Casey Anthony Acquitted and Graceless

[BaalChatzaf]

This is a talk show host who is certain that she killed her daughter

He lists here the facts that are not in dispute.

Thanks for the link, Selene.

The trunk of Casey's car had held a dead body at some point, according to forensic analysis. It also had a strand of hair taken (according to forensic analysis) from Caylee's head after (again according to analysis) after she was dead. There was also evidence of the presence of chloroform.

The chloroform evidence would contradict Casey's story that the child drowned in the pool.

Couple that with the Google search for chloroform found on the computer - very incriminating, all that.

Apparently not enough "facts" were brought in evidence to convince twelve jurors. So it was NOT incriminating. The jurors did not give any credence to this "evidence". The only thing that counts as evidence is what is brought up in court and permitted by the judge. Nothing else is evidence. Nothing.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

This is a talk show host who is certain that she killed her daughter

He lists here the facts that are not in dispute.

Thanks for the link, Selene.

The trunk of Casey's car had held a dead body at some point, according to forensic analysis. It also had a strand of hair taken (according to forensic analysis) from Caylee's head after (again according to analysis) after she was dead. There was also evidence of the presence of chloroform.

The chloroform evidence would contradict Casey's story that the child drowned in the pool.

Couple that with the Google search for chloroform found on the computer - very incriminating, all that.

Apparently not enough "facts" were brought in evidence to convince twelve jurors. So it was NOT incriminating. The jurors did not give any credence to this "evidence". The only thing that counts as evidence is what is brought up in court and permitted by the judge. Nothing else is evidence. Nothing.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Did the prosecution present these facts as evidence at trial, or didn't they?

As for juries, they can be quite a problem. Just think of the OJ Simpson case.

[Selene]

http://michaelgraham...ou-be-the-jury/

The trunk of Casey’s car had held a dead body at some point, according to forensic analysis. It also had a strand of hair taken (according to forensic analysis) from Caylee’s head after (again according to analysis) after she was dead. There was also evidence of the presence of chloroform.

The chloroform evidence does not fit Casey's story that the child had drowned in the pool.

Couple that with the internet search for chloroform and it raises a huge red flag:

http://michaelgraham...ou-be-the-jury/

Casey’s computer was repeatedly used to surf websites giving instructions on how to make chloroform.

Angela:

What is very important is the Judge's "charge" to the jury which is proscriptive to an American juror. They must, unless they employ jury nullification, as in the OJ case, follow the Judge's charge. Once you read how he charged this specific jury, you would have to re-evaluate your statements above.

Secondly, the "forensic" evidence was disputed by the defense experts. The strand of hair, alleged to come from the dead body of the child, was disputed as to it's validity.

Finally, there was no DNA, no motive, no witnesses and testimony that the mom's car was not in her possession for a critical four (4) hours on the day the child vanished.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Apparently there were some monkeyshines on that search for chloroform thing.

On TV, Geraldo Rivera has been consistently blasting the "84 searches" accusation (or was it 86?...), saying that it had only been one. I'm not interested enough to look it up, but he must have his reasons for saying it over and over.

He also gives a litany of trumped up accusations levied on the airwaves against Casey Anthony over months that ended up not being true. Note, he doesn't harp on things that had technical problems in terms of evidence. He harps on things that were not even in the ballpark.

There's a reason high standards of evidence exist for court trials.

When the collective mob-beast gets hungry and eyes a target, it wants to eat, period. It isn't too finicky about details or facts.

Michael

[Selene]

Alternate jurer speaks about evidence

Speaking outside his St. Petersburg home, Huekler, 51, said he agreed with the jury's decision.

"The prosecution didn't provide the evidence that was there for any of the charges from first-degree murder down to second-degree murder to the child abuse to even the manslaughter (charge). It just wasn't there," said Huekler. "I would say this is a dysfunctional family that's hurting and because it was so dysfunctional that's the way they dealt with their issues and problems. It's a shame because it was an accident that became a murder scene."

Huekler said there were several issues that he was particularly uncomfortable with.

