Casey Anthony Trial - What Happened?

All this talk about Nancy Grace reminded me I had to change the litter box.

...

Earlier this evening, on one of those TV lawyer "news" programs, one of the guests was asked "Was she aquitted because she was a celebrity?". The guest said, "She wasn't a celebrity until the media MADE her a celebrity." The host said, "We just give the public what it wants.", and changed the subject.

I wonder who the next dead kid will be that will get the TV Lawyer's attention for the next couple of years.
 
I'm offended neither by this trial nor its result. As a prosecutor, you have an obligation to evaluate cases from a perspective of what is "right."

Considering the evidence - and circumstantial evidence can, frankly, be just as strong as direct evidence - the State had a case. The jury didn't buy it. Our criminal justice system worked exactly as it should have; it would have been absurd not to try this case.

Simply because one is acquitted does not mean that a trial was unwarranted, and simply because one is convicted doesn't mean that a trial was warranted.
 
Last edited:
The case was a purely circumstantial case. That said you can convict solely on circumstantial evidence and as far as circumstantial cases go this was a pretty strong one. The defendant's behavior was so bizarre that she truly was her worst enemy. Her pathological lies were pretty damming. I thought the defense attorney with the beard and gray hair was fantastic as was The Prosecutor Ashton.

I disagree that the case was like the Duke Lacrosse Case ( a horrible miscarriage of justice) in that the prosecutor in that case acted horribly inappropriate IMHO. I think the Anthony case was a reasonable one to prosecute.

I am happy to see Nancy Grace universally panned here. I will turn the channel if I see her as a commentator.
 
AdamZ said:
The case was a purely circumstantial case. That said you can convict solely on circumstantial evidence and as far as circumstantial cases go this was a pretty strong one. The defendant's behavior was so bizarre that she truly was her worst enemy. Her pathological lies were pretty damming. I thought the defense attorney with the beard and gray hair was fantastic as was The Prosecutor Ashton.

I disagree that the case was like the Duke Lacrosse Case ( a horrible miscarriage of justice) in that the prosecutor in that case acted horribly inappropriate IMHO. I think the Anthony case was a reasonable one to prosecute.

I am happy to see Nancy Grace universally panned here. I will turn the channel if I see her as a commentator.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Esp. as to the bold.

Of course, the ratings are what speak the loudest - both as to: 1) the continued existence of that kind of "media;" and 2) what our families, friends, and neighbors want.
 
Aah, Nancy Grace.

Earlier she was shrieking (does she do anything else?) and going down the juror's list, impeaching them one by one. "This juror did this and that juror did that, etc." Listening to her, it was obvious that all 12 jurors were incompetent boobs.

Uh, Nancy, you're the one who wrapped youself in a "Guilty" prediction, and kept fanning those flames (almost certainly because it drove ratings). You were wrong. The evidence wasn't there regardless of how long and hard you rant about it.
 
kyleb said:
Aah, Nancy Grace.

Earlier she was shrieking (does she do anything else?) and going down the juror's list, impeaching them one by one. "This juror did this and that juror did that, etc." Listening to her, it was obvious that all 12 jurors were incompetent boobs.

Uh, Nancy, you're the one who wrapped youself in a "Guilty" prediction, and kept fanning those flames (almost certainly because it drove ratings). You were wrong. The evidence wasn't there regardless of how long and hard you rant about it.
Click to expand...

It is called trial by media, thank God it doesn't carry much weight.

Nancy Grace is a sensationalist as is 99% of the talking heads, in one manner or the other.
 
So are there any circumstances in which a person can be tried again for murder?
Even new, damning evidence? A confession? Nothing?
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
So are there any circumstances in which a person can be tried again for murder?
Even new, damning evidence? A confession? Nothing?
Click to expand...

In some cases folks can be tried and acquitted in State Court but then later tried in Federal Court for Federal Crimes such as for a violation of the persons Civil Rights. This has happened in racial killings dating back to the 1960s.
 
