The Great Debate: Casey Anonthy

Okay, while I definitely do not think this is the case in Casey's situation, let me make a point.

People Panic. Especially with our overzealous prosecution system, that wants a conviction at any cost. Some people may rather take the chance that someone who died of a tragic accident never be spoken of again, and try to carry on their life "Normally" rather than "Do the right thing" by reporting it and immediately become suspect number 1.

This is the problem with Circumstantial evidence. Seemingly innocent and unrelated events months or years prior (Example: Internet searches) can be spun as evidence for Murder1.

That made my soul hurt :(

If a child accidentally drowned it's in no way logical to assume that someone's panic would lead them to dump the body in a plastic bag, put duct tape on the head, and not report it for 31 days.

Circumstantial evidence that allows you to infer a logical conclusion based on the facts presented in the case is definitely enough to convict.

The fact that she searched for chloroform and neck-breaking, had traces of chloroform in her car, a strand of hair in the trunk, the smell of human decomposition in her trunk, did not report the child missing for 31 days, and lied about where she thought she was does not mesh at all with the defense's case. Her mother got on the stand and flat out lied when she said she was the one who searched for chloroform and neck-breaking, and the prosecution proved that when they had her employer's record keeper testify that Cindy Anthony was in fact at work during the time she said she had performed the searches. The jurors apparently thought that Cindy Anthony's testimony provided reasonable doubt, which just shows that they have no clue what reasonable doubt means.

A person is a person. I don't see why people give extra special credit to children.

Circumstantial is very suggestive and even likely, but never decisive.

Small claims court, sure. Capital punishment? *** no

Children are always given special treatment in the law. They are completely impressionable and dependent.

No offense but you should study law. Circumstantial evidence is often times the only evidence in criminal cases, and it leads to convictions. Our legal system is not designed to let people go free just because they've done a good job of covering up their tracks.

I'm not talking about the law. I'm talking about in general.

If I went out and shot a 40 year old man in the heart and I went out and shot a 5 year old kid in the heart, they're both equally helpless.

Is it wrong that I expected this thread to be.... longer?
I'm actually disappointed at only 5 pages. >_>

But that's the problem. Circumstantial evidence leads up to people being convicted innocently. Such as the case I told you about earlier. You said the reasonable doubt would work in that case. Why not Anthony's case?

Which is why our legal system is designed the way it is...

I'm just pointing out that these jurors did not understand that circumstantial evidence is enough to convict if it leads to a logical conclusion based on the facts presented in the case. They also did not understand what reasonable doubt actually means. They were operating on a "reason to doubt" principle instead.

Actually, holy ***.
I found this randomly googling stuff like a week ago, and now I see this ***.

A semen sample on the underwear of a rape victim that did not match the suspect's would logically lead someone to infer that a different person committed the crime, which would mean that the suspect was innocent. The jury was probably blinded by the fact that a 9-year old boy was raped and wanted to hand down a conviction.

There was no piece of evidence that did the same in this case.

Or that it was a premeditated rape and other semen was obtained and placed in the panties to throw suspicion

LOL I hope you're not serious. You'd be laughed out of a court room.

And that's exactly why if I raped someone, I'd get someone else's juice and after the fact, spread it in the victim's panties.

Did you even read? I didn't say this was the case in Casey Anthony's situation. You're a little too invested in this.

You wanting a conviction based on fully circumstantial evidence could make me believe that you're blinded by the fact that a 2 year old child was killed and want to hand down a conviction. *Not trying to be offensive here*

People see a child murdered, or whatever, and want to see blood. It usually doesn't matter who's blood, which is why circumstantial evidence shouldn't be enough. The fact that people were willing to convict BASED ON HAIR ALONE should be a red light enough to say, "Yeah, circumstantial evidence shouldn't be used" because it gets people jailed wrongfully. For all we know, it was someone else who did everything that the circumstantial evidence points to. There's no proof that it was Casey Anthony who did those things. That's the problem.

You're disturbed.

In any case, it doesn't change the fact that a conflicting DNA sample, which is circumstantial evidence itself, would provide reasonable doubt.

Oh I thought we were in a thread about Casey Anthony....

It wasn't just a hair, and it would not be a logical assumption that someone else committed the crime based on the facts presented in the case.

Just because it is, doesn't mean there can't be indirectly related discussion.

Again, you're a little too invested in this if you're getting all defensive over someone found not-guilty by a jury of her peers.

how many little white girls have to die before people stop giving a ***about them like the rest of the other non white girls who die?

Again, there are many situations where it seems like person X is the only person who could have done it. It doesn't mean they did it and that logic is what does get innocent people thrown in jail

Well this thread is for debating the Casey Anthony verdict. I'm interested in it from a legal standpoint, but other than that I'm not really invested in it. I don't see how that's being defensive but I will try to be more sensitive towards your feelings. (not really)

If attacking unrelated posts that might oppose your cemented view on this case isn't defensive, well, I guess I've got a bad dictionary.

I still feel the jury made the right call. I'd rather let a guilty person walk free, than convict an innocent. Statistically, you're better off that way, and it's less burden on the taxpayers.

Although it would be nice if all evidence was direct evidence, that's just not how ***works. Our legal system would fail if we only relied on direct evidence. Sometimes all you have is circumstantial evidence, but even in criminal law, if circumstantial evidence leads you to a logical and reasonable conclusion, you can convict. In cases, jurors are supposed to understand that there is no legal distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence.

I agree completely with the bolded.

Our legal system already fails, Letting rapists, child molesters and murders get entitled to bail, while forcing someone convicted of holding a lil too much pot to go straight to jail.