Casey Anthony Acquitted Of Murder Charge

I wonder, are Chucky and co able to look at this?



They should be - they were all excited at the thought of being able to watch a woman dying like that.

That woman was Ruth Snyder; hers was one of the quicker deaths - nothing went too wrong, so she didn't actually burn to death.

I expect that would have disappointed Chucky and co, as they clearly get off on the suffering of other people, and are none too fussy about the law, or justice, or any of that boring stuff.

bb1 wrote:This is interesting, from the pretendy 'profiler'

ProfilerPatB PAT BROWN
The #Casey #Anthony jurors had no education or experience for the job. Send me into surgery tomorrow and I am going to kill the patient.
7 Jul

See, there she does it again - sterotyping and pitchforking the jurors this time.

In reality, they were generally middle-aged +, with ample life experience and real qualifications.

And they applied the law to the letter.

But because they came to a very different conclusion than the 'profiler', she is now hurling insults at them.

Not very professional, is she?

The Prosecutor insisting it was a death penalty case, set the level for the jury's burden of proof way too high.
Everything has to be proved beyond a shadow of doubt. Especially when the defendant's life is at stake.
The prosecutor's case was built solely on circumstantial evidence which left the jury no choice but to acquit.

You've explained it perfectly, Tony. Personally, it doesn't sit well with me that no-one will be called to account for this little girl's life - but to me, the responsibility for that rests with the prosecutors.

I recall a US political campaign which involved people asking, Where's the meat?

The prosecution case reminded me of that; I didn't see one piece of conclusive evidence.

I thought that was what it is all about. A Jury of Peers. That is precisely what they were.
They ruled that there was No Evidence to meet the Charges, because there wasn't.

Everybody despises Nancy Grace and Pat Brown. They all laugh about these two on American Forums, or at least they were doing until The Verdict. It will be interesting to see how keen these two are to pronounce again.

You know what makes me really, really, angry, Sabot? It's the Nancy Graces, the 'profilers', the pitchforkers.

They are the absolute enemies of real Justice.

Thanks to them and the prosecution caring more about ratings than the law, thanks to the pitchforkers and the media whores, no-one is ever going to be held responsible for that child's death.

I am in awe of the jurors, that they ignored all the hoopla, and stuck to the law of Florida, and the US - it cannot have been easy. But they did.

IMO. the responsibility for this mess lies with the prosecutors, and their followers; if they could not prove their case, they should never have brought it to begin with. I can only assume they thought ratings for Nancy Grace were more important than boring old law.

My faith in Justice has been restored in the last few days, Bonny. The pitch forkers didn't win this one, no matter how hard they tried.
But then they didn't win with The McCanns either. Their comments these days are just plain boring. We have heard it all before, too many times to mention. And now they just sound spiteful and deranged.

All is not lost.

Sabot wrote:I thought that was what it is all about. A Jury of Peers. That is precisely what they were.
They ruled that there was No Evidence to meet the Charges, because there wasn't.

Everybody despises Nancy Grace and Pat Brown. They all laugh about these two on American Forums, or at least they were doing until The Verdict. It will be interesting to see how keen these two are to pronounce again.

Many a case here Sabot has been convicted on circumstantial evidence.
However, when it comes to a death penalty issue, the burden of proof is higher.
One of the things the prosecutor said made me cringe, "If not Casey then who".
He should never have uttered those words.

Oh Lord, Tony, I missed that..

Without trying too hard, I could make out a case for Ms Anthony's father, that man who kept finding the poor child's remains...

That is appalling - and amateurish and sloppy.

crazytony wrote:

Sabot wrote:I thought that was what it is all about. A Jury of Peers. That is precisely what they were.
They ruled that there was No Evidence to meet the Charges, because there wasn't.

Everybody despises Nancy Grace and Pat Brown. They all laugh about these two on American Forums, or at least they were doing until The Verdict. It will be interesting to see how keen these two are to pronounce again.

Many a case here Sabot has been convicted on circumstantial evidence.
However, when it comes to a death penalty issue, the burden of proof is higher.
One of the things the prosecutor said made me cringe, "If not Casey then who".
He should never have uttered those words.

People in Britain get convicted on circumstantial evidence, Tony, although fortunately not that often, but the circumstantial evidence in The Anthony Case was abysmally bad.

I think we all have our suspicions, but I very much doubt that they are all the same.
There are just too many possibilities, but without a scrap of proof to support any of them, just what were The Jury suppose to do. I might personally favour one explanation, but I can think of at least four others that are equally possible.

If Law Enforcement had listened to Roy Kronk they might have found Caylee before her body completely disintegrated, and maybe found some evidence of what happened. But they didn't listen to him.

To me it is just lack of evidence and a badly overcharged case, although quite frankly they would have been hard pushed even to prove Neglect. When, Where, How, and by Whom? It could so easily just have been an accident.