It's sad when "many innocent little 3 yr old children "loose" their lives. But at least, there is a future to tighten up said lives. But when 3 yr old children lose their lives there'll be no tomorrow for them. That's more than just sad.

:O)
 
I think Boston Legal had Nancy Grace pretty well pegged as Grace Janie!
 
There could also be a civil suit, but who would bring it?
 
AdamZ said:
In some cases folks can be tried and acquitted in State Court but then later tried in Federal Court for Federal Crimes such as for a violation of the persons Civil Rights. This has happened in racial killings dating back to the 1960s.
Click to expand...

Right, tried for a different crime.
Maybe her parents will bring a civil suit on.
 
I don't know if she did it or not, but If I get in trouble.. I want her Lawyer or OJ simpsons Lawyer...
Click to expand...

Digging up his corpse before a trial would probably help you avoid prison if not the psych hospital.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Considering the evidence - and circumstantial evidence can, frankly, be just as strong as direct evidence - the State had a case. The jury didn't buy it. Our criminal justice system worked exactly as it should have; it would have been absurd not to try this case.
Click to expand...

They had evidence that the kid was dead, probably died as result of a homicide and they had evidence that the mom had something to do with it. They had very little towards all the other elements of what they charged her with.
 
rottydaddy said:
I actually don't know a whole lot about Nancy Grace, except that she is so strident I can barely listen for more than a minute. She makes Wolf Blitzer sound like Garrison Keillor.
Click to expand...

Neither do I. Until now. With this video compilation. And it's all I need to know to stay away from that program. She must (sadly) make CNN money, because I can't see any other reason they'd keep her.

 
weilke said:
They had evidence that the kid was dead, probably died as result of a homicide and they had evidence that the mom had something to do with it. They had very little towards all the other elements of what they charged her with.
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound like "beyond a reasonable doubt" to me.
 
I'd really like to see us follow the British custom regarding trials and the press. I believe it works like this.

XYZ is arrested and charged with a crime
The press gets to report that XYZ is arrested and charged with a crime. Then they have to STFU until the trial is over, at which point they can report the verdict.

Criminal proceedings should NOT be a source of entertainment.
 
TMetzinger said:
I'd really like to see us follow the British custom regarding trials and the press. I believe it works like this.

XYZ is arrested and charged with a crime
The press gets to report that XYZ is arrested and charged with a crime. Then they have to STFU until the trial is over, at which point they can report the verdict.

Criminal proceedings should NOT be a source of entertainment.
Click to expand...

+1 for me.
 
Murder conviction on purely circumstantial evidence is not new. There was a local case here a few years ago about Scott Peterson, a fertilizer salesman in the California central valley who's wife went missing in December and turned up several months later in the San Francisco bay. He was tried and convicted of her murder solely on circumstantial evidence.

The case had national attention so some people may be familiar with it. In my opinion, the evidence in that case was fairly weak and I couldn't have convicted Scott Peterson as a juror based on the evidence that was made public and in fact the timeline of her disappearance, the arrest of Scott Peterson and the discovery of the body just didn't add up. In this particular case however (Casey Anthony), the evidence appeared pretty damning to me.
 
TMetzinger said:
I'd really like to see us follow the British custom regarding trials and the press. I believe it works like this.

XYZ is arrested and charged with a crime
The press gets to report that XYZ is arrested and charged with a crime. Then they have to STFU until the trial is over, at which point they can report the verdict.

Criminal proceedings should NOT be a source of entertainment.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
The British system, as you described, is obsolete. What's the difference between "the press" and us on this forum? A blogger? These days, not much. If my mistress was arrested on what I considered false charges, if they arrested her with a SWAT raid of her apartment and shot her dog, I would want to post about it in forums, to blog about it. Those posts would be exactly akin to olde time newspaper articles or video clips. If I can make them, an olde time newspaper/television news should be allowed to as well. If I can't...to hell with that.

