Is There Another Missing Baby Case Like Casey Anthony's?

[MATLABdude]

People get convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence all the time. You don't even need to have the corpse to do it.

I have lost all faith in our present jury system. We either need professional jurors or we need to lower the standards of evidence to prove guilt.

I would rather send 10 innocent people to jail in order convict just one Casey Anthony. There will be more dead children at the hands of sociopaths like her who make the calculation that they'll only get a few years and no chair if they're caught.

I repeat; the jury system does not work and should be replaced by a jury of "engineers"; analytical, educated, well-paid professional jurors who rule based on common sense.

If I were the sole juror she'd be heading for the electric chair. Why? Because any fool can see she's a pathological liar and sociopath and that she deliberately killed her child. Any other conclusion flies in the face of all reason.

Why appeal to the protection of innocents when you say that you're perfectly willing to throw many other innocents under the bus (into the noose, under the chopping block, etc.) in the previous sentence? You should appeal to vengeance instead--innocents, bread thieves, and white whales be damned.

Having an engineering degree myself, I strongly agree with your sentiment that we should have juries comprised of " analytical, educated, well-paid professional jurors". Then, they should rule from the gut, based on the character and impressions of the guilty--even a fool would do the same!

Darth Sidious: [Vader's new mechanical body arises from the steam] Lord Vader... can you hear me?
Darth Vader: Yes, Master.
Darth Vader: [Vader looks at Sidious] Where is Padme? Is she safe? Is she all right?
Darth Sidious: It seems in your anger, you killed her.
Darth Vader: I...? I couldn't have! She was alive... I felt it!
[Vader growls, and his Dark Side strength crushes everything around him in the room. He frees himself from the metal stretcher, and steps off. Palpatine has a smirk on his face]
Darth Vader: Nooooooooooooooooooo!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0121766/quotes?qt=qt0489806

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Reasonable doubt of who killed the child and when - maybe? But, it took 30 days for her to report the child missing, in the interim there is proof she was out partying, the mother called the police and said her car smelled like death, then the child is found in a swamp with duct tape about her mouth and head - (given this evidence) all the jury convicted her of was telling lies to the police - shame on the prosecution (again) - IMO.

There is plenty of room for argument in the viability of circumstantial evidence. On one hand it seems horribly unfair to convict someone on it and on the other it seems horribly unjust to ignore it. Would you really want to convict a woman of murdering her own child without knowing she did it? If you really try to be impartial it becomes quite a quandary. Just how much and what sort of circumstantial evidence does it take? I'm not particularly intimate on the details here, and have no real desire to be, so I do not really know just how damning the evidence was (though from what little I have heard it was pretty bad). But I can see where the jury was coming from to some extent. You are right, perhaps the prosecution dropped the ball on this one.

 

[Char. Limit]

Wow. The willingness of some of these people in this read to destroy innocent lives just so that they can convict one more guilty person... it's kind of sickening.

 

[rhody]

After hearing Dr. Werner Spitz{ my Grad school mentor} testify, I knew they would have to find her not guilty. The autopsy was not up to standards, very haphazard, in a case of this type.
The jury made the correct choice, given the evidence and followed the letter of law to perfection.
The personal Mother in me, feels differently. She reeks of guilt.

hypathia,

I suspect you are correct, one thing no one has mentioned yet, not that I am the bastion of original thought, could we see a scenario similar to this play itself out in the future, assuming Anthony has another child in the future ? I shudder to think this may happen again, but suspect it may be possible. Is she now destined to live an O.J. Simpson like existence ?

Your thoughts ?

Rhody...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The first sentence is correct. The second is not. The legal system doesn't make judgments on guilt versus innocence. It makes judgments of guilty or not guilty. ¬found guilty ≠ innocent. Not guilty means that wasn't enough evidence to find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not mean she is innocent.

So a person is innocent until found not guilty?

 

[ideasrule]

The first sentence is correct. The second is not. The legal system doesn't make judgments on guilt versus innocence. It makes judgments of guilty or not guilty. ¬found guilty ≠ innocent. Not guilty means that wasn't enough evidence to find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not mean she is innocent.

I agree, but this is just a matter of semantics. Since the jury found her not guilty, she now has the same rights and responsibilities as an innocent person who was never charged in the first place. Under the law, she's innocent in all but name.

 

[QuarkCharmer]

Give it some time for the media frenzy to pass and she will be pushing out books and hosting 80's videos on VH1 in no time. I think this whole trial would have been better off if it were not in the eye of the public. Innocent or not, nobody deserves to make money on this.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So a person is innocent until found not guilty?

