Casey Anthony acquitted!

[hornetrider]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/05/casey-...

WOW. Did not see that verdict coming. OJ-esque! Anyone else been following the case?

[mybrainhurts]

Errrr....no

[Flintstone]

Who?

[Stu R]

Unbelievable. The jury must be utterly stupid, but the blame must rest on the shoulders of the prosecution for not presenting a strong enough case. Can only go to a retrial surely?

[Silent1]

Yep saw it coming a long way off, pushy prosecution coming across as forthright on circumstantial evidence with jurors who've spent weeks couped up in a hotel.

[anonymous-user]

Stu R said:

Unbelievable. The jury must be utterly stupid, but the blame must rest on the shoulders of the prosecution for not presenting a strong enough case. Can only go to a retrial surely?

Retrial? WTF are you on about? She's been acquited by the unanimous decision of a jury! Why would there be a retrial? You think they can keep trying people until they find them guilty?? LMFAO. There was no evidence to support a verdict of guilty of murder, the prosecution badly screwed up and despite the ridiculous wall to wall coverage and unbelievably biased media here in the US the jury reached the correct verdict.

Anthony may well have done it but the evidence against her was circumstantial and you don't convict someone because the media don't like her! Good on the jury for a brave and correct decision. As expert after expert said tonight, if she had been found guilty it would have been overturned on appeal.

[Stu R]

unrepentant said:

Stu R said:

Unbelievable. The jury must be utterly stupid, but the blame must rest on the shoulders of the prosecution for not presenting a strong enough case. Can only go to a retrial surely?

Retrial? WTF are you on about? She's been acquited by the unanimous decision of a jury! Why would there be a retrial? You think they can keep trying people until they find them guilty?? LMFAO. There was no evidence to support a verdict of guilty of murder, the prosecution badly screwed up and despite the ridiculous wall to wall coverage and unbelievably biased media here in the US the jury reached the correct verdict.

Anthony may well have done it but the evidence against her was circumstantial and you don't convict someone because the media don't like her! Good on the jury for a brave and correct decision. As expert after expert said tonight, if she had been found guilty it would have been overturned on appeal.

Alright poppet, want a corkscrew to help you untwist your knickers? I've not been following the case closely, only heard about it for the first time on arriving in the US last week, but from what little I've seen in the media it sounded like there was a fairly strong case against her (appreciate that wasn't the case now of course), especially given the fibs she told the authorities. I'd be amazed if some new evidence doesn't come to light and lead to a retrial. The case stinks of mishandling from start to finish, and I'll put money on this not being the end of it. Regardless of the outcome, her life is going to be hell for the foreseeable future.

[Andy Zarse]

DSK innocent? Whatever next? They'll be telling us the maid lied to get into the States...


He still shouldn't really have fked her though.

[Mikeyboy]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

OOh that came as a shock didn't it. I always thought the story had one small problem. How did she know who he was? Room number and the hindsight to check with management? Unusually calm attempted rape victim if so.
I realise there are a multitude of ways that she could have known but it did instantly make me wonder how she was so positive so quickly in what was a stranger rape case. After all her profile didn't seem to be that of an avid reader of the WSJ.

[deckster]

Stu R said:

Alright poppet, want a corkscrew to help you untwist your knickers? I've not been following the case closely, only heard about it for the first time on arriving in the US last week, but from what little I've seen in the media it sounded like there was a fairly strong case against her (appreciate that wasn't the case now of course), especially given the fibs she told the authorities. I'd be amazed if some new evidence doesn't come to light and lead to a retrial. The case stinks of mishandling from start to finish, and I'll put money on this not being the end of it. Regardless of the outcome, her life is going to be hell for the foreseeable future.

So, just to get this straight - you've known about the case for a week. You haven't been following it, but have seen a couple of media reports. And on that basis, you are so certain that Anthony is guilty that you brand the jury as 'utterly stupid' because they have, after weeks of living and breathing every detail that is known about case, decided that the prosecution has not shown 'beyond all reasonable doubt' that Anthony is guilty.

Riiiight. I just thank god that 'Trial by Max Clifford' is not yet a legally recognised method of establishing truth.

