I think in the end this is what it will come out the reasoning for trying her for murder and the death penalty. They knew they couldn't try her for something less because the public would have been outraged. At least this way they can and the public will probably as well, blame the jury.
uhhhh nooooo It was PROVEN she was at work when those searches took place on the home PC. Not circumstantial. In fact they are considering perjury charges.
Well it's too bad Florida lets a bunch of armchair prosecutors decide how to pursue criminal charges against somebody. This is common sense. Jurors will not send somebody to their death with any doubt. I don't think most would, I know I wouldn't. Say they convicted her, she's executed, and then a few years later something crazy comes out that proves her innocence. A long shot yes, but crazier things have happened. Nobody wants that on their conscience. But if you mistakenly sent somebody to prison for a while because of some strong circumstantial evidence you'll still be able to probably sleep at night.
Perjury for Caseys mother who claimed, in court, to have searched the term chloroform on their home PC. Even though it was proven she was at work during the times the searches took place.
I didn't say it did. All that it means is that she perjured herself when on the stand saying she searched those terms at those times. And of course someone else did.
Interesting, I saw her mother testify when I was down in orlando but I didn't realize they actually proved a lie. Either way a google search was not going to get them their conviction. They should have realized they were screwed when they couldn't prove homicide.
Yes, it was proven. It does not prove Casey murdered anyone. They couldn't prove homicide because they couldn't even prove a cause of death. All they could absolutely prove is Casey repeatedly lying to police.
Correct caseys mother claimed she, NOT Casey, searched the term chloroform on the home pc during her testimony. However its was proven she (Caseys mother) was at work during the times of the searches.
The only real part i find hard to believe is that she was at least not convicted of aggravated child abuse or neglect. I dont know the law in Florida so I cannot say with authority that it should be, but how can the fact that your child is "missing" for 31 days and you tell no one, let only the authorities she is missing not considered neglect? I dont giet that, everything else i understand.
Because the way a trial works, the DA can charge the jury with considering two seperate charges, say aggraveted assault or assualt, what the DA did here was charge Capital Murder or something slightly less serious like Aggravated Manslaughter, aggravated child abuse was not an option for the jury to consider so they could either convict, or acquit, one of the two of the charges she faced.
I agree with that. She either was murdered or died accidentally. Obviously there was a cover up. Guilty of something!
That I also can understand. My question is could the jury ask for another option or are they strictly guided by those pretrial parameters
No i was watching the verdict being read. Charge 1:Murder 1...Charge 2:Aggravated Manslaughter...Charge 3:Aggravated Child Abuse or Neglect. Not guilty on all. Charges 4-8 were guilty, lying to police officials.
They had the option to convict on aggravated child neglect. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ates_in_trial_of_mom_accused_of_killing_.html
She faced child neglect charges too, so you are wrong there. The only thing I can think of why she wasnt guilty on those chargers are, they cant prove in whose care was she hurt or killed, so they cant prove Casey Anthony was suppose to have the child for those 30 days. i dunno.
The prosecution had the hard drive examined by an expert rendering a time line. Caseys mother was witnessed at work by her actions and others.
yes, but she also testified she was on salary and stayed clocked in when she went home for lunch all the time. If thats all they have to prove she was at work, then they've, once again, proven nothing.
yes, but she also testified she was on salary and stayed clocked in when she went home for lunch all the time. If thats all they have to prove she was at work, then they've, once again, proven nothing.
I kind of get that, however it is your child, therefore your ultimate responsibility as a parent, to know ther general whereabouts of your child at all times, and who they are with. IMO. Not the laws I guess though.
Strictly guided by those parameters, the Jury has a lot of power, they can even motion the court to investigate the DA, however all they can consider is what the DA puts in front of them. To semi muddy the waters, a Judge can, at their discretion, also do things such as reduce, or set aside, charges upon a guilty verdict.
She claimed Zanny had her and went on and on about her last name etc...etc Then the defense team admits Zanny never existed. I think the jury was confused, too much information and no real hard evidence.
no offense, but I don't listen to a single thing nancy grace has to say about this trial. shes already overhyped this on a personal agenda, made the entire america hate this girl, when theres no evidence to say, shes anything less then a really ****ty parent. My mom didnt know where I was for a week at a time sometimes because, she was well, a ****ty parent. But I'm still living.
Okay lets say the defense is correct, the child drowned, the cover up snowballed. Casey waits 31 days then calls her child in missing. A huge search is conducted. Monies and resources are used, all the time Casey possibly knows her exact location, she certainly knows she is dead, who pays for that? I say Casey and why not, she will easily be able to afford it, IF she signs some book deal.
how about this article then. http://news.yahoo.com/did-cindy-anthony-negotiate-save-daughter-caseys-life-153642136.html
No offense taken. Nancy Grace like Rush, or any of others, are no more then entertainers, but the facts remain true. Sorry to hear about your childhood.
Well this article is definitely more along the lines of something I would believe. However, It says nothing about anyone confirming Cindy Anthony was at work. Which wouldnt be hard in a hospital. All it says is.. Now, without a person testifying she was there, that evidence wont stick. Cindy was on salary, stayed clocked in, logged in, and while still being logged in, someone simply added to patient records. Its not that far fetched in reality. However, it could be easily disproved with one witness.
I meant, an eye witness....The record keeper simply stated she was clocked in and logged in at the time based on the hospital records.
Ha, yeah she was the quickest search to find what i needed for a link, but I pushed further, just as to not quote that demon.
A few things from the last 100 or so posts: 1) No defendant ever has to testify, and you can surely understand why no matter what the prosecution did Anthony was never getting on the stand. They could have tried harder to make 31 days an issue if she didn't testify. Her testimony would be an engraved invitation to make it a week of the trial about her getting grilled about every detail of every one of those days. There is no way in hell she was ever going to testify. 2) Four misdemeanors is no joke, but surely it will be a time served situation. I'd hope the only reason she hasn't yet been released is because the judge is a formalist who wants a written motion. We have a judge like that here who wants a written motion for anything. 3) If Anthony did tape a chloroform rag around her daughter's head, that's felony child abuse and felony murder. That seems like a very plausible theory to me. She would tape it there because she needed to get the kid knocked out while she got dressed to go out, surely. 4) I don't blame the media for covering this. If the prosecutor felt he needed to swing for this due to the media, he's an idiot. He needs to sack up and do his job instead of worrying about the media. Nancy Grace is annoying as hell, but that's what happens with a free press sometimes. 5) I also don't really blame the gawkers. While I'm used to the low key virtually nobody at court except those who have to be thing, the courtroom used to be where people who came into town went after getting supplies for entertainment. Frankly, I hope people who come out for this type of thing actually learn something while they are there. Ignorance of our system is alarming.
What is your opinion of not guilty of aggravated neglect/abuse? Not being versed in the law like you I dont understand the standard that has to be met, but like her actions should meet the charge. Obviously in the eyes of the jury they did not. Still though I wonder why.