"The first one was the prosecution never really gave any motive of why Casey would have killed her daughter," said Huekler.

Huekler also said the prosecution didn't really say how Caylee died.

"They didn't give us any type of explanation for that," said Huekler. "So again, they were just not meeting any kind of burden of proof. We had plenty of reasonable doubt."

[Selene]

Transcript of the Judge's charge to the jury.

JUDGE BELVIN PERRY, ORANGE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT:

Your verdict must be based on the evidence and on the law contained in these instructions.

Deciding a verdict is exclusively your job. I cannot participate in that decision in any way. Please disregard anything I may have said or done that makes you think I prefer one verdict over another.

You may find the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment or guilty of such lesser included crimes as the evidence may justify, or not guilty. If you return a verdict of guilty, it should be for the highest offense, which has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If you find no offense has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then of course your verdict must be not guilty.

Only one verdict may be returned as to each crime charged. This verdict must be unanimous. That is, all of you must agree to the same verdict. The verdict must be in writing and for your convenience, and necessary forms of verdicts have been prepared for you.

They are as follows: "Verdict as to count one, first-degree murder, we the jury find the defendant guilty of first-degree murder as charged in the indictment. We the jury find the defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of second-degree murder."

"We the jury find the defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of manslaughter. We the jury find the defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of third-degree felony murder. We the jury find the defendant not guilty. So say we all, dated in Orlando, Orange County, Florida, on this (blank date) of July."

"We have arrived at a decision, your foreperson will execute the verdict form by checking the space adjacent to the statement that reflects your verdict date and sign the verdict form."

"Verdict as to count two, aggravated child abuse: We the jury find the defendant guilty of aggravated child abuse as charged in the indictment. We the jury find the defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of child abuse. We the jury find the defendant not guilty. So say we all, dated in Orlando, Orange County, Florida. "

"Verdict as to count three, aggravated manslaughter of a child: We the jury find the defendant guilty of aggravated manslaughter of a child as charged in the indictment. We the jury find the defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of manslaughter. We the jury find the defendant not guilty. So say we all."

Following that, there is some special findings as to count three.

"Special findings: We the jury find that Casey Marie Anthony was a caregiver for Caylee Marie Anthony at the time of the offense. We the jury find that Casey Marie Anthony was a caregiver for Caylee Marie Anthony at the time of the offense. So say we all, dated Orlando, Orange County, Florida."

"Special finding number two, as to count three: We the jury find that Caylee Marie Anthony was under the age of 18 years of age at the time of the offense. We the jury find that Caylee Marie Anthony was not under 18 years of age at the time of the offense. So say we all, dated in Orlando, Orange County, Florida."

"Verdict as to counts four, five, and six: We the jury find the defendant guilty of providing false information to a law enforcement officer as charged in the indictment. We the jury find the defendant not guilty as four, five, six and seven."

"A separate crime is charged in each count of the indictment, and while they have been tried together, each crime and the evidence applicable to it must be considered separately and a separate verdict returned as to each. A finding of guilty or not guilty as to one crime must not affect your verdict as to the other crime charged."

In just a few moments, you will be taken to the jury room by the court deputy. The first thing you should do is elect a foreperson.

The foreperson presides over your deliberations like a chairman of the meeting. It is the foreperson's job to sign and date the verdict form when all of you have agreed on a verdict in this case.

The foreperson will bring the verdict form back to the courtroom when you return. A verdict finding the defendant either guilty or not guilty must be unanimous, and the verdict must be the verdict of each juror, as well as the jury as a whole.

During deliberations, jurors must communicate about the case only with one another, and only when all jurors are present in the jury room. You are not to communicate with any person outside the jury about this case.

Until you have reached a verdict, you must not talk about this case in person or through the telephone, writing, or electronic communications such as a blog, Twitter, e-mail, text message, or any other means. Do not contact anyone to assist in your deliberations.

