I haven't been paying attention to this Casey Anthony trial until...well, today (I tweeted a joke right after the verdict was read, 45 minutes later the head writer of Letterman tweeted almost the exact same joke. He got retweeted 200 times, I got retweeted once. Thanks, assholes!), but I am very confused by this case.
So here's my main question, and if anyone knows the answer, I want to hear it.
Okay, let's say I have a kid. I'm a single dad with a 3 year old. His names is Irwin Jr. One night, I tuck little Irwin into bed and say good night.
The next morning I wake up and he's gone. Just missing. So what do I do? Well, I enjoy my breakfast and the peace and quiet, that's what I do! That little bastard never stopped yapping, good riddance. Plus, I start planning for the local booty shaking contest because this ass gets cash.
I go to work, and go about my day like nothing happened. I'm sure Jr. is fine, 3 year olds need their personal space, after all.
And this goes on, and I never see if he's all right or call the police or do anything. 6 months later, they find Jr. dead. It turns out he big wheeled down to the red light district, did some meth, fucked a whore, caught an extremely fast moving strain of AIDS, and died.
Here's the question: didn't I commit a crime of some kind? Sure, I didn't give him AIDS. But he's a 3 year old! Don't I have some responsibility to take care of this kid, no matter how much he loves AIDS infested whores?
It just feels like this lady, regardless of what actually killed her daughter, at the very least did something very wrong by not calling the cops when the kid went missing.
Right?
29 comments:
The answer is yes, you could be charged with felony child endangerment and child neglect. And, in fact, the state did originally charge her with that, but then dropped it:
http://www.wesh.com/r/17769226/detail.html
The biggest problem with the Anthony case, as I understand it, is that the prosecutors placed a huge and risky bet, and they lost. In big, high profile cases like this, prosecutors will frequently only charge the most serious of crimes -- here, it was murder one and two, I think. They intentionally do not give the option to the jury of something called "lesser included crimes." That means if the DA charges someone with murder, they won't charge stuff like battery or assault, despite the fact that the evidence may support those. The reason being is that in these types of cases, the DA plays an all-or-none game. And here, they got "none."
Here, I don't think it would be possible for the state to come back and file charges of criminal neglect because of double jeopardy. Double jeopardy says that once you've been found not guilty of a crime, you can't be tried for that crime again OR any crime that shares any elements of that crime. So you can't be acquitted of Murder One, and then be charged the next day with manslaughter.
Here, the state did charge aggravated child abuse. And since that crime contains many of the same elements of child neglect, I think double jeopardy would prevent a retrial on that.
Damn... Ashley Judd hasn't been in any good movies lately...
In other words ... if you're going to murder your child, so you can hang out late nights in clubs and tatoo parlors, then you best do it in Florida. "The state" obviously doesn't understand the system, and strikes out swinging for the home-run without any substantial evidence (can't even explain exactly how she died). Remember, Florida's the reason we had GWB as president. My God, can't they get anything right???
I lived in Florida briefly and all I can say is, no, they can't get anything right. And in my opinion, there was a huge miscarriage of justice. I watched the case on HLN daily and can't understand how she could just walk away scott free like this.
Um, yeah. They keep saying something about "reasonable doubt." I am super curious what this other "reasonable" explanation might be for a mom who lies about her missing daughter for a month being taken by a fictitious nanny, and has decomposing body in the trunk of her car. Do we really need a picture of her duck-taping her daughters mouth and putting her in that trunk to be able to reasonably determine she did it? If that's the case, then I can officially feel safe from ever being selected to serve on a jury.
thanks for your answer, sean f. very helpful.
one of the jurors came out today with an "explanation". apparently, the jurors were completely focused on the cause of death. they're saying if they don't know how she died, then they can't say who killed her.
this is utter nonsense. i can't believe someone would say that out loud, but i guess that explains why they live in orlando.
the kid was in casey's care when she disappeared, she didn't tell anyone she was gone for 31 days, then when she was questioned she lied repeatedly. oh, and she google searched chloroform and "neck breaking".
with all of that evidence, you don't need to know the cause of death. she's dead, that's kinda the important thing there.
all right, enough of this.
Let's face it, at the end of the day the prosecution couldn't meet their "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof. I don't think this reflects poorly on them, the State of Florida or the citizenry thereof. They played their hand, such as it was, and they lost. Second guessing the prosecution or disparaging the jurors is pointless, especially when one considers that, other than the actual jury members, none of us were present to hear all the evidence or evaluate the truthfulness of the witnesses.
I didn't understand the cause of death issue either. When a missing kid is found dead in the woods with duct tape on its mouth, chances are it didn't die of leukemia or something.
