Casey Anthony - The Decision Is In!

#302
#302
tigervol9802 said:
I will throw out the argument that a high profile case like this will draw a bigger name attorney willing to cut her a discount or draw an attorney willing to do whatever it takes in order to get his name in the spotlight.

That was the reason of my question of how she got her attorney. I have no clue.
Click to expand...

I think that's a good point. However, from what I saw, the prosecutor is a good attorney; he just didn't have the evidence.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#303
#303
CountVolcula said:
Just for S and G's

You get married. Your wife leaves the house after you fight. Your neighbor hears the fight. You say " I will kill you if you leave". Days later, your wife is found dead, partially buried. She has been bludgeoned to death. The neighbor sees it on the news, calls the police, and tells them what he heard. Cops find a baseball bat in your truck bed and a shovel. They arrest you for murder. You go on trial. The neighbor didnt see your wife had left after the argument, leaving you in the house. You helped your father dig up a broken water line with the shovel. You play softball on the weekends.

They convict you of murder based on circumstantial evidence
Click to expand...

Your point is well made, but baseball bats and shovels are items that are commonly found in many homes. Chloroform is not.
 
#304
#304
bamawriter said:
Your point is well made, but baseball bats and shovels are items that are commonly found in many homes. Chloroform is not.
Click to expand...

Possibly. But, in his scenario, a cause of death was determined. In this case, it was never determined.
 
#305
#305
NYYVol said:
Yet the differences are still noticeable.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

My point being that popular opinion coupled with a hostile media has failed to produce convictions in many high profile cases. So either the hectoring of Nancy Grace types has no effect on the result of a high profile court case, or it somehow produces the opposite of the result desired by the media.
 
#306
#306
LawVol13 said:
Possibly. But, in his scenario, a cause of death was determined. In this case, it was never determined.
Click to expand...

True, but the girl didn't die from natural causes. No one argued that. So it was either intentional or accidental, either of which could logically lead to the mother's conviction.
 
#307
#307
bamawriter said:
So it was either intentional or accidental, either of which could logically lead to the mother's conviction.
Click to expand...

No, because 1st degree murder and voluntary manslaughter both require intent. Criminally negligent homicide wasn't an option.
 
#310
#310
LawVol13 said:
No, because 1st degree murder and voluntary manslaughter both require intent. Criminally negligent homicide wasn't an option.
Click to expand...

If I leave a child in a hot car for hours, I can be convicted of voluntary manslaughter. My intent was to leave the child in the car, but not to kill it.

Let's say Casey duct taped the girl's mouth shut to get her to stop whining, and the girl suffocated. Casey didn't intend to kill the girl, but she did intend to commit the act that resulted in the death. Voluntary manslaughter.
 
#312
#312
bamawriter said:
If I leave a child in a hot car for hours, I can be convicted of voluntary manslaughter. My intent was to leave the child in the car, but not to kill it.

Let's say Casey duct taped the girl's mouth shut to get her to stop whining, and the girl suffocated. Casey didn't intend to kill the girl, but she did intend to commit the act that resulted in the death. Voluntary manslaughter.
Click to expand...

That is absolutely incorrect. Voluntary manslaughter is the intentional killing of someone without premeditation. The difference between voluntary manslaughter and 2nd degree murder is that there is a level of provocation needed to knock down the intentional killing from 2nd degree to voluntary manslaughter. What you are describing might fit into involuntary manslaughter or reckless homicide or criminally negligent homicide.
 
Last edited:
#316
#316
LawVol13 said:
I believe he's talking about non-involuntary manslaughter now.
Click to expand...

I suppose Googling chloroform wasn't premeditated & the duct tape was an accident & the shovel was to plant a tree. Must have been old chicken mcnuggets stinking up the car.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#317
#317
govols/cc said:
I suppose Googling chloroform wasn't premeditated & the duct tape was an accident & the shovel was to plant a tree. Must have been old chicken mcnuggets stinking up the car.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

It's circumstantial. You can't tie it all together when you can't prove how or when the victim died. There might have been enough to get her with a preponderance of the evidence standard, but it wasn't even close to proving it beyond a reasonable doubt. And, that wasn't the discussion in the post you quoted.
 