These communication rules apply until I discharge you at the end of the case. If you become aware of any violation of these instructions or any other instructions I have given in this case, you must tell me by giving a note to the court deputy. In closing, let me remind you that it is important that you follow the law spelled out in these instructions in deciding your verdict. There are no other laws that apply to this case. Even if you do not like the laws, you must use them.

Correction. Even if you do not like the laws that must be applied, you must use them.

For two centuries we have agreed to a Constitution and to live by the law. No juror has the right to violate rules we all share.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, as you proceed to retire and begin your deliberations, five of your number will separate from you at this time. That will be done back in the jury room, and they will be taken to a separate area where I will give them some additional instructions.

Members of the jury, you may retire now to begin your deliberations.

[Brant Gaede]

He must have said a lot more than this. On TV he kept talking and talking. I had the sound off.

--Brant

[Selene]

He must have said a lot more than this. On TV he kept talking and talking. I had the sound off.

--Brant

Brant:

I thought so also. I did not watch any of this trial, but there was a lot of chatter today about the Judge's charge to the jury and this is all I have found.

Adam

[Selene]

One of the 12 jurors speaks out - sick to stomach to vote for acquittal

"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."

[Xray]

Secondly, the "forensic" evidence was disputed by the defense experts. The strand of hair, alleged to come from the dead body of the child, was disputed as to it's validity.

It is common practice for the defense to dispute the validity of the prosecution's forensic evdidence. If for example, forensic evidence was sloppily handled by those who collected it, or contaminated in the lab, the defense will use it to their client's advantage.

What exactly was the defense's version of events? For if they went as far as to concede that the dead body had been transported in the car, hair from Caylee who was already dead would be consistent with that version. But maybe the obstacle was the chloroform evidence (not fitting the defense's version), and since they did not want to undercut their own version, the defense probably saw no other way than to dispute the hair evidence.

This was obviously a case where the suspect changed her story several times as the accumulating evidence kept contradicting her previous versions.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anthony_trial/casey-anthony-juror-sick-stomach-guilty-verdict/story?id=14005609

The prosecution was hampered by the fact that Caylee Anthony's body wasn't discovered until six months after she disappeared. She was found lying in a swampy, wooded area. Her body was so badly decomposed that the autopsy could not determine a cause of death and stated only that she was a victim of homicide by undetermined means.

But if Caylee's body was so badly decomposed, how can it be stated that she was a victim of homicide? Was this inferred from duct tape found on the body? Theoretically, this could be part of a staged scene.

It looks like the defense's tactic worked: Instead of attempting in vain to attack all the incriminating evidence, they succesfully built the indisputable parts into their version of events.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Xray

[Selene]

Angela:

The point that the few jurors who have come forward made was that the DA provided NO cause of death. The juror said that they did not even try to give them one. Therefore, she said, how can you find someone guilty of a crime when you do not know how the child even died!

The DA's attempts to link the child's body to the car used a "forensic technique" that had never been used in any case in Florida. It was a completely new forensic theorem that was tried in this case.

One of the "stories" that the accused used was that the child accidentally drowned and they attempted to make it look like a murder. Hence the duct tape, etc.

Adam

[Greybird]

It's all over the news everywhere, so there is no real gain in posting links. The jury found Casey Anthony innocent of everything except lying to the authorities. [...]

No, it did not.

The jury found Casey Anthony not guilty of everything except lying to the authorities.

The difference is not semantic. Anthony had no need to prove anything, nor even to offer a defense. She was presumed innocent. The prosecution's responsibility was to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It did not succeed.

I suppose some of us will always have to keep going back to offer reminders of these distinctions.

That some Americans do not grasp this — nor that one may not be "twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" (Fifth Amendment), meaning that not-guilty verdicts may not be appealed — is part of what is wrong with the collective level of rationality in this country.

[BaalChatzaf]

It's all over the news everywhere, so there is no real gain in posting links. The jury found Casey Anthony innocent of everything except lying to the authorities. [...]

No, it did not.

The jury found Casey Anthony not guilty of everything except lying to the authorities.

The difference is not semantic. Anthony had no need to prove anything, nor even to offer a defense. She was presumed innocent. The prosecution's responsibility was to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It did not succeed.