I agree, but this is just a matter of semantics. Since the jury found her not guilty, she now has the same rights and responsibilities as an innocent person who was never charged in the first place. Under the law, she's innocent in all but name.

Technically a person is presumed innocent until proven otherwise, they are not considered to actually be innocent because there would be no need for a trial then right? Even found "not guilty" a person may still go to court again on the same matter and be found guilty/liable (see OJ) so long as it does not constitute double jeopardy.

 

[BobG]

Give it some time for the media frenzy to pass and she will be pushing out books and hosting 80's videos on VH1 in no time. I think this whole trial would have been better off if it were not in the eye of the public. Innocent or not, nobody deserves to make money on this.

I wonder how good of a defense she would have had if the case hadn't been so much in the public eye?

In the case of OJ Simpson, you knew he'd have the best legal team possible and the trial would get a lot of coverage just because of who he was. In the case of Casey Anthony, the attention the media paid to the case made it possible to attract a legal team I don't think she would have been able to afford on her own.

 

[WhoWee]

I wonder how good of a defense she would have had if the case hadn't been so much in the public eye?

In the case of OJ Simpson, you knew he'd have the best legal team possible and the trial would get a lot of coverage just because of who he was. In the case of Casey Anthony, the attention the media paid to the case made it possible to attract a legal team I don't think she would have been able to afford on her own.

I agree - her defense might have been a court appointed lawyer if it weren't for the media coverage.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

They were broadcasting the sentencing on the radio on my way home from work this morning. The defense is currently attempting to mitigate the sentence on the charges of lying to police officers by pointing to a court decision that could indicate the lies all being told in a single interview constitute a single criminal act and the multiple charges violate double jeopardy. The prosecution is arguing that the individual lies may be seen as individual criminal episodes in a single criminal incident and charged as such similar to multiple sex acts committed during a single rape or multiple shots fired when a firearm is illegally discharged.

One way or another it apparently looks as though she will just be credited with time served and released.

 

[BobG]

Four years total (1 year for each count consecutively) minus time served. With time knocked off for good behavior, it looks like she'll be released in a month or less.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-07-07-casey-anthony-trial_n.htm

 

[rhody]

hypathia,

I suspect you are correct, one thing no one has mentioned yet, not that I am the bastion of original thought, could we see a scenario similar to this play itself out in the future, assuming Anthony has another child in the future ? I shudder to think this may happen again, but suspect it may be possible. Is she now destined to live an O.J. Simpson like existence ?

Your thoughts ?

Rhody...

OMG! http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey-anthony-children/story?id=14009375"

On the eve of her sentencing that could set her free for the first time in nearly three years, a look back at Casey Anthony's jailhouse letters show that the 25-year-old may have more children upon her release.

"I had a dream not too long ago that I was pregnant," wrote Casey Anthony in one of more than 50 letters she sent to fellow inmate Robyn Adams between 2008 and 2009 when the two were housed in the Orlando County Jail in Florida.

Say it isn't possible, sadly, it IS... (bangs head against wall)

Rhody...

P.S. And be subject to endless civil lawsuits to recover court costs, etc... eerily similar to O.J.

 

[WatermelonPig]

Pretty disgusting but the jury made the right decision. Unlike in the Chandra Levy trial the decision was not made by emotions but rather by the correct methods.

 

[MATLABdude]

Pretty disgusting but the jury made the right decision. Unlike in the Chandra Levy trial the decision was not made by emotions but rather by the correct methods.

If you're talking about Gary Condit, he was never on trial nor considered a serious suspect by the authorities. He was just crucified in the media by people certain of his guilt, and there are people that to this day assume he was guilty / in prison.

If you're talking about the guy who DID eventually get arrested and sentenced for the murder of Chandra Levy (Ingmar Guandique), the evidence isn't exactly CSI but the aggregate of circumstantial evidence (and informants) seems to be what did him in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra_Levy

Maybe this is a Politics OT, but I find it rich that when you Google for "Gary Condit crucified", the first site that comes up is a Breitbart site excoriating the press for their sensationalism, failure to investigate, and public crucifixion. Then again, maybe he and O'Keefe do what they do as latter-day Kaufmann's?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Something interesting, I think something about it has been posted before. There is believed to be a "CSI Effect" which causes jurors to have unrealistic expectations about forensic evidence and the investigatory abilities of law enforcement.
http://www.forensicscience.net/the-csi-effect

 

[BobG]

Something interesting, I think something about it has been posted before. There is believed to be a "CSI Effect" which causes jurors to have unrealistic expectations about forensic evidence and the investigatory abilities of law enforcement.
http://www.forensicscience.net/the-csi-effect

This is true about most things dealing with technology. In a technological age like ours, that technology should make it easy to do anything perfectly and easily - even design new technology. The heretofore unnamed entity, "Technology", is the new superpower that makes imperfection a sin - especially to the person that barely graduated high school and couldn't begin to understand how this 'magic' is done.

