Casey Anthony: Not Guilty

Discussion in 'Serious Chat' started by Benjamin, Jul 5, 2011.

  1. #21
    $pvcxGhxztCasey

    $pvcxGhxztCasey meanwhile... LPA Addicted VIP

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    15,888
    Likes Received:
    44



    LMFAO.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If she killed her daughter, why isn't she in jail then? Eh? She doesn't look that smart, but hey, who knows, maybe she knows exactly how to dispose of a body and murder a child without leaving fingerprints or anything at all to link her to the case. Yeah, that has to be it.

    Accept the verdict. Move on. Don't worry, guys, there will be another case exactly like this in a few months. Who knows, maybe Justin Timberlake will rape some kids and we can focus on a celebrity trail instead of a 22 - 25 year old mother (who obviously hadn't worked out some issues she had with giving up her old life).

    Shit happens and people make choices that, to the rest of us, look like suspicious behavior. Got a tattoo? You killed your daughter. Went out at night and partied after you drugged her? YOU KILLED HER!

    Fingerprints, DNA...something. Then I'll believe it. Until then.... media assassination. They want you to believe one thing, but then 12 very smart, GOOD jurors do their job because the state UTTERLY failed... and it's like the goddamn apocalypse, live on Nancy Grace.
     
  2. #22
    the enigma

    the enigma The Routine Scar

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    1



    I feel like a terrible person, because I had no idea this trial was an issue or even happening until the verdict came in and my Facebook blew up. Looking into it, there is no way to prove she did it, and so you can't convict her. Investigators can find new evidence and charge her again if they can. It's not the end of the world.

    Hopefully the Facebook Chains will end and I can check my messages without seeing that woman's name again.
     
  3. #23
    $pvcxGhxztCasey

    $pvcxGhxztCasey meanwhile... LPA Addicted VIP

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    15,888
    Likes Received:
    44



    No, they can't. It's called double jeopardy. You can't be charged twice for the same crime.
     
  4. #24
    travz21

    travz21 Muscle Museum LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,000
    Likes Received:
    5



    Yeah. She's home free, baby!
     
  5. #25
    the enigma

    the enigma The Routine Scar

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    1



    Nope, they can. The point of "double jeopardy" is to prevent a defendant from being charged for the same crime multiple times without new evidence. If new evidence is found it can be presented to the court. If it is substantial enough, the court will allow the charges and a new trial will begin. It is a Fifth Amendment right in the US that was put in place so people could not be abused or oppressed through being punished multiple times for the same crime, or being harassed over a crime they didn't commit.

    So yeah, they can charge her again. Also, it only applies to being charged multiple times in the same sovereign, so it can be taken in front of a Federal court and not be considered double jeopardy.

    Again, this is only if an investigator finds irrefutable evidence. The likely hood of which is slim to none.
     
  6. #26
    DaMU

    DaMU Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    1



    I don't know, enigma. I saw this documentary about double jeopardy with Ashley Judd in it, and the message I got from it was that I like Ashley Judd's boobs.
     
  7. #27
    The Fortunate One

    The Fortunate One Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    900
    Likes Received:
    10



    You sure, or does it depend on the State in which the crime is committed? Because I remember once hearing about a guy who raped and murdered a woman, he was acquitted on all charges due to lack of evidence. A while later a videotape capturing the former-defendant in the act surfaced (as irrefutable as the evidence can get) , but the case could not be re-opened due to double-jeopardy, so he went scott-free.
     
  8. #28
    Todd

    Todd FLǕGGȦ∂NKđ€ČHIŒβǾLʃÊN LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,061,053
    Likes Received:
    109



    I don't think that's true. Double jeopardy means you can't be retried for the same crime, period.

    1. That wasn't a documentary
    2. The entire premise of that movie, that if you are found guilty of killing someone, then it turns out they faked their death, that once you are freed from jail you can kill that person and not be charged with double jeopardy, is bullshit. Double jeopardy prevents you from being tried twice for the same instance of a crime. If it's found that the death was faked, that first instance disappears and then killing him for real is a second instance, thus, you would be tried for it.
    3. I like Ashley Judd's boobs too.
     
  9. #29
    Dusty

    Dusty LPA Super VIP LPA Super VIP

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Messages:
    5,072
    Likes Received:
    25


    Last edited: Jul 7, 2011
  10. #30
    $pvcxGhxztCasey

    $pvcxGhxztCasey meanwhile... LPA Addicted VIP

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    15,888
    Likes Received:
    44



    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2011
  11. #31
    Justin V.

    Justin V. Professional Lurker

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes Received:
    6



    I agree with Casey.

