Casey Anthony's Obvious Murder is Even More Obvious Now

[AspireToExpire]

Keep in mind Anthony's defense, that Caylee drown. She admits to knowing her daughter was dead 6/15/2008.

In secretly passed jail letters written by Casey Anthony to fellow inmate Robyn Adams (bolded by me):

“I’ve had to forgive what happened to my Caylee, but I’m still angry … if it weren’t for God, screw where I’m sitting now, I would end whoever is responsible.”

“Come to find out, she’s [mom, Cindy Anthony] put a trademark on Caylee’s name months back, this is the time she publicly states she’s planning on writing a book about this. B-E-T-R-A-Y-A-L!! I am the only person who has tried to protect Caylee throughout all of this and it kills me. I can’t believe my own mother is capitalizing, or trying to, off of everything that has happened!”

The defense also freely admits there has never been a Zanny/Zanaida.

“I was going to take Caylee and move away; unfortunately my plans got beyond tangled when Zanny wouldn’t tell me where she and Cays were. I had asked her to take Cays for a few days so I could put the rest of the stuff together, money I had saved, new clothes, new everything. That’s why I waited to report her missing, because she was and wasn’t.”

“I look at my pictures of Caylee so many times throughout the day and can’t help but smile at my little rock star.”

“Is it wrong of me though to not really want to know the truth? I’m honestly scared for the numerous possibilities. She’s safe, she’s in God’s loving arms; in a lot of ways, I’m content by the fact that she will never have to have her heart broken or see the constant negativity that our society breeds, nor will she ever be abused or taken advantage of.”

Going back and rereading these after the trial and verdict is even more sickening then when they were released.

 

[mlp]

Logically then, the human thing to do is to execute everyone who is going to prison.

No, there are people like you who would prefer to spend the rest of their lives in the penitentiary, being raped, beaten, whatever. And there are people like me who would prefer to be executed. My issue is with you deciding that a different standard of proof should apply, when neither alternative is exactly a walk in the park.

People on the outside, and on the inside. While there is very strong evidence that some people we've executed are not guilty, none of the post-death-penalty-ban convictions have been overturned.

Because there's no point in going to the expense of that process after the fact, now is there?

Really? So if a traffic camera takes a picture of a license plate belonging to a vehicle I own speeding, that's enough evidence to give me a speeding ticket. Presumably, according to you, that's enough evidence to charge someone with murder.

Yeah, I'd say that if your car is caught on video tape running over someone, backing up to run over them again, and then leaving the scene, you'd be charged with murder, barring exculpatory evidence.

You do realize that you can take that speeding ticket to trial on the issue of who was driving the car, whether the mechanism was calibrated to properly measure the speed, etc.? Most people don't simply because it's cheaper to pay the ticket than to hire a lawyer to do that.

Maybe we should come up with a legal system that would have varying degrees of punishment. It seems more flexible to me.

We do have a legal system that has varying degrees of punishment. It's your assertion that there should be varying standards of proof, depending on the crime, which is just ****ed up in ways that should be obvious even to a lay person.

 

[das_nut]

No, there are people like you who would prefer to spend the rest of their lives in the penitentiary, being raped, beaten, whatever. And there are people like me who would prefer to be executed.

I would prefer if we cleaned up our damn prison system. There's no excuse, at all, for a prison system where assault and rape are commonplace. It hardens criminals, and quite frankly, most of those criminals are going to be released sooner or later.

My issue is with you deciding that a different standard of proof should apply, when neither alternative is exactly a walk in the park.

Because when the law takes a person's life away, that's different than if the law imprisons a person.

You do realize that you can take that speeding ticket to trial on the issue of who was driving the car, whether the mechanism was calibrated to properly measure the speed, etc.? Most people don't simply because it's cheaper to pay the ticket than to hire a lawyer to do that.

Not entirely precise. In some states, the owner of the vehicle is assumed to be the driver, and it's upon the owner to prove their innocence.

Since you are against different burdens of proof for different punishments, do you believe that in the hypothetical hit & run case, the owner of the vehicle must also prove their innocence?

We do have a legal system that has varying degrees of punishment. It's your assertion that there should be varying standards of proof, depending on the crime, which is just ****ed up in ways that should be obvious even to a lay person.

Actually, I said varying standards of proof depending on the punishment.