 

[Evo]

Something interesting, I think something about it has been posted before. There is believed to be a "CSI Effect" which causes jurors to have unrealistic expectations about forensic evidence and the investigatory abilities of law enforcement.
http://www.forensicscience.net/the-csi-effect

This is true about most things dealing with technology. In a technological age like ours, that technology should make it easy to do anything perfectly and easily - even design new technology. The heretofore unnamed entity, "Technology", is the new superpower that makes imperfection a sin - especially to the person that barely graduated high school and couldn't begin to understand how this 'magic' is done.

Exactly what I was thinking. What on Earth did the jury expect from the coroner's report?

Thanks to television, people today believe that teams of rogue doctors will illegally invade a patient's home to find evidence for diagnosis, scientists at a museum take bodies from crime scenes back to the museum, do autopsies, bring in suspects for questioning, and arrest the murderer with iron clad evidence.

We have been led to believe that without positive DNA evidence and a dramatic reinactment of the crime, guilt cannot be assigned.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As reported, a jury normally spends one day deliberating for every eight days of trial. Short deliberations generally suggest a conviction. This trial went on for six weeks and the jury aquitted her in ten hours. Both alternate jurors have now spoken publically and agree that the case that CA was the murderer was not made. By all appearances, it was a no-brainer that the prosecution did not make the case - it wasn't even a hard decision if one could remain dispassionate.

I not only applaud but celebrate this jury and what they did. It was a highly emotional case that goes right to the heart of a profound and primitive emotion - the genetically driven need to protect or defend a child. But your don't kill a person based on emotions and the horror of the crime. You don't convict someone of murder for lying. You don't convict based on trial by TV. It still matters if you have the right person and have identified the actual crime. You still have to go beyond reasonable doubt. Nevermind that I no longer support the death penalty. This jury refused to allow wild emotion and a media conviction to bias their judgment. They demanded to see a smoking gun and there was none, so Casey was acquitted. That is how things are supposed to work. Not only was I surprised by this verdict [she sure sounded like she was guilty to me!] but I was struck by a deep sense of pride. There jurors made a terribly difficult choice and they did what was right. They are an example of the best of our justice system.

There is no value in compounding a horrific crime with State-sponsored, emotion-driven murder.

 

[thegreenlaser]

^I agree. The jury did the right thing. As one of the defense lawyers said, "There's nothing that's wrong with Casey Anthony that can't be explained in two words: pathological liar." I think she may be more than that, but I don't think the prosecution demonstrated that beyond a reasonable doubt. All the evidence I've seen, and particularly what people point to for a guilty charge, to me just doesn't prove that she's guilty of murder. Is it screwed up that she didn't report her child's death and instead went out partying? Of course! However, that doesn't prove she murdered her child. Of all the evidence I've heard from this case, I can only believe beyond a reasonable doubt that she has major psychological issues, including pathological lying and a severe lack of emotional attachment to her child, which I wish they could somehow charge her for. (I'm in favour of the idea that there should be a law requiring that a child's death be reported within a certain time frame) I still can easily believe that she did kill her child, and if that is the case, then I'm deeply saddened that the prosecution wasn't able to make a stronger case. I just don't think the case was there, whether she did it or not.

I don't think this is a case of the jury wanting CSI evidence, the evidence presented was just not strong enough to condemn someone to death. The evidence pointed to the fact that she has issues that would give her the capacity to be the murderer, but there was very weak evidence that she was indeed the murderer. If a series of coincidences made me or one of my family members look obviously guilty of a crime, I certainly would want the prosecution to have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt rather than having everyone assume guilt immediately. I'm quite glad that the media and public opinion don't decide court cases.

 

[ideasrule]

Something interesting, I think something about it has been posted before. There is believed to be a "CSI Effect" which causes jurors to have unrealistic expectations about forensic evidence and the investigatory abilities of law enforcement.
http://www.forensicscience.net/the-csi-effect

Interesting article. There's something very ironic about it:

Juries want more and more forensic evidence, but this pressure can lead to incorrect test results. On television, forensic tests always go smoothly. In reality, human error in gathering or analyzing a sample can often result in a false positive.

