for so long that it had decomposed to the point that the exact cause of death could not be determined. But just like with the Casey Anthony situation, there was tons of circumstantial evidence that pointed to Westerfield, and no evidence that pointed to anyone else. The other problem, is that the jury, often does not get to see or know about all of the evidence (like we do).

The policeman that came on the scene when meter reader, Kronk, said that he saw what he thought was a body, dropped the ball. The officer didn’t investigate and then harangued the meter reader for supposedly wasting his time, or making up false statements. Turns out that the meter reader was correct and the policemen didn’t do his job.

Also, as we all know, jurors are just regular (not experts in science and probability statistics) people. A lot of regular people are really stupid. Most of the really smart people, that could easily figure out this stuff, have jobs and don’t get put on juries.

WestRiverrat's avatar

I believe she had a hand in Caylee’s death. I also would have acquitted her of most of the charges that were brought against her.

The proscecution kind of got trapped by the media coverage. They probably would have been successful in getting a guilty verdict if they had not felt compelled to charge her with felony murder.

Without the media coverage she probably would have been charged with child neglect and/or negligent homicide, both of which would have been easier to prove. The jury also would not have had the death penalty to deal with and would have been more likely to convict.

filmfann's avatar

I honestly don’t know if she did it or not. I don’t follow this kind of thing.
I am assuming the evidence wasn’t enough to convict.
Is she OJ? No, I am convinced OJ did it.

marinelife's avatar

I believe that she did kill her daughter.

Our justice system has found her not guilty because there was not enough evidence, but that does not change my belief that she harmed her child.

Still, she is now so notorious that she will have a very hard time living her life. She will always be associated with Caylee’s death.

Also, who in the world would ever believe a single thing she says now?

FutureMemory's avatar

@Kardamom Most of the really smart people, that could easily figure out this stuff, have jobs and don’t get put on juries.

You are mistaken if you think being employed absolves one from being called to serve on a jury.

zenvelo's avatar

Another factor that may have affected a not guilty verdict is the “CSI Effect.” There is a demonstrable expectation that the police should be able to apply forensic science to determine the cause of death at all times, and find and prove all DNA evidence, after all, it’s done a couple times a week on TV.

Kayak8's avatar

I think it is likely she killed her daughter.
I think the prosecution over-reached with the charges.
I think if the prosecution had said, “do you think failing to report a missing child for weeks after the disappearance is child abuse?,” they might have gotten her on another count for which there was sufficient evidence.
I think the police failing to respond when the body was first reported might have made all the difference in terms of their ability to collect evidence that might have helped the prosecution make its case.
She was found “Not Guilty” which is very different from “Innocent.” I like the Scot’s version of this, “Not Proven,” as it seems closer to the truth and a bit easier to understand (and swallow).

Kardamom's avatar

@FutureMemory Oh, I know that. What I mean is that if juries were made up of mostly people who were experts in the subjects that had to do with the trial, you would have a more realistic outcome. People who have particular expertise are often excluded from serving on juries for trials, such as police officers, forensic scientists, etc. Really smart scientists and doctors, who might have expertise in these subjects are likely to be in a work position, in which they couldn’t serve on jury duty without putting the lives of their patients in jeopardy. That’s all I meant.

cletrans2col's avatar

@Kardamom So they are dumb because they delivered a verdict that you disagree with? What a stupid statement.

MRSHINYSHOES's avatar

Yes, can you imagine if it were a “party father” who did that? I’m sure the jury would have convicted him, with the same evidence. Also, it seems highly publicized cases seem to favor the defendants sometimes.

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

Long story short:

She’s guilty as sin and the prosecution fucked up.

Everything @Kayak8 said is spot on.

Meego's avatar

She’s found “not guilty” that just means they couldn’t prove whether she did it or not. Here’s what I think, the jury and prosecution are idiots, first off the baby was missing 31 days before police were called…that’s negligence to me.
Second if the baby ‘drowned’ who the hell thinks it’s OK to bury them without going through a funeral home??? An accident happens you call an ambulance not allow dad to duct tape your child’s mouth and bury her like a family pet in an unmarked grave!

I would of declared a mistrial. But no it’s ok let her go and have a fun life even though Caylee will never get to enjoy life. The whole thing bothers me.

cletrans2col's avatar

@Meego Casey will not have a fun life. From this point on, she’ll be known as a baby killer.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Outside the courthouse people were smelling blood, they wanted “guilty” and nothing else would be enough. Is that off fact or opinion? The state failed to prove its point, that is how most people want to view things, be it Big Foot, extraterrestrials, etc they say ”show me the proof, then I will believe it”. Why is it any difference here? It is probable she did it, knew more than she let on, or had a hand in it, but there is not enough proof, or at least the jury didn’t think so, to prove guilt. If you go off innocent until proven guilty, she has to be innocent by default because if she starts out legally innocent she remains innocent because she was not proven otherwise. Ironically if Casey had bumped Casey off 30 months earlier half of America would be backing her up. It comes down to if you want to believe and except the facts or go with what you feel or want to believe. Off the evidence, the media was putting forth it look very probable that she did it and was toast, I thought so, but those in the box did not think so. Something happened, but I doubt anyone will ever know now, but legally she is innocent and will never go on trial for Casey’s death even if she got drunk and blabbed it to the whole bar,

She may not cash in here peddling the story but the foreign market might be a different matter.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

That is Caylee’s death.

Meego's avatar

@cletrans2col I understand she has to bear that burden, but honestly for 31 days she didn’t give a crap either. Her life in those 31 days is invicutive of how she will live life from now on. The truth is she doesn’t care. And she will only do what she has done from the beginning and deflect the attention to everyone else because she is a liar and seems to me she can obviously easily disassociate herself in any wrong doings, even if it just meant she was neglectful.

sliceswiththings's avatar

That’s just what I said! She’ll be the OJ Simpson of my generation.