I disagree with guesser, to an extent .... not about the jury's verdict, but about the prosecution's thinking. Seems to me that a good DA would understand that he would have a difficult time, with nothing but circumstantial evidence, unreliable science, and neglect, when trying to convince a jury of 1st or 2nd degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. So why not include the "lesser included crimes" in that case just to make sure that she ends up behind bars. Isn't a double or triple better than striking out ... guess not, in Florida.
I don't know if someone already mentioned this in the other comments because I'm too lazy to read them, but there is a law in the works (Caylee's law) that will make it a felony not to report a missing child. It's incredibly sad that it doesn't already exist.
-Lauren
I'd say, as a juror, you're responsibility should remain to the defendant, as they're supposed to be innocent until PROVEN guilty.
The prosecution didn't prove anything. They proved that no one really knows what happened. You can't play connect the dots with someone's life. You've gotta show me where they did it, when they did it, why they did it, and most importantly HOW. The prosecutors could only reasonably "prove" one of those: the why. There was no when, where, or how. And even the why is hard to believe.
Say I'm a juror on this case. If I'm deliberating whether to sentence this woman to death or to a prison cell for life, with the so-called "proof" we were given, all I've gotta say is this: "Here's a reasonable explanation for everything that this woman did: someone took her child that she was and still is very, very afraid of. They told her to keep quiet, don't tell anyone your daughter's gone and you'll get her back when you pay us the money you owe. You pay us back, she's fine. So of course, this horribly irresponsible mother believes them and then when she does pay them the money they actually frame her daughters murder on her. Knowing there's no way anyone would believe her, she does what she's gotta do: she hides the body of her murdered child. Does this sound reasonable to you? Because if it does, then we cannot give this woman life in prison. If we can only ASSUME things, then we KNOW nothing. Casey Anthony, like anyone else, is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. No one could prove she's guilty, so by way of default, she is innocent."
sorry, but that is fucking crazy. that might be a reasonable explanation to oj simpson, but not to normal people. the defense never mentioned any kidnapping/ransom plot, that's from watching too many lifetime movies.
here are some facts: she was the last person seen with her baby, she didn't tell anyone her baby was missing for a month (and then only did so when her parents found out), she lied to police, she invented a nanny, she lied to her parents, she googled chloroform and neck breaking, she invented a job she didn't have, meanwhile she enters a hot body contest and is as happy as a clam, her car trunk smells of death, and then her baby is found dead.
her explanation for all of this? her dad molested her when she was a kid.
for me, that is beyond reasonable doubt.
I totally agree ... no problem with the jury's verdict of innocent. They had no choice but to go that way with the "evidence", or lack thereof.
It's totally different than OJ Simpson's innocent verdict, when the proof was right in front of the jury and they chose to ignore it.
You get one shot at convicting someone, so why arrest them and go to trial without concrete evidence. Why not investigate, interrogate, and keep it out of the courts until you have substantial evidence?
I just don't get it.
I totally agree. And even if her story is true and her baby accidentally drowned in the swimming pool, she's guilty of murder because never once did she try to get that baby help. That's murder, as far as I'm concerned.
@Adam - Sorry, no. That doesn't sound at ALL reasonable.
I believe ultimately this case comes down to a simple and classic phrase in the criminal law system:
"Better to let a guilty woman free than to convict an innocent woman."
There is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard that is used most often in the noncriminal courts. A plaintiff wins if she can prove that the alleged act by the defendant occurred “more likely than not.”
But, in criminal cases, “beyond a reasonable doubt standard,” is used. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a very, very tough standard for the state’s criminal prosecution attorneys to meet.
One must start with what is reasonable doubt as to a defendant’s guilt. If a juror cannot with moral certainty believe that the defendant committed the crime, then there is reasonable doubt. What becomes obvious is that what is reasonable and moral certainty for one juror may not be reasonable and moral certainty for another juror.
If you believe Casey Anthony is guilty, you may be right, or probably right, or most certainly right, but it takes more than that.
I still would rather have Anthony walk free if the jury cannot beyond their moral certainty find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, even if I were to believe that she more likely than not committed the crime.
I watched on television a woman outside of the courthouse. She was holding a sign that said, "somewhere there is a village missing 12 idiots"....I couldn't agree more. Now that I've read some of the postings written in defense of the juror's findings...I think that village is now missing a few more idiots than just 12.
Seriously people?
Those jurors don't know more about the case than the rest of us who watched every minute of the trial from day one. The whole things was televised for god's sake. We all know exactly what was proven in court.
I agree that some people have been watching a few too many Lifetime Movies to believe some of these crazy innocence theories.
Where has the common sense gone in this country? I truly wonder if we now must have some sort of video proof to convict a murderer. This never used to be the way things were done. Before DNA and before all the surveillance footage etc...people were convicted of murder with exactly the same type of circumstanstial evidence that was shown in this case. People relied on good old fashioned common sense.
The only thing I have left to say on this matter is that there is nothing that is going to change the verdict so we all need to just drop it. Let's also not buy Casey Anthony's future book or watch her crappy Lifetime movie story.