So, as a "lay person", tell me, don't we already have varying standard of proof in our legal system, especially considering civil versus criminal cases?

 

[ledboots]

I think that would be the best thing to do in your circumstances.


What people seem to forget - and this isn't directed at you, ledboots, anymore than most of the post I made in which I quoted Cornsail was directed at him - is that the judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys might be just as loathe to try death penalty cases as you are to serve as a juror on them. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of people working in that segment of the legal profession involved in criminal acts are against the death penalty. That's only a guess. But my point is that in spite of how they probably feel, they do their jobs and follow the laws of their states.

In case anyone wants to come along and say they choose those jobs, so it's not the same, it is. Anyone who enjoys the rights and privileges of living in the US has a duty, if and when they are called, to serve on a jury. That's one of the inescapable obligations of being a US citizen, so yes, it is your job, if you get picked, death penalty notwithstanding.

And if anyone thinks that by avoiding serving on murder cases, they can keep a clean conscience, no, that's not how it works.

Maybe I'm being a bit stuffy about this, but trial by a jury of your peers is simply the best system any society is ever going to be able to attain. When I think of the days not all that long ago when all you had to do to be hanged was be black, or a poor person accused of pickpocketing, or a woman accused of witchcraft, I actually do feel good about being able to serve on a jury, and I do take the duties expected of a juror seriously, because leaving my personal beliefs and opinions out of the process of arriving at a decision based only on the evidence presented is the only way to provide a fair and unbiased decision.

I disagree. I know there is no way I could send anyone to his death while serving on a jury, so it is not being a bad citizen or unpatriotic to tell the court that, imo.

Maybe I just shouldn't live in a death penalty state though, that is a consideration.

 

[das_nut]

When I think of the days not all that long ago when all you had to do to be hanged was be black, or a poor person accused of pickpocketing

I didn't see this part of your comment earlier, but it kind of bears upon what MLP and I are discussing.

About two centuries ago, in Britain, the land was under a series of laws now referred to as the "bloody code", in reference to the amount of crimes punishable by death.

There were cases where the person was guilty of a capital crime, but the jury would specifically twist or ignore the law to prevent the death penalty from being applied.

 

[Pickle Juice]

I disagree. I know there is no way I could send anyone to his death while serving on a jury, so it is not being a bad citizen or unpatriotic to tell the court that, imo.

Maybe I just shouldn't live in a death penalty state though, that is a consideration.

Well, the thing is, sometimes, try as you might, you can't get out of jury duty. You personally may never be in this position, but anyone who does needs to remember what it is they are expected to be doing while on a jury. It is no more nor less than what is expected of everyone involved in the trial, and the courtroom is not the place for people to challenge the law. You do that at the polls during election time.

I didn't see this part of your comment earlier, but it kind of bears upon what MLP and I are discussing.

About two centuries ago, in Britain, the land was under a series of laws now referred to as the "bloody code", in reference to the amount of crimes punishable by death.

There were cases where the person was guilty of a capital crime, but the jury would specifically twist or ignore the law to prevent the death penalty from being applied.

So are you suggesting that we look back to what folk were up to two hundred years ago to guide our behavior today?

The following isn't directed at anyone in particular. In reference to my specific question whether there may have been jurors who found the evidence in Anthony's case sufficient for a guilty verdict, but refused, as Cornsail suggested would be the right thing to do, to actually find her guilty because she might have faced the death penalty, I honestly see no difference between this kind of vigilantism and the kind where someone who thought she was guilty took the law into their own hands and killed her.

Remember, I am speaking of someone who is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that she did indeed murder her daughter, but refuses to find her guilty, thus preventing her from ever being tried for the murder again, and setting her free to possibly kill again. If you knowingly set a murderer free because you are morally opposed to the death penalty, you may escape the burden on your conscience of feeling responsible for their death - which technically you aren't, because it's usually the judges who do the sentencing - but whether you admit it or not, you will be responsible for anyone else that murderer kills.

 

[mlp]

^^^ Exactly. In a democracy, you have a voice at the polling booth.

If you're called to jury duty and you feel you can't render an impartial verdict because it's a death penalty case or because the defendant reminds you of your first grade teacher whom you hated, it's your duty to say so during voir dire. Trust me, you'll be excused from serving on the jury.

 

[das_nut]

So are you suggesting that we look back to what folk were up to two hundred years ago to guide our behavior today?

