There is a lot talk a lot about OJ and his trial but they couldn't get OJ at the scene of the crime. The same is true here, if Casey killed her daughter how did she do it? If you don't know how, then how do you find the intent?
It is quite funny how all the pundits especially O'Reilly had this former mother guilty before the trial began. Fortunately our system is designed to give a lot of room for error so we don't go hanging the wrong person. And unfortunately we are finding out that we have executed a few innocent folks along the way.
The good news here is that the prosecutor screwed up. One would guess that this trial cost the taxpayer about $4 million dollars. And O'Reilly wants justice for Caylee. And that's just something that's difficult to comprehend. Someone has passed on; we can never bring that person back. How do we find justice?
The prosecutor was over zealous and jumped the gun. And it's beside me why anyone would ever want to publicize this trial. If the TV paid the government to televise it, well then by all means collect the money from the stations and give the money to the taxpayer.
But in the end I was right and Geraldo was right. There was no way this prosecutor was going to get a guilty verdict. He didn't have the cause of death. They talk a lot about OJ and his trial but they couldn't get OJ at the scene of the crime. The same is true here, if Casey killed her daughter how did she do it? If you don't know how, then how do you find the intent?
And if you look at all the instructions to the Jury, there was always a connection that had to be found. Did the accused hurt the deceased? There were no broken bones. The body was too far gone, how was the jury supposed to connect the dots. They couldn't so Casey goes free. Like OJ she may get her just rewards in the end, but what if she really is innocent.
Now O'Reilly wants the Caylee Law in every state. Is he a kook or what? You will go to jail charged with a felony if you fail to report your child missing! This is like hate crime and conspiracy laws. You can't put them in jail for the crime so you are going to make something up. So in the end does O'Reilly want to put Casey in jail for 40 years because she failed to report her 2 year old daughter missing who ends up dead!
What if someone else killed Caylee like in the Ramsey fiasco? Do we still put Casey in jail because she failed to report the child missing? What if the child died accidentally and she was afraid to report her missing? Do we still put her in jail for 40 years? Billy, that is not going to happen.
This was an unfortunate accident. The child goes missing just long enough to screw up the forensics so that they can't figure our how she died. They couldn't even find chloroform in the body. But the prosecutor asked the jury to put the dots together by making something up. Now who's really crazy here, the prosecutor or Casey?
The prosecutor should have waited to arrest Casey, maybe with more time the evidence would have surfaced. But you know after 3 years if the evidence has not surfaced by now it probably will not.
So we have 2 possible scenarios. Casey is nuts and when her child died accidentally she did not behave like a responsible parent and report the accident. To some degree look at the Ramseys would you want that to happen to you? It is like anything else after a few days have gone by, now you really have a problem when you tell the authorities, so you wait a little longer. Now grandma couldn't handle it after 30 days, so she spilt the beans. The other scenario is that Casey intentionally planned the death of her daughter and kept it a secret. As you read this, does this really make sense? But either way Casey is probably a little off the wall if not a lot. O'Reilly paints her as evil, but where's the proof? I am one of those folks that won't call you a liar until you lie to me. So where's the proof she killed anybody. She may be irresponsible, a liar and maybe crazy but the instructions called for bodily harm or premeditated murder. There wasn't the slightest bit of evidence to support anything.
So how do we fix the problem without giving more power to the Gestapo? More laws are something we probably don't need. This prosecutor wanted to pin murder on a woman with no real evidence. It the end all he had was made up evidence. Did he try to plea bargain for manslaughter or did he have his eye set only on the brass ring and notoriety. He wanted to be the prosecutor that sent Casey Anthony to the gas chamber.
Prosecutors do get carried away and are sometimes boxed in by all these wonderful laws. But since this prosecutor spent over $4 million dollars on a made up case, should he be fired? I would hope so, unless he pays back all the expenses.
The real easy way to fix this is with water boarding. Sorry, I was just having some fun. It seems to me that lie detectors should be made more useful. As it stands now, it is inadmissible because lawyers would make a lot less money. And trials would be a lot shorter. But it seems to me that if you are hooked up to a lie detector test and you are asked some questions, well you just might want to tell the truth. Most lawyers lie during the trial. Witnesses do as well. Experts lie almost all the time. So how does a judge or a jury know who is telling the truth? The fact is they don't!
Some would argue that you can't use it at trial; I disagree, but at least use it for interrogation purposes. You mean everyone lies so well that they can fool the lie detector 100% of the time. People would be less likely to lie to the police and prosecutors if they were hooked up to a lie detector. So let's say that Casey is found to be lying about the fact that she does not know where the body is. Same thing holds true for mom and pop. Either these guys are lying all the time, or the investigators now know that these folks do know where the body is hidden. Now that makes the investigation a lot different. Otherwise the investigators might think they are lying, but if they knew they were lying, they would search a lot differently and smarter for the body. With the right questions, you could probably narrow it down to where the body might be hidden. If they found the body in a month rather than six months you might have found out what the cause of death was. And that may have changed the verdict or the charges. It may have eliminated all the charges.
In the end Casey's lawyer and Casey will probably make a great deal of money. The taxpayer will be left holding the prosecutor's bill. Maybe the next time they will try the accused on the facts and not made up stories. Put yourself in the shoes of the jury. If the prosecutor asked you to make up stuff to link the dots could you do it? Thank God we are innocent until proven guilty. Maybe the prosecutors should learn that fact!
Yes, the system worked. The prosecution has to prove its case–a likely guess (or an unlikely one) isn’t good enough. Closeness counts only in horseshoes and dancing.
The media who jumped onto this case were looking for a gruesome, gory crime and lots of air time for them to exploit it. They wanted another OJ trial, but this time with a conviction. They did everything but charge Casey Anthony with blowing up the battleship “Maine.” Hannibal Lecter gets a better press.
Fortunately, the often tedious, unexciting adversarial system did what it’s supposed to do.
“Not Guilty” does not equate to “Innocent.”
I am concerned how some in the media seem to be using this case to attack the jury system. What are they going to replace it with? WE already know Soros is trying to change our laws so we don’t elect judges anymore. Are they wanting some sort of Nazi People’s Court? People need to remember that our Magna Carta juries our one of the foundations of our liberties. A jury is not bound to convict even if the law has been violated if they believe the law is unjust or whatever other factors. THis has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court over the years. Don’t fall for the fascism!
While this piece reads more like a “neener neener” than anything, you still had me in agreement up until the final paragraph. First of all, “lie detector” tests are not completely inadmissible in all cases. In 19 states polygraph results are admissible by stipulation of both parties, and in federal court it is up to the discretion of the judge. That being said, there is a very good reason why “lie detector” evidence is now infrequently admitted in US criminal courts. Using the term “polygraph” is preferable if for no other reason than the total inaccuracy of calling it a “lie detector”. Next to eyewitness testimony, the polygraph is probably the most unreliable type of evidence available to investigators and prosecutors. In addition to the many actual cases where polygraph evidence has been proven after the fact to be false, the following 2002 study from the National Research Council may help illuminate why polygraph evidence is considered below the reliability threshold for evidence: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10420&page=1
Despite the bloodlust of the angry mobs whipped into frenzy by the media in this particular case, and as the author correctly points out, the lack of a conviction is not an indication that the law needs to be changed one iota – and that includes the standards of evidence in criminal proceedings.