"...to believe some of these crazy innocence theories."
No one has EVER said that she was innocent ... where the hell did you come up with that?
Hey Irwin ... now that we have completely exhausted this sad topic ... any chance that you would watch the beginning episode of Big Brother tonight and post your hilarious comments???
hey, sorry i can't. i used to watch big brother back in the day, but haven't for quite awhile. and we tape our episodes thursday nights, so i'll never be home to do it.
I agree that she probably should have gotten manslaughter. The evidence added up for that. But life in prison or death? No, come on.
This was a salem witch trial. Assumptions do not add up to proof. She didn't react like a "normal" person? So what, she's clearly not a good mother. Doesn't make her a murderer. She searched chloroform? Yes, but the evidence they provided that showed chloroform on the duct tape was just horrible. A "sniffer" machine? Really?! That's the proof that's supposed to get the death sentence? That's the bomb shell they had for the jury? And not only that but the defense provided sufficient evidence that "chloroform" was only searches for once... not 85 times, which the prosecution suggested.
I'm not saying the woman didn't do it, but come on, there's no HARD evidence. It's literally a salem witch trial. She might as well have been charged with killing her child with lightning.
This is way off topic but just FYI...I live in the Los Angeles area and "In The Mix" is on the TV Guide channel right now. The description begins, "a disc jockey must dodge gunfire instead of groupies..." I'm definitely watching. I need something to take my mind off of this Casey Anthony mess.
There are two real problems, as I see it. The prosecution knew they had enough to convict her on manslaughter and some other lesser stuff. But they didn't want manslaughter-- they wanted murder one. So they didn't even give the option to the jury to convinct on manslaughter. It was literally all or nothing.
Then there's the other side of the coin. Juries today have a very hard time understanding what "reasonable doubt" actually means. If you watch any lawyer TV show, you'll get the impression reasonable doubt means you have to have caught someone red handed and there is no room for any doubt. So the jury, who are probably big fans of CSI, fully expect a complete DNA workup on every case.
That is NOT what reasonable doubt is. As the name kind of implied, it's not the absence of all doubt. It's just you can't have any REASONABLE doubts. You'd be surprised how many jurors don't understand this at all.
The Anthony case is a good example. They didn't have a confession, DNA, or a youtube video of Casey killing her daughter and then looking at the camera and saying, "Boy, I sure am glad I killed my daughter with premiditation. Now I need a snack." But they did have a mountain of circumstantial evidence. The problem is that most juries watch too much TV and don't realize that it's perfectly appropriate to convict on circumstantial evidence.
fyi ... she was found not guilty of aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter of a child, along with first-degree murder.
"...No one has EVER said that she was innocent ... where the hell did you come up with that?"
Well, since you asked...I was writing about people's crazy innocence theories in response to this post:
"...Say I'm a juror on this case. If I'm deliberating whether to sentence this woman to death or to a prison cell for life, with the so-called "proof" we were given, all I've gotta say is this: "Here's a reasonable explanation for everything that this woman did: someone took her child that she was and still is very, very afraid of. They told her to keep quiet, don't tell anyone your daughter's gone and you'll get her back when you pay us the money you owe. You pay us back, she's fine. So of course, this horribly irresponsible mother believes them and then when she does pay them..."
Sorry, I cut that quote short because it's just too long to reread, point is...maybe you don't like my choice of words when I said this was an "innocence theory", but do you get where I'm coming from? It's a theory that could explain her innocence rather than guilt that someone came up with. I do not agree with the logic of this type of theorizing. I was simply stating that if you use common sense along with the evidence, you'd convict her.
Bottom line, seanf probably is saying the same thing as I was trying to convey in his last post, only he, perhaps, wrote it more eloquently than me.
I apologize.
I took that post to mean that there are lots of scenarios that could have happened, including the defense's argument of accidental drowning. I didn't take it to mean that the dude thought that she was innocent. He was just saying that the prosecution didn't prove their case as to when, where, how, or even why.
But, no one else on this blog has ever said that they think that she is totally innocent.
As for seanf's last post, explaining that most people don't understand the definition of reasonable doubt, I find that post a little demeaning ... like we're all children and can't comprehend.
It's just a shame that we're even having this discussion ... if the prosecution would've done their job better, she would've been convicted on all counts.
and the reason they couldn't determine a cause of death was because Casey lied for so long that by the time they found the body it was too decomposed to determine anything. good for her----looks like her lying paid off. and on the bright side, at least she's gonna get rich now.
I think that she's perfect for the Bachelor Pad.
Not bad looking, can spin a tall tale to get anything that she wants, nice boobs, and very mysterious.
I'll bet the first time she walked out to the pool in her bikini, getting the party started, that the guys would be sympathetic and mesmerized.
And just think of the field-day that Hack would have!
Duck tape?
Post a Comment