Casey Anthony Contempt

[Wincrimson]

I'm no Casey Anthony fan; but if I have a gun and three bullets and I just so happen to be locked in a room with her, Jeanine Pirro, Nancy Grace, and Jane Velez-Mitchell, I know the three that better duck.

Just hearing their voices makes me pray for their own abduction.

[GarMan]

I'm proud of you.  I really am!

I don't believe my opinion has ever really changed on this, but I'll still let you purchase my next fix. 

They screwed this up.  She could have been prosecuted on lessor crimes.  I was trying to extract that from the legal experts in this thread from the start, but that didn't go anywhere.  The legal pundits on the news shows identified at least a half dozen other charges that would have resulted in likely convictions putting her away for a while.  They weren't murder or manslaughter charges, but they would have been more appropriate to the evidence. 

[GarMan]

I'm no Casey Anthony fan; but if I have a gun and three bullets and I just so happen to be locked in a room with her, Jeanine Pirro, Nancy Grace, and Jane Velez-Mitchell, I know the three that better duck.

Just hearing their voices makes me pray for their own abduction.

Why waste the lead?  I'd rather beat most of them to death instead. 

[JR4AU]

I don't believe my opinion has ever really changed on this, but I'll still let you purchase my next fix. 

They screwed this up.  She could have been prosecuted on lessor crimes.  I was trying to extract that from the legal experts in this thread from the start, but that didn't go anywhere.  The legal pundits on the news shows identified at least a half dozen other charges that would have resulted in likely convictions putting her away for a while.  They weren't murder or manslaughter charges, but they would have been more appropriate to the evidence.

I believe if you go back, I answered you on the "lesser crimes" issue.  I believe, despite not having evidence of any intentional or reckless killing, they still could have gotten a conviction on Manslaughter.  While it wouldn't have been supported by the evidence, juries are human, and this jury WANTED Casey to pay, but they also were educated by the lawyers and judge on their legal duty, and they did follow that.  In general, juries want to compromise a lot of times.  But, they're rarely willing to compromise the law in order to convict on a capital crime.  Had they been given the opportunity to compromise down, I believe they would have.  That's just a hunch from past experience.  To be honest, and I don't know FL rules of court, but I'm shocked this judge even let it go to the jury on Capital Murder based on the lack of evidence.  But I understand he's pro prosecution. 

People that pop off with tough talk on the internet and such...that's fine.  I've seen Capital juries deliver verdicts on death penalty cases, some very heinous and violent crimes...they still are delivered with tears in many juror's eyes.  It's not natural for most decent people to be responsible for killing another human being, despite how bad that human being is...no juror delivers such a verdict with joy. 

[JR4AU]

Why waste the lead?  I'd rather beat most of them to death instead.

It would be more fun too. 

[Vandy Vol]

I don't believe my opinion has ever really changed on this, but I'll still let you purchase my next fix. 

They screwed this up.  She could have been prosecuted on lessor crimes.  I was trying to extract that from the legal experts in this thread from the start, but that didn't go anywhere.  The legal pundits on the news shows identified at least a half dozen other charges that would have resulted in likely convictions putting her away for a while.  They weren't murder or manslaughter charges, but they would have been more appropriate to the evidence.

She was charged with first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and four counts of providing false information to police.  What other lessor crimes did you want her to be charged with?

[Wincrimson]

[JR4AU]

She was charged with first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and four counts of providing false information to police.  What other lessor crimes did you want her to be charged with?

Manslaughter. 

[GarMan]

She was charged with first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and four counts of providing false information to police.  What other lessor crimes did you want her to be charged with?

Actually, that was my question to the legal experts on the board.  According to the legal pundits on the various news shows, there could have been several other charges including manslaughter, neglect, negligence and quite possibly criminal negligence, although that would have been difficult to prove. 

[Vandy Vol]

Actually, that was my question to the legal experts on the board.  According to the legal pundits on the various news shows, there could have been several other charges including manslaughter, neglect, negligence and quite possibly criminal negligence, although that would have been difficult to prove.

I'm not sure that they would have gotten any of those.  Manslaughter's a long shot because you don't have a cause of death.  Negligence is also a long shot because, if you don't have a cause of death, then you don't know whether negligence was a factor.  Also, you don't know whose negligence it would be, because you don't know when Caylee died and whose supervision she was under at the time.  Pretty much the same with neglect; you have to determine who failed to act.

In all likelihood, the child was with her at most times.  Was she with her at the time of death?  We can't show that she was, so any charge which requires her her to act or fail to act in the presence of her child can't be proven.

[GarMan]

I'm not sure that they would have gotten any of those.  Manslaughter's a long shot because you don't have a cause of death.  Negligence is also a long shot because, if you don't have a cause of death, then you don't know whether negligence was a factor.  Also, you don't know whose negligence it would be, because you don't know when Caylee died and whose supervision she was under at the time.  Pretty much the same with neglect; you have to determine who failed to act.

In all likelihood, the child was with her at most times.  Was she with her at the time of death?  We can't show that she was, so any charge which requires her her to act or fail to act in the presence of her child can't be proven. 

I'm not going to get into this with you.  There are far more experienced legal analysts, former prosecutors and DAs who have commented on the subject.  But to throw some things out there, the last time that Caylee was seen alive was June 16th, 2008, and Casey didn't report her missing until July 15th.  It is also my understanding that death is not necessary to prove neglect, negligence and/or criminal negligence.  Now, I'm done with this... 

[GH2001]

This thread is still going on?

 

[Vandy Vol]

I'm not going to get into this with you.  There are far more experienced legal analysts, former prosecutors and DAs who have commented on the subject.  But to throw some things out there, the last time that Caylee was seen alive was June 16th, 2008, and Casey didn't report her missing until July 15th.  It is also my understanding that death is not necessary to prove neglect, negligence and/or criminal negligence.  Now, I'm done with this...

No, you don't need death to prove neglect or negligence, but you do need proof of neglect or negligence.  The theory in this case would be that Caylee died due to neglect or negligence.  Otherwise, you have no other harm to the child which would prove neglect or negligence.  So when you can't show that a person was in the child's presence, you can't show that they failed to act to prevent their death, or that they carelessly acted and that this resulted in their death.  Without a cause of death, you don't know that the child was neglected and died as a result of this negligence; it could have been an intentional murder by the father, grandparents, or babysitter.

Now, not reporting her missing for 31 days?  It's possible to have charged her with child abandonment under Florida's child neglect statute, but again, with no cause of death or time of death, how do you find her guilty of that?  How do you know that she wasn't communicating with, or attempting to communicate with or find, her daughter during that 31 day period?  What if her daughter was already dead on day 1?  How do you convict someone of neglect against a dead person?

More importantly, you don't have to report a child missing to the police under current law.  This is why Kansas, Maryland, and other states are now looking into creating such a law.  So, as much as it may sound like neglect, under the current wording of Florida law, it isn't.

It sounds simple to say, "Well, if she's not guilty of murder, manslaughter, or abuse, then she has to be guilty of neglect," but that's not how it works.  You can't assume that she did or didn't do something to her daughter, and thus must be guilty of something.

[djsimp]