Didn’t say innocent, which is a completely different thing. On the other hand, despite the bizarre nature of it all, there was no hard evidence of 1st degree murder or even if it was or wasn’t an accident. Only stupidity. Or cleverness to be able to not be found guilty.
Now this is interesting, or something.
Found by Gasparrini
Sister==really thats odd. All pretty “standard issue” most of the time. Do you have a link or specifics?
It is remarkable the (poor) quality of judges in these high profile cases, so I wouldn’t be surprised.
I didn’t follow this case at all but I agree your advice above is quite astute. You must have been quite a date before taking the habit.
Lets see…………..yep, thats a new picture. Ha, ha. Keep the good stuff coming.
Apr 10, 2011 – Belvin Perry’s story arc is well documented. His father, Belvin Perry Sr., was one of Orlando’s first black police officers, …
Nobody wants to believe a young white mother of such a small child is capable of the murder or at best extreme indifference to the safety and welfare of her child.
From what I have heard of this case, I have formed the opinion that she is a sociopath. Full disclosure, I have all of 1 semester in Intro to Psychology from 20 yrs ago, but I do have an ex brother-in-law who is a classic sociopath.
I have tried to write this post 5 times so all I can really say is this:
Words fail me in describing how horrid Nancy Grace is.
Here is Nancy Grace commenting on the verdict. completely inane and inaccurate, bunch of FUD. When YOU are charge with a capital crime, the issue is YOU–not the dead victim. Silly to over equate.
Being certain about that which cannot be known is always good for tv.
http://nowpublic.com/world/nancy-grace-reaction-casey-anthony-not-guilty-verdict-video-2811020.html
She an evil hedonistic practitioner of infanticide -
- but great tits.
How many men on the jury?
Bobo: Are you saying that in Florida a judge can dismiss an indictment handed down by a grand jury? They can’t do that in my state. If the prosecution had sought an indictment via a preliminary hearing, then a judge can rule insufficient evidence to go to trial. Once a grand jury indicts, the case is going to trial and the judge’s only option would be a directed verdict of not guilty. I fail to see how judges can be responsible for lazy, ill-prepared prosecutors.
If Ted Kennedy could walk past a bunch of firehouses and go to a party while his car was in the water with a pregnant woman inside, and he isn’t even charged, then how could the mother in this case be put to death?
llsee–yes, good point. You know, I hate getting caught purely emoting. (smile!) I don’t know enough fact or law to say what judges or this judge can/should “legally” do or what his options are/could be.
That said, I can imagine an “agressive” judge getting a grand jury indictment and still having a nice little conference with the DA, with the Defendants Lawyer present of course, reviewing the case and the proof and “counseling” what the judges best
haruspication might be.
Lets take the following hypothetical: UNKNOWN cause of death. Should anyone anywhere be subject to a jury finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt when cause of death cannot be established?
I don’t think so.
The devil is in the detail. Allow me to restate what my general, not specific to this case, point is: judges should protect constitutional rights more agressively than they do. They rule the justice system.
Why judges aren’t doing this in Illinois for instance and holding DA’s and Cops in contempt for charging people with disturbing the peace for taking video’s of cops in public is simply beyond me. When 99% of all hypothetical cases would/should go one way, its a form of corruption/laziness to let such cases “go to the jury.”
mutter, mutter, mutter……..
In a related to our issue case, here is a prosecutor proud to be overturned on appeal because it proved his skills as an attorney: he could convict without sufficient evidence.
Its tongue in cheek, but goes to the issue of judges not doing their jobs. Short read.
http://liberallylean.com/2011/05/no-body-murder-case-update-that-makes.html
“Didn’t say innocent.”
Did people forget they are American’s??
Isn’t that just stupid and contrary to “Innocent until proven Guilty”. You can parse it however you like, agree or disagree. Fact is she was not found Guilty so by default she is Innocent!
You have to be diehard communist not to believe that!
Can’t wait for Dexter to be back.
I think there are two reasons why the prosecution even took this to court.
1) This was a little white child. Little white girls are almost as media worthy as blond teen / young female in gathering massive media attention. Little black kids, teenage boys, and old women need not apply.
2) Nancy Disgrace made this her “Glenn Beck” moment. It boosted her ratings as every night she railed about this “slut”.
…
The rest of the media fell onto the band wagon and pronounced her guilty long before charges were laid. I caught some of the trial last week (my wife insisted on watching). All the commentators could spout was how bad the case was going for the defense. Only once did TruTV (how is that for a misnomer) have an attorney that gave an objective analysis. I didn’t see him again, BUT remember, I only caught a small portion of the trial.
This case was about as interesting as the royal wedding.
#7, Ryan,
Under the law, she is innocent.
Nope. No American trial can find a person “innocent”. They can only find an accused guilty or not guilty. To find a person innocent can only come after a person has been found guilty and a Judge overturns that verdict.
At this stage Anthony is “Not Guilty” of murder. She may still be sued in a civil trial for the same offense or even be tried in a Federal Court if there are any similar Federal laws. OJ Simpson is probably the best example of being found “Not Guilty” in a criminal trial but being successfully sued in a civil trial. Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 37-38 (1978). allows the laying of charges arising from the same instances in Federal and State courts.
#31: If you mean (as some of the jurors are essentially saying now) there wasn’t the proper amount of evidence presented to PROVE guilt as defined by law and thereby render a legal determination of guilty, but any knucklehead could she did something morally reprehensible (from covering up an accidental death to full on murder), then yes, she is, by the legal definition, innocent.
Or put another way, she’s today’s OJ.
# 35 Mr. Fusion said, “She may still be sued in a civil trial for the same offense or even be tried in a Federal Court … “
You’re absolutely right, of course. And I find that objectionable. It is sanctioned double jeopardy and just proves that if they really want you, they’ll find a way.
I doubt there will be any federal charges. Holder will just assume it was a retroactive abortion.
I think I heard she has been served a lawsuit by a nanny for defamation for using her name as the “abductor.” Anyone else who wants to sue has to have “standing” and that pretty much leaves it to her parents. Maybe the father will come out just to sue her?
Of course, she has nothing and any future earnings may already be assigned to the defense team. I heard the lead defender is already talking a book deal. Probably so is the prosecution and several jurors. You know “not guilty and/or innocent” Anthony is probably hiring an agent even as we write…
#6 There was bed prosecution, alright. But the defense didn’t prove their starting thesis either.
I say the blame should also be put in the pussification of America, and the “quality” of those jurors who I believe would have let Osama go free.
#9 That a negro is doing you what?
#10 Pure tautology of the irrelevant. Kudos.
#12 Why didn’t you have a mom like Casey?
#23 What more experience do you need to have? You’re more than qualified just by surviving that psychopath.
#27 I warn you, you’re wasting your time asking that question.
#35 I agree with your dissertation and your second point. On your first point, that is not the cause why the prosecution went on to trial, but why the trial was so media “worthy”
Animby–you are one of the few posting here that might benefit from this advice:
actually use your dictionary and look up/apply:
1. entrapment
2. double jeopardy
—or continue on to the tune of your own private piper. Your evaluation here is the legal equivalent of bleeding your patients. What educated person does that anymore?
Well, its hard to be schooled across many disciplines. May we all be judged on that fateful day only in our areas of claimed expertise?
animby—are you a legal expert? Can I bleed you?
Ha, ha.—Bill introduced to require reporting the death of a child. And yet Wallstreet is still allowed to Kill America.
http://wbaltv.com/r/28473783/detail.html