200 years ago, the law was used in an often capricious manner and applied unfairly to those who were disadvantaged, because of race, creed or economic background.

Today, the law doesn't seem to have changed month.

I honestly see no difference between this kind of vigilantism and the kind where someone who thought she was guilty took the law into their own hands and killed her.

Erring on the side of innocence is different than erring on the side of guilt.

Remember, I am speaking of someone who is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that she did indeed murder her daughter, but refuses to find her guilty, thus preventing her from ever being tried for the murder again, and setting her free to possibly kill again.

A reasonable doubt, but not all doubt. And that's with the evidence we have now. The evidence at the trial was not as strong, and the charges against her reflected public opinion more than the evidence the prosecution had.

The prosecution overreached, and the prosecution failed because of that.

This time the prosecution overreached for someone who does appear quite guilty. Next time the prosecution overreaches, the person may not be guilty.

I'd rather have prosecution overreaching be slapped down, and slapped down hard. If we wanted to try people in the court of public opinion, all we'd need is a mob, some rope, and a branch. But we have a system that has progressed beyond that, to some degree, and that's a sign of progress. We err on the side of innocence, in theory, for we recognize that a system that does not err on the side of innocence loses legitimacy and is ripe for abuse.

Just look at how our system loses legitimacy now - there's racial and economic disparities in cases being prosecuted and sentences being handed out. Those flaws reduce the legimacy and trust in our system. There's no need to increase the flaws in our system.

 

[das_nut]

If you're called to jury duty and you feel you can't render an impartial verdict because it's a death penalty case or because the defendant reminds you of your first grade teacher whom you hated, it's your duty to say so during voir dire. Trust me, you'll be excused from serving on the jury.

Of course you'll be removed if you're against the death penalty. Death-qualified juries are less likely to find the defendant innocent. (They are also less likely to contain minorities, which may be a factor in the racial bias of the death penalty as it is applied in the US.)

 

[mlp]

Not entirely precise. In some states, the owner of the vehicle is assumed to be the driver, and it's upon the owner to prove their innocence.

Since you are against different burdens of proof for different punishments, do you believe that in the hypothetical hit & run case, the owner of the vehicle must also prove their innocence?

You're getting a couple of different concepts mixed up. First, it's always up to the defendant to present any exculpatory evidence (although if the prosecution has knowledge of exculpatory evidence, they have to notify the defense of its existence). That doesn't change whether it's a speeding ticket or a murder charge. That has nothing to do with the presumption of innocence, which just means that the trier of fact (the jury in a jury case, the judge in a judge tried case) is supposed to assume that the defendant is innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Actually, I said varying standards of proof depending on the punishment.

So, tell me, what lesser standards of proof are you going to require for various non-capital crimes? Because there's really nothing between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "beyond any doubt", and there is absolutely no way to prove someone guilty "beyond any doubt."

So, as a "lay person", tell me, don't we already have varying standard of proof in our legal system, especially considering civil versus criminal cases?

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard of proof for criminal cases. "Clear and convincing" is the standard of proof for civil cases that involve the taking away of an important right (termination of parental rights and involuntary commitments are the type of cases that come to my mind that fall within this category; in the case of involuntary commitment, the standard of proof was raised from the "preponderance of evidence" standard because of a S.Ct. case in the seventies, I believe). The vast majority of civil cases have a "preponderance of the evidence" standard of proof.

I find it fascinating that you're arguing to reduce the standard of proof required for non-capital cases.

 

[mlp]

Of course you'll be removed if you're against the death penalty. Death-qualified juries are less likely to find the defendant innocent. (They are also less likely to contain minorities, which may be a factor in the racial bias of the death penalty as it is applied in the US.)

You're removed because you've stated that you can't bring yourself to make a decision based on the law. Just like you would be removed if you said that you think there is no excuse for killing, even in self defense, if the defendant is being tried for killing a burglar and is going to be arguing self defense.

 

[shyvas]

Keep in mind Anthony's defense, that Caylee drown. She admits to knowing her daughter was dead 6/15/2008.

In secretly passed jail letters written by Casey Anthony to fellow inmate Robyn Adams (bolded by me):





The defense also freely admits there has never been a Zanny/Zanaida.






Going back and rereading these after the trial and verdict is even more sickening then when they were released.

I totally agree and after having watched every single day of the trial think that this is a case of injustice. Jeff Ashton has said that after having looked back at the case, there is not one single thing that he would have changed.

