|
Post by Trublu on Jul 5, 2011 14:17:35 GMT -5
I hate to indulge in the media spectacle, but this is made for SVU at this point: news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/05/jury-reaches-verdict-in-casey-anthony-trial/?hpt=hp_p1&iref=NS1The jury found Casey Anthony not guilty of first-degree murder, aggravated assault and aggravated manslaughter in the death of her daughter, Caylee. This case has been at the center of media attention for three years, and has raised significant questions about the media's influence on cases like these. It will be interesting to see where Anthony goes from here; she was convicted of four counts of providing false information to law enforcement for which she will be sentenced on Thursday. I'm sure the sentence (especially when compared to those for murder/manslaughter/assault) is minimal. With all of the evidence that has been missing in this case (ie, anything concrete), it will be interesting to see if the ever try someone else in connection with the case, even if it is not for Caylee's death directly. Of course, because double jeopardy has attached, Casey Anthony cannot be tried for her daughter's death again under these charges; any other trial would probably seem like a cakewalk compared to this one.
|
|
|
Post by Finaddict on Jul 5, 2011 15:51:46 GMT -5
Boy I was surprised and then not surprised at this verdict. My attorney daughter would tell us that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and since I followed this case I tend to agree. It was a death penalty case and I believe without DNA evidence that actually pointed to Casey it was hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. BUT I wonder about being found not quilty of child abuse. I think not reporting to anyone for 31 one days that your child is missing would be abusive.
|
|
|
Post by Trublu on Jul 6, 2011 6:48:36 GMT -5
That's the thing though, they didn't appear to charge her with anything they could actually prove - even child abuse was a stretch, because that requires a pattern of direct harm to a child (once Caylee was dead, unfortunately, it stops the pattern, and assumedly she wasn't being continuously harmed before then). Reckless endangerment of a child, negligent homicide, endangering the welfare of a minor, tampering with evidence, improper disposing of a body, all of those things would have been much more likely guilty verdicts and could have kept her in jail if they still wanted to try to build a murder case. I really think she's going to get time served and probation for the misdemeanors.
My problem with this is all the people blaming the jury for being blind, stupid, etc. I wouldn't want those people doing the blaming on my jury! My sister last night watching the news coverage said, well maybe it was an accident that they covered up. The key word, unfortunately, is maybe. Reasonable doubt.
|
|
|
Post by Finaddict on Jul 6, 2011 15:24:24 GMT -5
Well said Trublu. The prosecution aimed high and didn't make their case. I feel I can't judge this jury because I was not in their shoes. They did the best they could with what was presented to them. Good point also about reckless endangerment not being on the table. I guess I feel bad that a little girl is dead and no one knows when why or how. BUT we can not recklessly sentence someone to death based on feeling bad.
|
|