Casey Anthony Contempt

[JR4AU]

However you want to characterize it to make you feel better, SpunkMonkey.

[Townhallsavoy]

Another question for the lawyers -

If the prosecution hadn't pushed the death penalty, are we looking at a guilty verdict?

BALTIMORE -- Maryland has changed the way it deals with the death penalty in recent years, and a local attorney said the Casey Anthony verdict helps explain why.

A jury in Florida on Tuesday found 25-year-old Casey Anthony not guilty of first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter in the death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, in 2008.

Prosecutors in the case failed to show evidence that would have created a direct link between the defendant and her daughter's death, which is crucial information that's needed to apply the death penalty in Maryland, according to criminal litigator Andrew White, who followed the Anthony trial.

"I think the lesson is don't ask for the ultimate penalty if you don't have the ultimate proof," he said. "In this case here, the fact that they came back so quickly with a not guilty (verdict) shows that the prosecutor missed something."

White said that something could have been showing the jury any conclusive evidence, such as DNA or a confession, that would have linked Anthony to her daughter's death.

He said the verdict reaffirms Maryland's decision to put stricter limits on its death penalty cases.

"Frankly, this is good evidence of why Maryland recently just changed its law in a death case to say you can't prosecute a person for the ultimate crime without DNA or a videotaped confession or some other evidence directly linking the person to the crime," White said.

Read more: http://www.wbaltv.com/news/28459571/detail.html#ixzz1RNjGgEOA

[GarMan]

Casey Anthony Juror: 'I Did Not Say She Was Innocent'
By Amber Goodhand - Radar Reporter

The first juror from the Casey Anthony trial has broken their silence.

We now know that juror number 3 is Jennifer Ford, and she says that acquitting Anthony of the murder charges of her two-year-old daughter Caylee in no way means that she believes Anthony is innocent.

"I did not say she was innocent," Ford said in an interview with ABC News. "I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."

The stunning verdict was delivered Tuesday when the jury of 12 found Anthony, 25, not guilty on charges of first-degree murder, aggravated manslaughter and aggravated child abuse.

"Everyone wonders why we didn't speak to the media right away," Ford said. "It was because we were sick to our stomach to get that verdict. We were crying and not just the women. It was emotional and we weren't ready. We wanted to do it with integrity and not contribute to the sensationalism of the trial."

But despite the emotional toll this trial took on the jury, Ford said they tried to stay positive.

"They picked a great bunch of people, such high integrity," Ford said. "And there was high morale. We all joked. We are like a big group of cousins."

While there's been controversy over Anthony's acquittal, she was found guilty on four counts of lying to law enforcement officers but is expected to be released following her sentencing on Thursday as she's already served nearly three years behind bars.

Ford's full interview will air Wednesday night on ABC World News with Diane Sawyer and ABC's Primetime Nightline.

[JR4AU]

Another question for the lawyers -

If the prosecution hadn't pushed the death penalty, are we looking at a guilty verdict?

I say yes.

[Vandy Vol]

She MADE UP a person.   

If I said Sasquatch borrowed my car and drove it all over your landscaping are you saying I should skate on the charges because you can't prove Sasquatch DIDNT do it?

That's beyond ignorant.

Sasquatch is a tad bit of a hyperbole.  Now Steve?  That's possible.  And when there's no evidence to suggest that you, instead of Steve, did something with your car?  Then yes, that is what we call "reasonable doubt."

Unless, of course, your fingerprints and DNA are all over the car, you don't have an alibi, and eye witnesses place you as the driver of the car.  But, when there's no DNA, no eye witnesses, and no cause of death, you can't go convicting people of murder.  Or manslaughter.  Or criminal negligence that resulted in someone's death.  It just doesn't work that way.

What's ignorant is wanting to convict someone of murder because they partied while their child was missing.  You don't agree with her actions that she makes in the wake of her child's disappearance?  Awesome, but that doesn't affect the fact that there wasn't enough evidence to convict her of murder or manslaughter.  You think she's a big skankopotamus with no conscience?  Great for you, but that's not evidence of her being the cause of her daughter's death.

[Vandy Vol]

Another question for the lawyers -

If the prosecution hadn't pushed the death penalty, are we looking at a guilty verdict?

I say no, at least ideally.  If the jury made their decision based upon the possible punishment, and not the evidence, then their decision was improper.

But, having looked at the evidence (and I will admit that I did not watch the entire trial, but that I've followed it via the news), the ultimate decision of not guilty was the most reasonable choice.  There simply wasn't enough evidence to convict her of what she was charged.  You can't say, "Oh, well, she'll only spend 10 years in prison, so even though I have reasonable doubt based upon the evidence presented, I feel alright sending her to jail for 10 years."  Either the evidence convinces you or it doesn't; the punishment tied to the crime should not affect your decision.

[Kaos]

Sasquatch is a tad bit of a hyperbole.  Now Steve?  That's possible.  And when there's no evidence to suggest that you, instead of Steve, did something with your car?  Then yes, that is what we call "reasonable doubt."