Other experts disagree and have stated how Casey Anthony could have been convicted.
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-casey-anthony-could-have-been-convicted-2011-7

 

[das_nut]

You're removed because you've stated that you can't bring yourself to make a decision based on the law. Just like you would be removed if you said that you think there is no excuse for killing, even in self defense, if the defendant is being tried for killing a burglar and is going to be arguing self defense.

Interesting how jury nullification is still legal, but endorsing the view of jury nullification will get you kicked off the jury.

 

[das_nut]

So, tell me, what lesser standards of proof are you going to require for various non-capital crimes? Because there's really nothing between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "beyond any doubt", and there is absolutely no way to prove someone guilty "beyond any doubt."

I find it fascinating that you're arguing to reduce the standard of proof required for non-capital cases.

Why would lesser standards of proof be needed for non-capital crimes? Why not a greater standard of proof be needed for capital crimes?

 

[AspireToExpire]

I totally agree and after having watched every single day of the trial think that this is a case of injustice. Jeff Ashton has said that after having looked back at the case, there is not one single thing that he would have changed.

Other experts disagree and have stated how Casey Anthony could have been convicted.
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-casey-anthony-could-have-been-convicted-2011-7

I hate to say it, but if they would have been prepared for anything, ignored Baez baiting (I'm talking to you Mr. Ashton) tactics and stuck to the facts and evidence as in text logs, cell phone pings, hand written letters, Casey's own voice showing her true colors etc. without making the jury go over much of that themselves, I think they could have had her. There is so much evidence that points to her killing Caylee to punish Cindy and "be free" but it seems the jury wanted to be entertained and Baez provided that much with his smoke and mirrors show.

 

[cornsail]

Sure. And sadly, that kind of effort is almost always put forth only in death penalty cases. Because apparently some people think only people faced with the death penalty deserve that kind of *special* consideration. That's one of the things that I find really troubling about your and Cornsail's position in this discussion.

Not at all. I didn't say it so I don't know why you'd assume it was my position. Someone with a life sentence has more time to be given that special consideration. I do think you make a good point though in that the tragic nature of wrongful imprisonment without execution shouldn't be forgotten about.

1. Because death penalty cases eat up resources, financial and otherwise, at an astonishing rate.

Agreed.

2. Because to kill someone in cold blood as punishment for killing someone doesn't make any logical sense.

I don't know. Someone who kidnapped people and kept them prisoner would be "kidnapped and kept prisoner" by the police/prison system. I guess the difference is that locking them up may be necessary for the protection of society, while killing them isn't. It doesn't seem to serve any other purpose than punishment for the sake of punishment (I disagree with the idea that it deters).

3. Because for a society to take a life in cold blood without any need to is detrimental to that society and the individuals which make up that society.
4. Because carrying out an execution is detrimental to the individuals doing it, and if it doesn't have a negative effect on them, then they are not the kinds of individuals that should be chosen to represent the society.
5. Because I know that I could not carry out an execution in cold blood without that act having a significantly negative effect on who and what I would be from that point forward, and having someone else carry out the execution on my behalf does not lift the responsibility for the act from me (see item #3 above).

Agreed. I think there was a documentary about the death penalty which showed that one of the executioners got to a point where he could no longer handle doing it.

So what would be achieved by adding a different standard of proof in death penalty cases? (Other than to say, "Hey, if you're just potentially sending someone to prison, for life or for a lesser sentence, it's really not something that you need to take all that seriously.") And what would your standard of proof be?

No, I think the burden of proof should be high in both cases. And I would be happy simply getting rid of the death penalty. But if it is going to be in play then I think the standards should be particularly high. There are already different standards for different types of cases. In most civil litigation the standard is something like ">50% probability", while in other civil cases the standard can be "clear and convincing evidence", but less than beyond a reasonable doubt. Some people say beyond a reasonable doubt should be around 99%, but it's pretty clear to me that many juries' standards are lower than that.

 

[cornsail]

The following isn't directed at anyone in particular. In reference to my specific question whether there may have been jurors who found the evidence in Anthony's case sufficient for a guilty verdict, but refused, as Cornsail suggested would be the right thing to do, to actually find her guilty because she might have faced the death penalty, I honestly see no difference between this kind of vigilantism and the kind where someone who thought she was guilty took the law into their own hands and killed her.

