PDA

View Full Version : How the Casey Anthony case came apart



Gingersnap
07-06-2011, 11:05 AM
How the Casey Anthony case came apart
By Marisol Bello and William M. Welch, USA TODAY

Updated 3m ago |

All summer, the case against Casey Anthony in an Orlando courtroom had audiences discussing her life as if she were the star of a reality television show.

The narrative became familiar: Hard-partying single mother fails to report her toddler missing for a month, then lies to police about a kidnapping by a non-existent nanny. Then there was the suspiciously foul smell in the trunk of the mother's car before Caylee Anthony's remains were found in a wooded area.

Inside Courtroom 23, however, the seven women and five men of the jury in the Anthony case had to look beyond the salacious details and decide: Was there enough evidence to prove Casey Anthony killed her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee?

Their answer was no. On Tuesday, the jury acquitted Anthony, 25, of murdering her child in June 2008.

The reason, legal analysts and court watchers said, is that despite the seemingly endless hype surrounding the investigation and trial, the prosecution's case simply didn't hold up. There was no forensic evidence such as DNA or fingerprints directly linking Anthony to her daughter's death. In fact, the precise cause of the girl's death was unclear.

"The prosecution put out a lot of dots, but they couldn't connect them," says Lawrence Kobilinsky, chairman of the Department of Sciences at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. Kobilinsky had advised Anthony's attorneys on the forensic case against her but was not involved in the trial.

Much more at the link.

USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-07-05-Casey-Anthony-Caylee-Anthony-acquittal-murder-case-Florida_n.htm)

djones520
07-06-2011, 11:09 AM
Pretty much. Seems like a lot of circumstantial evidence, but nothing seriously conclusive.

NJCardFan
07-06-2011, 11:28 AM
Pretty much. Seems like a lot of circumstantial evidence, but nothing seriously conclusive.

I still can't get a straight answer as to how she dodged the child abuse charge.

djones520
07-06-2011, 11:29 AM
I still can't get a straight answer as to how she dodged the child abuse charge.

Have to ask the jurors on that one.

fettpett
07-06-2011, 11:37 AM
I still can't get a straight answer as to how she dodged the child abuse charge.

there was no phyiscal evidence that she abuse the kid. Everything points to a very loving relationship between them. Does that mean that is how the relationship really was? or explain her actions after Kaylee disappeared? nope, but there was nothing to prove she abused her kid and the prosecution did a really shitty job with this case and I bet they are getting their asses chewed for it too

djones520
07-06-2011, 11:45 AM
She neglected to report a missing child for more then a month. That is child abuse. What if her daughter had been alive for the first 3 weeks? The police and FBI could have found her. But because she did nothing, it may have led to her death, after untold amounts of abuse.

So by her own undeniable actions she should have been found guilty of it. You didn't need physical evidence to prove that.

fettpett
07-06-2011, 11:52 AM
She neglected to report a missing child for more then a month. That is child abuse. What if her daughter had been alive for the first 3 weeks? The police and FBI could have found her. But because she did nothing, it may have led to her death, after untold amounts of abuse.

So by her own undeniable actions she should have been found guilty of it. You didn't need physical evidence to prove that.

I don't disagree, but the fact remains the prosecution did an extremely shitty job of making their cases on all the major counts

lacarnut
07-06-2011, 12:40 PM
I don't disagree, but the fact remains the prosecution did an extremely shitty job of making their cases on all the major counts

The evidence was not there so a conviction would have been unlikely even if the prosecution had been top notch. That is what an alternative juror concluded on the major counts.

fettpett
07-06-2011, 01:21 PM
The evidence was not there so a conviction would have been unlikely even if the prosecution had been top notch. That is what an alternative juror concluded on the major counts.

they could have built a better case over all and gone for a lesser charger that wouldn't have been as hard to prove as murder is like manslaughter. The DA's struck me as incredibly arrogant and as if they didn't try hard enough