So when the prosecution says "there's a 1 in 4 billion chance that the DNA match is coincidental", what they actually mean is "there's a 1 in 3 chance that the stupid intern contaminated the crime scene DNA with the reference and made the two match". I'm definitely not saying that DNA evidence should be thrown out, just that it's ironic for a greater demand for evidence to lead to more false positives.

 

[rhody]

Can you say http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/07/okla-woman-says-he-was-attacked-for-looking-like-casey-anthony/1" ?

"I said, 'Oh my God, help me,'" Blackwell tells KOTV's Lacie Lowry. "She hit me again, causing my vehicle to flip two and a half times, landing on the driver's side, and I just laid there playing dead."

Police arrested Shireen Nalley on charges of assault and battery with a deadly weapon, Lowry reports. Nalley tells police she was "trying to save the children."

Rhody...

P.S. Check out the http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:6,s:0&biw=1016&bih=570" ...

 

[WhoWee]

There was a report yesterday that a few people (strangers) have made cash deposits into her jail account to support her.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

There was a report yesterday that a few people (strangers) have made cash deposits into her jail account to support her.

I'm not surprised by anything a "few" people do. Fiction cannot compare to the actual extremes of human thought and behavior. I'm sure there are some lonely males out there who fantasize about being chloroformed, duct-taped and dumped in a swamp by Ms C.A.

EDIT: They would probably want to skip the chloroform part so they could enjoy the experience.

 

[Newai]

There was a report yesterday that a few people (strangers) have made cash deposits into her jail account to support her.

Mostly Bible-toting folk pledging not to judge her, sending money and birthday cards to an accused murderer they've never met.

 

[Pattonias]

Well, now they are sending them to an acquitted women they have never met. Meanwhile armchair juries around the United States have convicted her all on their own. If I was accused of murder, I'm glad I would have a system that would do its best to ensure I received a fair trial and it wouldn't depend on Nancy Grace's conviction (opinion) on national television.

To anyone that would rather send 10 innocent people to jail than let one criminal go free, I hope that you are the very next person to be convicted falsely. To me, that would be a fate worse than death spending the rest of your life in prison for something you did not do. Not to mention that for every one of those innocent people put in prison, a guilty person would go free.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Not to mention that for every one of those innocent people put in prison, a guilty person would go free.

No, that's not what the deal was.

 

[jtbell]

She was released from jail shortly after midnight.

She then walked out of the jail building doors and into a dark-colored sport utility vehicle.

[...]

News helicopters that tracked the SUV showed it head to downtown Orlando and into the parking garage of her lawyer Cheney Mason's office.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/07/16/florida.casey.anthony/index.html

And now there are probably a zilliion telephoto lenses aimed at that building from all angles.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I had to laugh when I heard people saying how she should act and look. "Don't smile. Don't look cocky. Don't look smug. Look like a mother who has lost a child." Some of this was intended for her own protection but much is just hatred.

The fact is that she may be a victim in all of this. Her child is dead. Her life [as she knew it] has been ruined. Three years of her life were spent in prison. Her family is no doubt damaged beyond repair. And she is now deemed by the media to be the most hated woman in America. I don't know what happened here but she was found not guilty; not even of manslaughter, which really suprised me. That anyone would dare to say how she should look or act is pathetic. People need to stop acting as judge and jury. This imo is a big part of the problem we have in politics now: Everyone's an expert! The real experts - in this case, the jury - are despised and hated if their judgment is not in line with the far less informed.

 

[Evo]

I had to laugh when I heard people saying how she should act and look. "Don't smile. Don't look cocky. Don't look smug. Look like a mother who has lost a child." Some of this was intended for her own protection but much is just hatred.

The fact is that she may be a victim in all of this. Her child is dead. Her life [as she knew it] has been ruined. Three years of her life were spent in prison. Her family is no doubt damaged beyond repair. And she is now deemed by the media to be the most hated woman in America. I don't know what happened here but she was found not guilty; not even of manslaughter, which really suprised me. That anyone would dare to say how she should look or act is pathetic. People need to stop acting as judge and jury. This imo is a big part of the problem we have in politics now: Everyone's an expert!

Not being found guilty doesn't mean the person is not guilty. It often means we failed to get the verdict.

The jury made a bad call, if they weren't sure she was guilty, they didn't have to find her not guilty, they could've been hung, leaving it open for a new trial should new evidence, or better presented evidence was provided.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Not being found guilty doesn't mean the person is not guilty. It often means we failed to get the verdict.

The jury made a bad call, if they weren't sure she was guilty, they didn't have to find her not guilty, they could've been hung, leaving it open for a new trial should new evidence, or better presented evidence was provided.