Remember, I am speaking of someone who is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that she did indeed murder her daughter, but refuses to find her guilty, thus preventing her from ever being tried for the murder again, and setting her free to possibly kill again. If you knowingly set a murderer free because you are morally opposed to the death penalty, you may escape the burden on your conscience of feeling responsible for their death - which technically you aren't, because it's usually the judges who do the sentencing - but whether you admit it or not, you will be responsible for anyone else that murderer kills.

To be clear, I would have voted guilty if I was on the jury and was convinced to a high degree (even though I'm against the death penalty). There is a huge difference between requiring a high standard of evidence and "knowingly setting a murderer free".

 

[mlp]

Interesting how jury nullification is still legal, but endorsing the view of jury nullification will get you kicked off the jury.

Well, for one, it doesn't get you "kicked off" a jury; it ensures that you will not be put on that jury. Second, if you don't understand the difference between the impartiality required of a juror and the requirement of a defense attorney to zealously defend his/her client, then I'm afraid you are failing to understand the basic concepts underlying our juducial system.

Why would lesser standards of proof be needed for non-capital crimes? Why not a greater standard of proof be needed for capital crimes?

And again I would ask you to formulate a standard of proof that's greater than "beyond a reasonable doubt" which could actually result in conviction in a case. Because "beyond a doubt" will never result in a conviction, or shouldn't.

No, I think the burden of proof should be high in both cases. And I would be happy simply getting rid of the death penalty. But if it is going to be in play then I think the standards should be particularly high. There are already different standards for different types of cases. In most civil litigation the standard is something like ">50% probability", while in other civil cases the standard can be "clear and convincing evidence", but less than beyond a reasonable doubt. Some people say beyond a reasonable doubt should be around 99%, but it's pretty clear to me that many juries' standards are lower than that.

You could have saved yourself some typing if you had read my post #70.

Your mention of 99% confirms what I was thinking about your and das_nut's thinking about trials (and probably about a whole lot of other things you encounter in life) - you approach it as though it could be reduced to a mathematical formula, where you can give points for certain factors, weight them, and then presto! you have a definitive answer. Well, much of life, including trials, isn't like that at all.

But maybe you and das_nut could come up with a formula/definition of a standard of proof higher than "beyond a reasonable doubt" that would be workable. I wait with baited breath.

 

[das_nut]

Well, for one, it doesn't get you "kicked off" a jury; it ensures that you will not be put on that jury. Second, if you don't understand the difference between the impartiality required of a juror and the requirement of a defense attorney to zealously defend his/her client, then I'm afraid you are failing to understand the basic concepts underlying our juducial system.

You seem to not accept the idea that the jury should reject bad laws. I think it's a safeguard in our legal system, you do not.

You also have skipped the problem that a death-qualified jury is more likely to find a judgement of guilty, which seems to be directly against your belief that a jury should be "impartial". Tell me, what's "impartial" about a jury that's more likely to convict?

And again I would ask you to formulate a standard of proof that's greater than "beyond a reasonable doubt" which could actually result in conviction in a case. Because "beyond a doubt" will never result in a conviction, or shouldn't.

I already gave you one example - require more than eyewitness testimony for death penalty sentences. Perhaps require multiple "beyond a reasonable doubt" standards - for example, the eyewitness testimony and the physical evidence, separately, would both be enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the murder. After all, while eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and while evidence can be mis-interpreted or forged, it's less likely that both would be wrong.

Other restrictions could reply - no reliance on jailhouse snitches' testimony, for example (another factor in far too many questionable executions). All interrogations would have to be filmed (y'know, this wouldn't be a bad idea for all criminal cases, actually, but in the interest of efficiency, applying it first to death penalty cases would be a good idea).

If the burden of proof cannot be met, there's always the alternative of life in prison without parole.

 

[cornsail]

Your mention of 99% confirms what I was thinking about your and das_nut's thinking about trials (and probably about a whole lot of other things you encounter in life) - you approach it as though it could be reduced to a mathematical formula, where you can give points for certain factors, weight them, and then presto! you have a definitive answer. Well, much of life, including trials, isn't like that at all.

But maybe you and das_nut could come up with a formula/definition of a standard of proof higher than "beyond a reasonable doubt" that would be workable. I wait with baited breath.

You've been repeatedly attributing things to me that I haven't said.