[TTwiggy]

I haven't followed this case, but it's certainly odd... Parent covering up the accidental death of a child... driving around with the dead child in the back of the car (allegedly)... false claims of abduction... it all seems oddly familiar

[anonymous-user]

Andy Zarse said:

DSK innocent? Whatever next? They'll be telling us the maid lied to get into the States...


He still shouldn't really have fked her though.

Why not? His wife doesn't seem to have any problem with his extra-marital activities.

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 6th July 10:28

[gingerpaul]

Having heard nothing of this until the verdict was in the news today I feel like I'm missing some key element that hasn't been covered thus far. From what I have read so far the prosecution's case was based on her changing her story after receiving legal advice and circumstantial evidence.

The way the American news agencies are talking I must have missed a huge bit of evidence somewhere as they all believe without doubt that she did it. I guess it must have been a bit of a media storm over there.

If there isn't any additional evidence then surely the prosecutors went to trial with a case that they really shouldn't have expected to win.

Am I missing something?

[Dr_Gonzo]

gingerpaul said:

Having heard nothing of this until the verdict was in the news today I feel like I'm missing some key element that hasn't been covered thus far. From what I have read so far the prosecution's case was based on her changing her story after receiving legal advice and circumstantial evidence.

The way the American news agencies are talking I must have missed a huge bit of evidence somewhere as they all believe without doubt that she did it. I guess it must have been a bit of a media storm over there.

If there isn't any additional evidence then surely the prosecutors went to trial with a case that they really shouldn't have expected to win.

Am I missing something?

I felt like that too. Also, isn't covering up the albeit accidental death of a child, trying to dispose of the body, and then falsly claiming that she had been adbucted some sort of crime?

[hornetrider]

Her childs badly decomposed body was found in the boot of her car. She lied about where the child was to her parents when they asked after her.

[gingerpaul]

From what I've read she has been found guilty of four counts of misleading the investigators so apparantly that is against the law. It doesn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was the killer though.

[gingerpaul]

hornetrider said:

Her childs badly decomposed body was found in the boot of her car. She lied about where the child was to her parents when they asked after her.

Ah, I didn't know that. How did it take so long for the body to be found if it was in her car, or did she collect it from wherever it was?

[turbobloke]

unrepentant said:

Stu R said:

Unbelievable. The jury must be utterly stupid, but the blame must rest on the shoulders of the prosecution for not presenting a strong enough case. Can only go to a retrial surely?

Retrial? WTF are you on about? She's been acquited by the unanimous decision of a jury! Why would there be a retrial? You think they can keep trying people until they find them guilty??

Agreed it shouldn't happen.

Unfortunately in terms of double jeopardy, that's what the injustice system in England and Wales now allows, also the admission of hearsay evidence, as of 2005.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4406129.stm

BBC news online said:

A legal principle which prevents people being tried for the same crime twice has been scrapped in England and Wales. The ban on "double jeopardy", which has existed for around 800 years, took effect from Monday.

The Court of Appeal can now quash an acquittal and order a retrial when "new and compelling" evidence is produced.

The reforms - which also allow hearsay evidence to be admissible in court - come under the new Criminal Justice act.

They apply to 30 serious crimes - including murder, rape, Class A drug offences and war crimes - but double jeopardy remains in force for lesser offences.

unrepentant said:

There was no evidence to support a verdict of guilty of murder, the prosecution badly screwed up and despite the ridiculous wall to wall coverage and unbelievably biased media here in the US the jury reached the correct verdict.

Good to see common sense prevailing with insufficient evidence to convict safely but massive trial by media pressure to do so.

Article said:

The judge refused to permit the prosecution to have the jury sniff a can containing an air sample from the car.

WTF?

That would have been both bizarre and ultimately pointless.

[hornetrider]

gingerpaul said:

Ah, I didn't know that. How did it take so long for the body to be found if it was in her car, or did she collect it from wherever it was?

How often do people search the boot of your car?! She told people the child was with a sitter... who it later transpired did not exist.

[Jimbeaux]

On the DSK note; I see now that a French writer is now accusing him of an uninvited poke.