Unless, of course, your fingerprints and DNA are all over the car, you don't have an alibi, and eye witnesses place you as the driver of the car.  But, when there's no DNA, no eye witnesses, and no cause of death, you can't go convicting people of murder.  Or manslaughter.  Or criminal negligence that resulted in someone's death.  It just doesn't work that way.

What's ignorant is wanting to convict someone of murder because they partied while their child was missing.  You don't agree with her actions that she makes in the wake of her child's disappearance?  Awesome, but that doesn't affect the fact that there wasn't enough evidence to convict her of murder or manslaughter.  You think she's a big skankopotamus with no conscience?  Great for you, but that's not evidence of her being the cause of her daughter's death.

Don't care what they convict her of.  Just hope she gets the orangutan herpes and suffers greatly. 

Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean the absence of all doubt. 

She knew where the kid was, she lied about that knowledge. The child was found with its airways taped shut.  She knew where it  was and kept that fact hidden.  If she knew -- and nobody else did -- it stands to reason that she put it there.  Sasquatch didn't.  Neither did Steve. 

Any reasonable person should be able to understand that connection. 

That's enough to convince me that she was in some way responsible for either the death or the disposal of the child.  That's enough to nail her for something.

[Townhallsavoy]

Don't care what they convict her of.  Just hope she gets the orangutan herpes and suffers greatly. 

Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean the absence of all doubt. 

She knew where the kid was, she lied about that knowledge. The child was found with its airways taped shut.  She knew where it  was and kept that fact hidden.  If she knew -- and nobody else did -- it stands to reason that she put it there.  Sasquatch didn't.  Neither did Steve. 

Any reasonable person should be able to understand that connection. 

That's enough to convince me that she was in some way responsible for either the death or the disposal of the child.  That's enough to nail her for something.

Her defense attorney has a message for you:

[Vandy Vol]

She knew where the kid was, she lied about that knowledge. The child was found with its airways taped shut.  She knew where it  was and kept that fact hidden.  If she knew -- and nobody else did -- it stands to reason that she put it there.  Sasquatch didn't.  Neither did Steve.

Maybe I'm missing something here.  Did she tell the police where the body was?  Because I don't recall that, and none of the articles that I can find state that.  So your assumption that she knew where her daughter was is just that:  an assumption.  Without evidence that she knew where her daughter was, you can't go about convicting her of placing her daughter there, much less that she even knew her daughter was there.

[Kaos]

Her defense attorney has a message for you:

I got one for him, too.

[Kaos]

Maybe I'm missing something here.  Did she tell the police where the body was?  Because I don't recall that, and none of the articles that I can find state that.  So your assumption that she knew where her daughter was is just that:  an assumption.  Without evidence that she knew where her daughter was, you can't go about convicting her of placing her daughter there, much less that she even knew her daughter was there.

My only frame of reference is what I read and saw when the verdict came out.  The panel on one of the shows my wife was watching said that.  Went on and on about it.  Could have been Fox, MSNBC or CNN. 

I didn't follow the trial at all. Couldn't have picked her out of a lineup prior to the announcement.

I already convicted her though, so I'm good with it.  She can suck it.   

[djsimp]

To me, one piece of against her is not damning but when you add all this shit together, that bitch was as guilty as anyone. You can't overlook the shit. Again, she may not have had enough evidence against her for lethal injection but common fucking sense nails her ass to the wall.

Side note: the sorry ho has already been offered a deal by Vivid Entertainment to make a porno.

[GarMan]

Side note: the sorry ho has already been offered a deal by Vivid Entertainment to make a porno.

Give her some time...  Either she'll wind up like OJ eventually going to prison for a series of other crimes, or she'll end up dead having OD'd on some really good schit...  Karma is a bitch.

[Townhallsavoy]

[Vandy Vol]

I    you.

[GarMan]

Don't judge! 

[Jumbo]

That's sad but true.

[GH2001]

Couldn't we just end all of the back and forth by admitting that lawyers are the most perfect beings on earth and are never wrong? They are above us in the food chain, why are we even trying as lesser beings. I mean, look how many there are on the Forbes Richest people in the world list.

[JR4AU]

Couldn't we just end all of the back and forth by admitting that lawyers are the most perfect beings on earth and are never wrong? They are above us in the food chain, why are we even trying as lesser beings. I mean, look how many there are on the Forbes Richest people in the world list.

[Snaggletiger]

Couldn't we just end all of the back and forth by admitting that lawyers are the most perfect beings on earth and are never wrong? They are above us in the food chain, why are we even trying as lesser beings. I mean, look how many there are on the Forbes Richest people in the world list.

The thing is that there are 4-5 lawyers that have weighed in on this issue and all say the exact same thing.  If you notice, all of us think she's most likely guilty as hell but are simply saying under our system....good, bad or ugly...the jury did what they should have done.