#318
#318
LawVol13 said:
It's circumstantial. You can't tie it all together when you can't prove how or when the victim died. There might have been enough to get her with a preponderance of the evidence standard, but it wasn't even close to proving it beyond a reasonable doubt. And, that wasn't the discussion in the post you quoted.
Click to expand...

Don't be using words like preponderance and circumstantial on a guy that wouldn't know sheepskin from alligator foreskin.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#319
#319
LawVol13 said:
That is absolutely incorrect. Voluntary manslaughter is the intentional killing of someone without premeditation. The difference between voluntary manslaughter and 2nd degree murder is that there is a level of provocation needed to knock down the intentional killing from 2nd degree to voluntary manslaughter. What you are describing might fit into involuntary manslaughter or reckless homicide or criminally negligent homicide.
Click to expand...

My brain hasn't come back from vacation. I meant to put "involuntary" in the first example.

The duct tape example is totally voluntary. The child provoked the mother into committing an act that could very reasonably lead to the child's death. It was not done out of ignorance or neglect, but out of anger/frustration/annoyance.
 
#320
#320
bamawriter said:
My brain hasn't come back from vacation. I meant to put "involuntary" in the first example.

The duct tape example is totally voluntary. The child provoked the mother into committing an act that could very reasonably lead to the child's death. It was not done out of ignorance or neglect, but out of anger/frustration/annoyance.
Click to expand...

That makes more sense now. And, you're correct about the duct tape. If they could have proven that she did that out of anger/frustration, etc., it probably rises above voluntary manslaughter to Secondary degree murder. A child doing something would not constitute adequate provocation for the lower charge of voluntary manslaughter. However, there just simply wasn't enough to link her to it.
 
#322
#322
LawVol13 said:
That makes more sense now. And, you're correct about the duct tape. If they could have proven that she did that out of anger/frustration, etc., it probably rises above voluntary manslaughter to Secondary degree murder. A child doing something would not constitute adequate provocation for the lower charge of voluntary manslaughter. However, there just simply wasn't enough to link her to it.
Click to expand...

I would agree that a child's actions wouldn't typically inspire a "crime of passion" or whatever you want to call it. I'm simply saying that the jury had that option.

And I think her actions lead to the very obvious conclusion that she knew her child was dead. And if she knew the child was dead, then she had to have some sort of connection to the death, even if it wasn't by her hand. It's very difficult for me to find any reasonable doubt that would suggest this was an accident.

I feel like the defense's MO was to paint the entire family as a bunch of nutcases, clouding the death of the child with a bunch of inane crap. I still cannot figure out what creating the grandfather's affair was supposed to prove. But then again, it worked.
 
#324
#324
bamawriter said:
I would agree that a child's actions wouldn't typically inspire a "crime of passion" or whatever you want to call it. I'm simply saying that the jury had that option.

And I think her actions lead to the very obvious conclusion that she knew her child was dead. And if she knew the child was dead, then she had to have some sort of connection to the death, even if it wasn't by her hand. It's very difficult for me to find any reasonable doubt that would suggest this was an accident.

I feel like the defense's MO was to paint the entire family as a bunch of nutcases, clouding the death of the child with a bunch of inane crap. I still cannot figure out what creating the grandfather's affair was supposed to prove. But then again, it worked.
Click to expand...

There just wasn't enough evidence to show that Casey killed her. Without establishing how or when she died, the prosecution really just never had a prayer.
 
#325
#325
LawVol13 said:
There just wasn't enough evidence to show that Casey killed her. Without establishing how or when she died, the prosecution really just never had a prayer.
Click to expand...

I don't get how that's so hard to understand.

If you don't know how the person died, you can't say they were murdered. End of story.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top