    "This rule is occasionally referred to as a legal technicality because it allows defendants a defense that does not address whether the crime was actually committed. For example, were police to uncover new evidence conclusively proving the guilt of someone previously acquitted, there is little they can do because the defendant may not be tried again—at least not on the same or a substantially similar charge. "

    If the case was dismissed or declared a mistrial and new, irrefutable evidance appeared, then yes she could be tried. What you're thinking of is this:

    "Double jeopardy attaches only to prosecutions for the same criminal act by the same sovereign, but as separate sovereigns, both the federal and state governments can bring separate prosecutions for the same act.

    As an example, a state might try a defendant for murder, after which the Federal government might try the same defendant for a Federal crime (perhaps a civil rights violation or a kidnapping) connected to the same act. For example, the officers of the Los Angeles Police Department who were charged with assaulting Rodney King in 1991 were acquitted by a jury of the Superior Court, but some were later convicted and sentenced in Federal court for violating King's civil rights."

    But not for the same crime, that would have been double jeopardy. They could not be charged by the Federal and State for assault, but for different charges resulting from the same act, since assault and civil rights violations are state and federal offenses.
     
  12. #32
    Benjamin

    Benjamin LPA team LPA Super VIP

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    6,398
    Likes Received:
    7



    If Casey Anthony wanted to, she could come out and say "Yeah, I killed my daughter. The Jury got it wrong" and the court couldn't do shit about it.
     
  13. #33
    Todd

    Todd FLǕGGȦ∂NKđ€ČHIŒβǾLʃÊN LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,061,053
    Likes Received:
    109



    Yeah, that's basically what OJ did with his book. The court can't touch him. But the son of a bitch is serving a long sentence for something else now.

    There's still the possibility that she could be sued in a civil court (like OJ was), but I'm not sure that in this case anyone actually has standing to sue. Normally, the parents, spouse or children of the deceased are the ones with standing to sue for wrongful death. Obviously Caylee has no spouse or children, so that leaves Casey and the kid's father as the only ones with standing to sue. And we have no idea who the father is, I don't even know if she knows.
     
  14. #34
    lpboarder

    lpboarder Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Messages:
    402
    Likes Received:
    0



    It seems this subject is on the top of every forum I peruse, why should this place be any different? ;)


    Considering that Casey does not seem to be the brightest bulb in the box, perhaps she lives in the only place in the US where forensic experts use the CSI franchise as a training tool. She got lucky in my opinion but at the same time, the jury was not given enough evidence to convict so I do not agree with all the armchair lawyers across the Interwebz who are upset over the verdict. Take the emotion out and let logic flow in.
     
  15. #35
    the enigma

    the enigma The Routine Scar

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    1



    Everything I've ever read states that the Double Jeopardy stuff only works if no new evidence is brought up to reopen the investigation and a subsequent trial. If this is not the case, then we need to amend the constitution, because that's bullshit.
     
  16. #36
    Todd

    Todd FLǕGGȦ∂NKđ€ČHIŒβǾLʃÊN LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,061,053
    Likes Received:
    109




    No it's not. Someone who is acquitted shouldn't have to go back to trial every year because prosecution keeps finding what they think is new evidence. It's fine the way it is.
     
  17. #37
    the enigma

    the enigma The Routine Scar

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    1



    No it isn't! You're telling me that if you're family was slaughtered, and the police had irrefutable evidence that someone did it, you'd be okay with just letting them go? I'm not saying that you find a new strand of hair, charge again. I'm saying if the evidence is substantial enough, then yes, charge the person again. To do anything else is stupid.
     
  18. #38
    travz21

    travz21 Muscle Museum LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,000
    Likes Received:
    5



    The point is that where do you draw the line of "irrefutable proof"? Some might call it a strand of hair, some a blatant video, some a new witness. Some of this irrefutable proof might not even be irrefutable, and the person being charged with the crime could keep having to come back to court again and again and again for the rest of their life even if they're innocent.

    A lot of the laws in the US are there to protect people who are innocent. Just because a few bad ones get away, we can't just change the law. It would put our freedom in danger.
     
  19. #39
    Todd

    Todd FLǕGGȦ∂NKđ€ČHIŒβǾLʃÊN LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,061,053
    Likes Received:
    109



    Yes I would be ok with letting them go because you can't define irrefutable proof. It's a vague definition, and every piece of evidence is subject to being contested. We shouldn't be dragging people into court every year because new evidence was found. And double jeopardy laws should motivate prosecutors to get it tight the first time, otherwise they'll keep doing a half assed job hoping they eventually get it right. There are no do overs. It would be a waste of time and a waste of money.
     
  20. #40
    Benjamin

    Benjamin LPA team LPA Super VIP

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    6,398
    Likes Received:
    7



    Exactly. Thank you.
     

Share This Page