A far better arrangement would be to make CNN pay for the value received. CNN turns defendants into entertainers, for profit, so CNN should pay those entertainers at least scale. Far more in cases like this. I think if CNN had to write a big check to their previously free talent they would be a lot more circumspect in how they reported things.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Murder conviction on purely circumstantial evidence is not new. There was a local case here a few years ago about Scott Peterson, a fertilizer salesman in the California central valley who's wife went missing in December and turned up several months later in the San Francisco bay. He was tried and convicted of her murder solely on circumstantial evidence.
Click to expand...

This guy:
http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/2009/06/richard-grissom-jr-20-years-later.html

http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2010/may/07/former-prosecutor-recalls-grissom-case/

was convicted on 3 counts of murder, the victims simply vanished. They've never been found. KS didn't have the death penalty in effect at the time, so he was given the "hard 40", three consecutive terms.

Thing is, if he hadn't been in jail for killing an 80-something year old lady, he and I would have been in the same high school class.
 
ziege said:
The British system, as you described, is obsolete. What's the difference between "the press" and us on this forum? A blogger? These days, not much. If my mistress was arrested on what I considered false charges, if they arrested her with a SWAT raid of her apartment and shot her dog, I would want to post about it in forums, to blog about it. Those posts would be exactly akin to olde time newspaper articles or video clips. If I can make them, an olde time newspaper/television news should be allowed to as well. If I can't...to hell with that.
Click to expand...

Well, none of the evidence would be made public, for one thing, which would limit the distribution of the kind of things that make for entertainment and poison a jury pool.

As far as forums like this and bloggers go, forums are more along the lines of neighborhood gossip. Bloggers are sort of blurry, but since one must opt in to a blog, and it's so-far clear that blogs are opinion and not "news", then I don't think there's a need to gag them. But perhaps the gag order should apply to commercial usage.

I like your idea of making the outlets pay for use of defendant images. I don't think that being accused of a crime makes you a "public figure" the way being elected to office or being an entertainment celebrity might.
 
TMetzinger said:
I'd really like to see us follow the British custom regarding trials and the press. I believe it works like this.

XYZ is arrested and charged with a crime
The press gets to report that XYZ is arrested and charged with a crime. Then they have to STFU until the trial is over, at which point they can report the verdict.
Click to expand...

You mean the british press like 'News of the World' that went out, hacked into the cellphone of an abducted girl and deleted voicemails, throwing off the police investigation ?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...nvestigation/2011/07/06/gIQAewFV0H_story.html
 
JeffDG said:
That doesn't sound like "beyond a reasonable doubt" to me.
Click to expand...

In order to bring an indictment, you dont need 'beyond reasonable doubt'. You only need it for a conviction.
 
Matthew said:
This guy:
http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/2009/06/richard-grissom-jr-20-years-later.html

http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2010/may/07/former-prosecutor-recalls-grissom-case/

was convicted on 3 counts of murder, the victims simply vanished. They've never been found. KS didn't have the death penalty in effect at the time, so he was given the "hard 40", three consecutive terms.

Thing is, if he hadn't been in jail for killing an 80-something year old lady, he and I would have been in the same high school class.
Click to expand...

Had one like that localy too, no solid evedence the woman was dead but her murderer is lockd up
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Neither do I. Until now. With this video compilation. And it's all I need to know to stay away from that program. She must (sadly) make CNN money, because I can't see any other reason they'd keep her.

Click to expand...

I just thew up in my mouth a little bit.:loco:
 
AdamZ said:
The grandparents don't have standing to bring such a suit.
Click to expand...

I would think only the estate of the child would have standing for a wrongful death suit, and being that her mother is the next-of-kin, such a suit would be highly unlikely from that quarter. Although if she has lots of liability insurance...

The child's father on the other hand might have standing. I would presume the child died in testate, so her closest relatives would be joint heirs to her estate...:idea:
 
The grandparents don't have standing to bring such a suit.
Click to expand...

And anyway it's probably the last thing the grandparents want. I bet they are hoping the whole thing disappears, especially since there are people saying the prosecutors should charge the grandfather with murdering his granddaughter now. No trouble with double jeopardy there. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top