In 1990 Meir Kahane, an Isreali-American activist, was shot to death in front of at least 35 witnesses in New York City. The shooter, El Sayyad Nosair, was arrested very shortly after following a shoot-out with police. There was literally a 'smoking gun'. Nevertheless he was acquitted on the murder charge. The US justice system often gets it wrong, freeing the guilty and imprisoning the truly innocent. No system can be expected to be perfect, but sometimes it's truly bizarre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Sayyid_Nosair

EDIT: And can we ignore the Rodney King fiasco in Los Angeles (1992), where the jury viewed but didn't "see" what everyone else saw on the videotape?

 

[Newai]

I had to laugh when I heard people saying how she should act and look. "Don't smile. Don't look cocky. Don't look smug. Look like a mother who has lost a child." Some of this was intended for her own protection but much is just hatred.

The fact is that she may be a victim in all of this. Her child is dead. Her life [as she knew it] has been ruined. Three years of her life were spent in prison. Her family is no doubt damaged beyond repair. And she is now deemed by the media to be the most hated woman in America. I don't know what happened here but she was found not guilty; not even of manslaughter, which really suprised me. That anyone would dare to say how she should look or act is pathetic. People need to stop acting as judge and jury. This imo is a big part of the problem we have in politics now: Everyone's an expert! The real experts - in this case, the jury - are despised and hated if their judgment is not in line with the far less informed.

re: bold--

And how did that happen?

 

[BobG]

Not being found guilty doesn't mean the person is not guilty. It often means we failed to get the verdict.

The jury made a bad call, if they weren't sure she was guilty, they didn't have to find her not guilty, they could've been hung, leaving it open for a new trial should new evidence, or better presented evidence was provided.

How would that work? Jurors can't vote for a hung verdict. A hung verdict is when some of the jurors vote guilty and some vote not guilty.

I'm not sure how ethical voting guilty just to create a hung jury would be if the juror just wasn't sure the suspect was innocent. How many hung juries before the person goes free? Or do they face trial after trial until they either convince a jury they're innocent or the prosecutor convinces a jury they're guilty? And, if they're held without bail, wouldn't that essentially be a way to imprison people without finding them guilty?

 

[Evo]

How would that work? Jurors can't vote for a hung verdict. A hung verdict is when some of the jurors vote guilty and some vote not guilty.

That's what I'm saying, they didn't have to all agree and that would end in a hung jury. I read that the jury was instructed that in cases of circumstantial evidence that they should create two scenarios and if one scenario the person could be innocent and the other they could be guilty, that they have to vote innocent. But that's misleading, they don't have to all agree one way or another do they? Can't jurors disagree? I'll see if I can find that again, I've read so many articles. With circumstantial evidence wouldn't it always be possible to create one version that doesn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

Found it.

conviction can be based upon circumstantial evidence. In a circumstantial evidence case, the jury will be instructed that the circumstances themselves must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and that if the circumstances are capable of two constructions, one indicating guilt and one indicating innocence, the jury must select the construction indicating innocence. -- Judge O.H. Eaton

Read more: http://www.wesh.com/casey-anthony-extended-coverage/28198391/detail.html#ixzz1SPdiaBqO

 

[Pattonias]

Not being found guilty doesn't mean the person is not guilty. It often means we failed to get the verdict.

The jury made a bad call, if they weren't sure she was guilty, they didn't have to find her not guilty, they could've been hung, leaving it open for a new trial should new evidence, or better presented evidence was provided.

Being found not guilty in our justice system means exactly that, that you are not guilty. You may have committed the crime, but you are not guilty of the crime.

If everyone is so convinced of her guilt, why not take her life yourself instead of relying on a group of your incompetent peers to do the dirty deed for you. At least the trial way justice could be served for you and someone else can worry about living with their unreasonable or reasonable doubts about her innocence.

To avoid these kinds of unpopular verdicts I propose that we implement a text message based voting system to determine guilt. That way we can handle these things in a more efficient matter. We already have the publicly televised, play-by-play trials so really just setting up the server (jury) wouldn't even be the hard part.

The way that the American people have behaved with this trial has actually embarrassed me.
As far as I'm concerned this tragedy is between God, the State, Casey and her family. It should have nothing to do with the American mass that reached a verdict before the trial even started. That is why we as a society and culture have decided that a jury of our peers sequestered from public opinion is trusted with determining guilt.

I think there are still countries where you could get away with mob trials and executions. Maybe we should ask them how we should change our trial system to avoid unpopular trial verdicts.