I suppose some of us will always have to keep going back to offer reminders of these distinctions.

That some Americans do not grasp this — nor that one may not be "twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" (Fifth Amendment), meaning that not-guilty verdicts may not be appealed — is part of what is wrong with the collective level of rationality in this country.

Thank you sir. Only God and the perpetrator know who did it. The rest of us judge cases and evidence. The jury renders a judgement on how well the prosecution made its case for the charge lodged against the defendant. In the U.S. the rule is to prove the charge -beyond a reasonable doubt-. The prosecution did not even show a cause of death yet they thought they had a case of capital murder. Question: How did the Grand Jury ever bring a true bill in this instance? It beats me.

Ba'al Chazaf

[Selene]

The jury found Casey Anthony not guilty of everything except lying to the authorities.

The difference is not semantic. Anthony had no need to prove anything, nor even to offer a defense. She was presumed innocent. The prosecution's responsibility was to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It did not succeed.

I suppose some of us will always have to keep going back to offer reminders of these distinctions.

That some Americans do not grasp this — nor that one may not be "twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" (Fifth Amendment), meaning that not-guilty verdicts may not be appealed — is part of what is wrong with the collective level of rationality in this country.

Steve:

Quite correct. It is an important distinction to make. I should have made that point.

Thanks

Adam

[sjw]

It's all over the news everywhere, so there is no real gain in posting links. The jury found Casey Anthony innocent of everything except lying to the authorities. [...]

No, it did not.

The jury found Casey Anthony not guilty of everything except lying to the authorities.

The difference is not semantic. Anthony had no need to prove anything, nor even to offer a defense. She was presumed innocent. The prosecution's responsibility was to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It did not succeed.

I suppose some of us will always have to keep going back to offer reminders of these distinctions.

That some Americans do not grasp this — nor that one may not be "twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" (Fifth Amendment), meaning that not-guilty verdicts may not be appealed — is part of what is wrong with the collective level of rationality in this country.

Indeed.

Shayne

[Greybird]

Transcript of the judge's charge to the jury:

[...] Even if you do not like the laws that must be applied, you must use them.

This, too, is not correct.

Jurors have had the common-law right ever since Magna Carta to judge not only the facts of the case but the propriety of the law applied to the case, and to acquit the accused on either basis.

The judge is lying through his teeth about this. Yet as some have taken pains (and sometimes been imprisoned) in pointing out, that is nothing new.

In a matter of murder, where few have qualms about the propriety of the laws defining and punishing it, few bother to bring this power of the jury to the forefront.

Where the laws punish private, consensual behavior, however, such as with alcohol or drug prohibitions, it frequently arises. If only in the attorneys rejecting any potential juror with the courage to note his or her possession of this eight-centuries-old legal (and, demonstrably, moral) right.

Again, so many Americans have become moral sheep that reminders become necessary.

[caroljane]

It's all over the news everywhere, so there is no real gain in posting links. The jury found Casey Anthony innocent of everything except lying to the authorities. [...]

No, it did not.

The jury found Casey Anthony not guilty of everything except lying to the authorities.

The difference is not semantic. Anthony had no need to prove anything, nor even to offer a defense. She was presumed innocent. The prosecution's responsibility was to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It did not succeed.

I suppose some of us will always have to keep going back to offer reminders of these distinctions.

That some Americans do not grasp this — nor that one may not be "twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" (Fifth Amendment), meaning that not-guilty verdicts may not be appealed — is part of what is wrong with the collective level of rationality in this country.

The double jeopardy rule has always seemed completely senseless to me. Why should a crime go unredressed, just because crucial evidence had not been found at the time the accused were getting their speedy trial?

[sjw]

The double jeopardy rule has always seemed completely senseless to me. Why should a crime go unredressed, just because crucial evidence had not been found at the time the accused were getting their speedy trial?

You have obviously a. never been brought to trial b. never learned how to think about what it must be like to be in someone else's shoes.