Meego's avatar

So I have a question..since the jury has found Casey not guilty because prosecution couldn’t prove their case who the hell killed Caylee? Or what really happened? It’s a little girls life ended too soon and now Casey the serial psychopath has justice but Caylee does not.

If she lives up to her psycopathic ways she will be just like OJ and end up back in jail for a lesser charge because of her privy to check fraud and other small criminal ways…we can only hope. In her case once a criminal always a criminal. Even Casey’s aunt was ashamed of the not guilty verdict…that’s gotta mean something.

zenvelo's avatar

@Meego Why do you call her a serial psychopath? One event does not make a series.

syzygy2600's avatar

If she had a penis, she’d be on death row right now.

cletrans2col's avatar

@syzygy2600 instead her great rack kept her off it

Kardamom's avatar

@cletrans2col No, I think they’re dumb for the reason that I stated above. This jury could not make a distinction between “reasonable doubt” (which is what the law calls for) and “beyond a shadow of a doubt” (which is impossible to ever prove in any court case and is not the standard they are being asked to go by).

zenvelo's avatar

@Kardamom That is a supposition. I believe the prosecution did a lousy job, and did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt. There is a lot of speculation even on Fluther about “who really killed Caylee”?

This is a bizarre case, but I don’t think anyone really has the whole story.

chyna's avatar

@syzygy2600 And if she were male in prison on death row, she would be getting marriage proposals from desperate women like Scot Peterson and the Menandez brothers.

Meego's avatar

@zenvelo LOL you are seriously going to say that when she was charged with 4 counts alone of lying to the police!
You might be able to say that if I said she was a serial killer because she not a serial killer. But she is a serial psychopath IMHO just going from the long line of oh, lying to the authorities, making up stories, reporting the child drowns but lets her father toss the child like garbage a block from the house and then goes for 31 days w/out the authorities (who does that), cheque fraud, allegedly calling her father a son of a bitch under her breath in the trial, smirking when her father was on trial, stone faced while her mother lied for her and took the blame about looking stuff up on the home Internet when her mother was clearly at work, crying while her brother was on trial even though she alleges he molested her, but never called the authorities when her child was missing it’s FUBAR. Nothing is ok what she has said or done. That’s how I feel. Need I say more? Her morales are seriously f****d up.

My child is 16 if I lost her 15 years ago and just started coming out with a bunch of different stories wouldn’t you think something is wrong with me upstairs?? yes I’m passionate about this…sorry :/
This precious little girl has no justice, she was treated like garbage, someone owes it to her.

XMachina's avatar

There is something called UNREASONABLE doubt. Let me qualify my comment with the fact I watched about 90% of the trial. The prosecution did a good job and most murder cases rely on circumstantial evidence. This is nothing new. There was a TON of circumstantial evidence against her. And let’s please remember that DNA was considered junk science just 25 years ago. I guess these jurors got sick of all the delays and couldn’t be bothered to stick around for the penalty phase, which would have been an additional week or 2 if they had found her guilty on any of the big charges. One of the jurors had a cruise planned, you know! They make me sick. I blame the jury selection process, Perry for his vain threats & indulging the inept and sleazy Baez, I blame the defense for all their tricks to improperly introduce ideas and theories they were not allowed to introduce, Then Perry would threaten to send them to time out in the endless side bars, I guess. Meanwhile back at the jury, while most of us became increasingly sickened by Baez, they just lapped it up I guess. I blame the jury for their stupidity, lack of common sense, cowardice, shirking of duty (11 hours??) and indifference to an innocent child who is DEAD, killed by SOMEBODY. What I have heard from them so far indicates they are feeble minded. Not one of them grasped that Jose and Mason are ill prepared, cheating super creeps defending a monster, not with truth but with obfuscation. They bought all the crap the defense was selling! One has said that Baez proved Casey was a good mom! WHAT?Due to the appalling lack of justice, this is highly depressing. It’s bad like the OJ verdict, but even worse because Caylee did not get to chose her evil mommy and screwed up family. I guess Ron Goldman was as innocent, but at least he was a grown man and had a CHANCE to fight for his life.

Meego's avatar

@XMachina welcome to Fluther.

BTW for anyone interested in changing the law for some kind of justice for Caylee

Did you know you can go to change.org and sign a petition for Caylees Law that will make it a felony for a parent or guardian to not notify law enforcement of a child going missing in a timely manner…let’s hope it goes through.

cletrans2col's avatar

A part of me actually feels bad for Casey Anthony. I mean, how many cases in this country are exactly like this and don’t even get 1% of the notoriety that this one did? And no matter if they are found guilty or innocent, we will never know them.

She’s no angel, but we need to accept the verdict and move on. The rage and vitriol geared toward this woman is too much and is not healthy.

Meego's avatar

@cletrans2col I do agree. I think we should focus now on what can be done for other children in the name of Caylee.

I know the non-believers will question me but God is going to take care of the rest he gave us that sign when his lightening strike hit the tree at her last resting place.

Brian1946's avatar

@Meego

Thanks for the link to the petition.

I signed it even though I think the period should be 48 hours instead of 24.

It could be that some people think that they have to wait at least 24 hours before they can file a missing person report, and not realize that cases involving missing minors are not subject to the 24-hours requirement.

Because of that, I wouldn’t want to exacerbate the presumably intense anxiety of a missing person’s loved one(s) because they didn’t realize that, by charging them with a felony

Roby's avatar

If you can’t do the time…do the crime in Florida.

This ‘party girl’ has not stood before the big judge yet. And that also applys to that knife welding former football player.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther