.....how, in the state of Florida, a citizen can be charged with the murder of a person whose cause of death cannot be determined ?
My wife and sister-in-law were glued to the TV over that Caylee Anthony murder trial summations and I was wondering how a murder can be determined without cause of death ? Especially in a Capital Murder case .
Seems the whole media world wants to see a capital conviction...but from the circumstantial evidence, that baby could have died from any number of natural causes and not been murdered at all.
Right, there is absolutely no evidence, only circumstantial (a lot of it) and that may just be enough to convict her, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the results is a hung jury. I’ll be so glad when it’s over.
Location: On an Island in the west coast of New England
Posts: 13,132
I just don't see them getting a first degree pre meditated conviction. That woman is probably the most reviled person in the news today but to get a conviction would require a unanimous decision between 12 jurors. I just don't see it happening with all the questions. I am sure most of the public would be glad if they sentenced her to death but I believe she will either get a 2nd degree murder or ended in a hung jury. I put more probability on the hung jury and that will allow this one to drag on and on. I really doubt that she will ever be acquitted though
__________________
Too busy with fishing to spend much time here.
You guys give the jurors too much credit. We had a bunch'a apes disregard metaphysically certain DNA evidence, blood evidence, etc, to set Orenthal J. Simpson loose after nearly decapitating his wife. A good story, as told by the prosecutor, will, I believe send this woman to the death chamber. Everyone wants it. I just don't see how you can charge a person with murder under state law without a coroner's determination that a murder has taken place. Somebody decided that babies don't die for no particular reason...so she has to have been killed. Looking at the mother, there is a plethora of evidence of a circumstantial nature to indicate she's involved. THAT"S IT. There has GOT to be a state law someplace that would allow this sort of prosecution without proof a murder was committed. It makes no sense. There was a homicide (death of a human being), but murder ? No evidence whatsoever, other than circumstantial evidence.
First of all, I detest the idea that you can convict someone of second degree murder if you're not quite convinced that they're guilty of first degree murder. Either Anthony is guilty of first degree murder or she's not guilty.
What about the cause of death? If you find a child's body with duct tape over mouth and nose, it doesn't require a great leap of faith to conclude that foul play was involved.
Couple that with Anthony's behavior after the child disappeared. No grief stricken appeals to "please return my baby." Instead a lie claiming she was taken by a non-existent babysitter. And then the partying. Once again it doesn't take a great leap of faith to conclude that Anthony knew the child was already dead. How did she know? Yup, you got it right.
And then the story about the child drowning in the pool. What happens when you see a child apparently drowned or drowning in the pool? You call 911 and attempt to resuscitate. That claim was obviously nonsense.
Now let's play the scene back. How does she beat the rap?
First of all, she goes on TV as the distraught, bawling mother. When they find the child later, they may suspect her, but she's created reasonable doubt. It could have been anyone who murdered the child.
Second, we can get it down to involuntary manslaughter. After they find the body, she claims she taped the child's mouth because she couldn't stand her screaming tantrum. Later when she checked, the child was dead. She panicked and took her out into the woods and left her there. The death was an accident. She might even get a not guilty verdict.
It's all circumstantial evidence, but it all hangs together.
First of all, I detest the idea that you can convict someone of second degree murder if you're not quite convinced that they're guilty of first degree murder. Either Anthony is guilty of first degree murder or she's not guilty.
What about the cause of death? If you find a child's body with duct tape over mouth and nose, it doesn't require a great leap of faith to conclude that foul play was involved.
Couple that with Anthony's behavior after the child disappeared. No grief stricken appeals to "please return my baby." Instead a lie claiming she was taken by a non-existent babysitter. And then the partying. Once again it doesn't take a great leap of faith to conclude that Anthony knew the child was already dead. How did she know? Yup, you got it right.
And then the story about the child drowning in the pool. What happens when you see a child apparently drowned or drowning in the pool? You call 911 and attempt to resuscitate. That claim was obviously nonsense.
Now let's play the scene back. How does she beat the rap?
First of all, she goes on TV as the distraught, bawling mother. When they find the child later, they may suspect her, but she's created reasonable doubt. It could have been anyone who murdered the child.
Second, we can get it down to involuntary manslaughter. After they find the body, she claims she taped the child's mouth because she couldn't stand her screaming tantrum. Later when she checked, the child was dead. She panicked and took her out into the woods and left her there. The death was an accident. She might even get a not guilty verdict.
It's all circumstantial evidence, but it all hangs together.
I agree with it all....except for the 1 glaring contradiction.
Without physical evidence of murder of this child, someone was forced to defend themselves in criminal court. I have a problem with that...this case should never have come to trial as a circumstantial evidence 'shot in the dark'. Sure it was a great story by the prosecution....and the defense stank....but nobody could say how the child died, or SURMISE how the child died. I don't see how one can decide there was a murder without physical evidence and then charge someone with the crime. It's almost as difficult as trying to convict an accused murderer without a body, witnesses, fingerprints or DNA evidence. I'm not surprised she walked, and as a matter of fact, I am pleased that the rule of law, and the sanity of logical reasoning was allowed to play out in that jury room. To declare otherwise is to sanction a lynch mob.
There were 4 counts of lying to a police officer (or something like that) each of which carries a 4 yr sentence. She was convicted of all 4 of them. In all likelihood, sentencing will run concurrently, and she's already been in jail for 3 years now....she can serve 1 year or her sentence can be shortened to time served. She can still walk scott-free.
looking for legal eagles to explain....
_ _ _Death Comes Out the End of This Thing _ _ _
