NBC: Jury has reached a verdict in Casey Anthony trial [NOT GUILTY]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Destino

That would make sense if they had any actual evidence of anything. .

---

Somebody killed Caylee Anthony.

http://www.clickorlando.com/download...4/26984466.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lombardi's_kid_brother

Exactly how high are you at this moment?

---

Best post of the day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Popeman38

And she was tried, convicted and sentenced for these lies. She served more time for lying than most serve for a first time felony.

---

As a felon (gasp! I've shared my story before. Don't know it? PM me or do a search) this is completely true. Not just in my case where she beat me 3 to 1 (if we're not counting house arrest), but probably a majority of those I've met. I can't recall seeing anyone ever get the max sentence on a misdemeanor charge. "Up to 1 year in jail" normally equals 2 years probation or some other such thing.

Not sure if anyone posted a link to this Youtube video or not... and I'm not about to go through 50 pages to find out, but I highly recommend you go on youtube and search for: Angry Grandpa hates Casey Anthony....

I would post a link but youtube is blocked at work... anyway, it's hilarious!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G.A.C.O.L.B.

As a felon (gasp! I've shared my story before. Don't know it? PM me or do a search) this is completely true. Not just in my case where she beat me 3 to 1 (if we're not counting house arrest), but probably a majority of those I've met. I can't recall seeing anyone ever get the max sentence on a misdemeanor charge. "Up to 1 year in jail" normally equals 2 years probation or some other such thing.

---

It seems logical that the judge would take into consideration the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the lies. A person convicted of, say, lying to investigators about witnessing a shoplifting incident should get a lighter sentence than someone whose lies to police hindered an investigation into a missing child who turned up dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan T.

Somebody killed Caylee Anthony.

http://www.clickorlando.com/download...4/26984466.pdf

---

How? When? Where? Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Destino

How? When? Where? Why?

---

I'm pretty sure Casey Anthony was involved. Given everything we know about the case and her actions, there is really no other logical explanation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lombardi's_kid_brother

Who is going to risk the death penalty because they are so very very angry?

---

This guy:

http://www.studiodaily.com/blog/wp-c...atman_imax.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan T.

Nope. She'll be free to search for the real killer.

---

She will also be free to make more babies. God forbid she does, although rumor has it she will try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan T.

Well, it's probably a duck.
You can't prove that. There's reasonable doubt.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chachie

I'm with you, Dan. Justice needs a See-and-Say.

---

:ols:

OJ did it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan T.

It seems logical that the judge would take into consideration the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the lies. A person convicted of, say, lying to investigators about witnessing a shoplifting incident should get a lighter sentence than someone whose lies to police hindered an investigation into a missing child who turned up dead.

---

Yes, I understand sentencing quite well.

I actually lucked out in that department myself. There used to be sentencing guidelines that federal judges couldn't deviate from. It was some whole system where you got points for certain things, lost points for other things, and then however many points you ended up with placed you somewhere within the guidelines. Between my arrest and sentencing, the Supreme Court ruled that they be advisory and not mandatory. So my judge--God bless him--was able to take into account the whole picture--first time, ex-military, college student, etc--and cut me a deal. As my lawyer said, "He's doing things that no other judges are doing."

Since then, from what I understand, the Supreme Court has cut down on the guidelines even further:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...WwT_story.html

And thank God for that. Horrible, horrible system.

The DA's office had nothing to do with the original charges in the arrest warrant: that came from a grand jury, and they only hear the prosecution side of the story at that point. So CA is arrested for 1st degree murder and all the rest of the charges. That said, the prosecution has the discretion to plea bargain down the charges. We won't know if there was any plea bargaining in this case. Jeff Ashton won't say. So the prosecution put on their case. They had an uphill battle because there was almost no forensic evidence due to the lenght of time between Caylee's disapearance and the time her skeleton was found.

I also think that because of shows like CSI etc. that most people think that all sorts of things can be found out, when in real life, technology just isn't there...yet. We've made great strides etc. But the jury ignored dog sniffing evidence (which is certainly reliable because of drug searches, dead people searches, live people searches etc.), actual humans who had experience smelling dead bodies and so on. So there was a lot there.

We will never know the truth about what happened to Caylee. If Casey and her family EVER say anything, how could it be believed due to the whole family lying?

We have a system of jurisprudence and it works most of the time. A lot of us don't think it did in this case, but we must accept it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadySkinsFan

We will never know the truth about what happened to Caylee. If Casey and her family EVER say anything, how could it be believed due to the whole family lying?

---

If there is a flaw in the criminal justice system, it's that it's not very good at dealing with a situation where you have several suspects and all point the figure at someone else. If we later found out that any member of that family committed the crime, I would not be surprised.

When that happens, the court room turns into a bad detective novel where there are four or five plausible suspects and the revelation of guilt is completely arbitrary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadySkinsFan

I also think that because of shows like CSI etc. that most people think that all sorts of things can be found out, when in real life, technology just isn't there...yet. We've made great strides etc. But the jury ignored dog sniffing evidence (which is certainly reliable because of drug searches, dead people searches, live people searches etc.), actual humans who had experience smelling dead bodies and so on. So there was a lot there.

---

I keep reading stuff like this, and it bothers me. Just because a not guilty verdict was returned doesn't mean the jury ignored anything. It means that they didn't weight that evidence as heavily as you or the prosecution did, but it doesn't mean the jury ignored it. So many people think that because the jury reached a different conclusion than they did that the jury "did it wrong". And it is getting irritating.

What do you guys think would have happened if it was determined caylee died do to a fractured neck and chloroform was found in her system? Would the verdict have been different? Or would it have not mattered bc they weren't able to tie the google searches to anybody?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stoney26

What do you guys think would have happened if it was determined caylee died do to a fractured neck and chloroform was found in her system? Would the verdict have been different? Or would it have not mattered bc they weren't able to tie the google searches to anybody?

---

If the ME had been able to definitively stated how Caylee died, the Prosecutions job would have been twice as easy.

Quote:

---

What do you guys think would have happened if it was determined caylee died do to a fractured neck and chloroform was found in her system? Would the verdict have been different? Or would it have not mattered bc they weren't able to tie the google searches to anybody?

---

This hypothetical situation would have closed the loop enough to get a conviction. This is the kind of evidence that was totally absent and unfortunately left room for doubt.