The Great Debate: Casey Anonthy

Yeah new evidence does allow for a retrial in the event the person was not convicted. Just cause you aren't convicted the first time doesn't mean you can't be tried again if new and sufficient evidence comes to the surface. Urban lawyers son, always make me lol.

From facebook

Poll about guilt

This shows that an overwhelming majority of people on the internet that took the poll think that she is guilty.

Why?

Because they got wrapped up in what the media has been telling them. The media has basically painted her as a murderer for a long time and people are eating it up. Much like the people in this thread who have done zero research on the case and are screaming MURDERER!!! without even knowing what happened.

I read this article that I can't find now all about the case. The reason why the media did this is because it was a soap opera. Bad parent, kid dies, sensational story. They said that because it happened in the summer where news is slow, that the story got way more coverage than it should have.

First of all I agree with the above post.

I actually followed the trial quite closely (since Orlando was my old stomping ground & where my mother still lives) and even though I personally think she was guilty on some level. I knew taking the law in account and basing everything on circumstantial evidence with little to no solid evidence that she would get a no guilty verdict.(Doesn't help either when the lead prosecutor is laughing while court is in session)It blows me away how ignorant my fellow Americans (and Canadians as well) can be about the verdict. When I remind them about how the law works and they don't want to hear it.

I'd hit it.

I agree with this statement.

I miss you dan lol.

It's an emotional case and people respond to emotions more than most anything else. :\

They don't know who killed the little girl, but want some form of justice so they look to her caretaker.

If she did it or didn't, she fails as a mom and should have her tubes tied.

Beating a dead horse, but I agree with this article.

I would even go one step farther, and suggest that such a white-hot storm of media vitriol could have tempted the jury to go the other way, in order to seem more like the objective thinkers they are commanded to be before deliberations.

She's also potentially at fault for indirectly influencing the DA's office. If there hadn't been millions of screaming indignant members of the voting public demanding to see blood, a competent DA would have examined the lack of non-circumstantial evidence in the case and opted for Murder 2, or a similarly easy target. Instead, he was likely blinded by both reelection considerations, and the glow of the public spotlight, to swing for the fences, and struck out entirely instead.

Going for broke in a court room under any circumstance or charge/conviction is a scary concept.

Agree X 1000%

I'm not sure the hype was totally due to Grace's antics. Kids drown all the time, and it's usually a tragic accident that receives little public attention. It's the cases where mothers hold their children down until they drown, or like in this case, they throw the body in a bag in their back yard and don't mention it for a month.

Grace is a loud mouth, but I think this case would have been just as big without her help. :\

Im pretty sure there was NO evidence against her. And yes, i'd hit it too.

There was plenty of circumstantial evidence.

I think this jury wasn't going to convict unless they had DNA evidence, a murder weapon and a cause of death. Too much CSI watching.

Zoom... Enhance.... Zoom....Enhance....Zoom...Enhance.

Circumstantial evidence alone shouldn't be enough to convict someone of a crime, in my opinion. It leaves too much of a doubt.

I don't get it :/

It is though. Often times hard evidence is difficult to come by.

CSI joke. The people would magnify an image greatly and somehow, instead of the picture being very pixel-ated(not sure what the word is, oh well) like it would normally be, it's pretty much the same quality or better than it is fully zoomed out.

Ohhh. Would help if I had watched more CSI D:

Then the person should go free because of the whole reasonable doubt thing. Although I'm sure some circumstantial evidence is enough, for the most part, imo it shouldn't be.

Reasonable doubt applies if you can arrive at another logical conclusion than the one presented, and if that conclusion implies innocence rather than guilt. These jurors were going for no doubt period.

If we were to discredit circumstantial evidence our legal system would fail.

Ok, so what about that guy in Zicdeh's video earlier? He was convicted of raping a 9 year old boy, a crime which he did not commit, on the basis of him having bushy hair and side-burns, such as the perpetrator had according to this child. This is entirely circumstantial evidence. And bad evidence at that. Hell, even in the video, it says straight up that the semen sample found on his underwear didn't match. They convicted him anyways. What?

*note that I don't really like the way they convey their points, but they're still good points nonetheless.

Yes, circumstantial evidence -can- be a good thing. Relying only on circumstantial evidence lands more innocent people in jail than not. This is why I think circumstantial evidence shouldn't be used -by itself-.

Then the principle of reasonable doubt would apply in that case.

I think a lot of people, including these jurors, have misconceptions about the validity of circumstantial evidence.

JonBenét Ramsey

The media and public opinion are often misguided/misled.

They'll create a GUI interface using Visual Basic... see if they can track an IP address.

Some of the worst things I've seen are Prince of Persia levels and "leet speak" in Numb3rs. I could barely watch those episodes.

I guess the fact that a 2 year old child died and was dumped like a sack of trash along a highway isn't important to you. It could have been you, your sister, your brother, neice, nephew or your next door neighbors children. Shame on you.

Whichever way you look at it Casey Anthony gets to spend another week in jail while Law Enforcement and others try to figure out a way to keep her safe after she leaves.

She has already been paid 200k for exclusive rights to pictures, she will likely be signing book deals, movie deals and goodness knows what else to line her pockets. I hope that a proviso of any deal she signs is that she hand over the money to charity.

She might not be guilty of murder, but she is guilty of lying to authorities and most certainly has knowledge of what happened to her daughter. That 31 days goes by before she reports the child missing, goes out partying and goodness knows what else is disgusting and reprehensible.