Shayne

Edited July 8, 2011 by sjw

[Greybird]

The double-jeopardy rule has always seemed completely senseless to me. Why should a crime go unredressed, just because crucial evidence had not been found at the time the accused were getting their speedy trial?

Because otherwise, trials could be repeated indefinitely until the prosecutors' desired guilty verdict came in. That was a pronounced abuse of the British legal system which many were determined to not allow on this continent.

That the prosecution has one shot at proving the case is a safeguard against such abuse. So, also, is the requirement for a grand-jury indictment, vetting the evidence before a criminal matter even proceeds to trial. The requirement for bail to not be "unreasonable" is another such check — reducing imprisonment in advance of a verdict, which would become an injustice upon an acquittal.

Such interlocking checks are routinely abused, of course, despite the theory. Especially in prosecutors misleading and manipulating grand-jury proceedings. And in their browbeating accused parties into plea agreements, as is done in three out of four criminal cases. Nonetheless, the standards still exist and, with enough of a spotlight, do end up being followed.

[Selene]

Steve:

Correct.

When I was twenty-one (21), I received my first call for jury duty. I went to the County Clerk and they gave me a form to fill out. I refused to answer a few questions on certain grounds, including Constitutional grounds.

What followed was hilarious. The clerk said, "You cannot refuse to answer these questions!" I calmly replied, "Well, I have refused." He then told me to go to the office of the Assistant District Attorney. I was called into his rather plush office.

He sat, pompously. behind his large oak desk and said, so you are refusing to answer questions x, y and z. Yes, I answered. Now, I had hair down to my shoulders, a mustache and goatee and was dressed neatly casual. He looked at one of the questions and said, so which laws could you not render objective judgment on...drug laws...he assumed I was a left wing hippie. I answered, "Essentially, tax avoidance or evasion, gun possession and conscription refusal, but now that you mention it, I would put drug laws in that category also."

He then said, surprisingly, what do you do for a living and I explained that I taught rhetoric and legal argumentation at one of the City Universities. He scribbled something on the file, closed it and said don't worry, you'll never be called.

And I never have.

He also said that he admired my stance.

Adam

[jriggenbach]

The double-jeopardy rule has always seemed completely senseless to me. Why should a crime go unredressed, just because crucial evidence had not been found at the time the accused were getting their speedy trial?

Because otherwise, trials could be repeated indefinitely until the prosecutors' desired guilty verdict came in.

Just as they can be in Canada.

JR

[Brant Gaede]

The double-jeopardy rule has always seemed completely senseless to me. Why should a crime go unredressed, just because crucial evidence had not been found at the time the accused were getting their speedy trial?

Because otherwise, trials could be repeated indefinitely until the prosecutors' desired guilty verdict came in.

Just as they can be in Canada.

JR

No shit! Didn't know that. Wikipedia says an acquittal can be changed to a conviction by an appeals court and that would be considered a continuation of the original trial, thus not double jeopardy. It also states that a retrial on the original charge is also not considered double jeopardy because the retrial is considered to be annulment of the original trial.

--Brant

God bless America!--Home of The Warring Warriors!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think the distinction between innocent and not guilty is a lot of semantic baloney people say to sound like they are saying something.

They are synonyms under the law, fer Keriiiisakes.

Being innocent of a charge is identical to being not guilty of a charge. They are both the opposite of being guilty of a charge.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I think the distinction between innocent and not guilty is a lot of semantic baloney people say to sound like they are saying something.

They are synonyms under the law, fer Keriiiisakes.

Being innocent of a charge is identical to being not guilty of a charge. They are both the opposite of being guilty of a charge.

Michael

She was found innocent de facto and not guilty de jure.

--Brant

quibble

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

The best I can tell, people try to make precisely that distinction as they criticize those who use the common-sense synonyms.

But they mix systems up--government and reality, i.e., politics and metaphysics--in a confused mishmash. (Rand had a cute name for doing this--stolen concept.)

Since when does a jury get to judge anything except guilt or innocence under the law?

They don't get to judge metaphysics. That's not the government's role.

Michael