Fuck our Justice System

[Farley4Fan]

Dude.  She looked up how to break a neck and the effects of/how to obtain chloroform, lied about where her daughter was and did not report her missing for 31 days (which, in my completely unprofessional opinion, seems like the amount of time someone would think forensic evidence takes to disappear), said Caylee was with a nonexistent "nanny named Zanny", her mother (iirc) said that Casey's car smelled like a decomposition, was photographed drinking/partying/dancing at a bar after she reported her daughter missing, said later that it was an "accident that snowballed out of control", reportedly regretted mothering a child at that stage in her life, accused her dad of helping her dispose the body after the "accident", and was proven by the court of law to be a liar when convicted of lying to investigators. 

There has to be something therein which makes her guilty of something more than "lying to investigators".

And yet, because of a lack of "forensic" evidence, you think the justice system is doing its job by letting this chick walk.  Because of her transgressions, because of the way she lied blatantly to investigators, she set herself up for a trial where people believe Guilty Until Proven Innocent.  It's her fault. 

And don't even try to get me to feel sorry for her.  In 10 years she'll write a book entitled "If I Did It, this is how I would have done it", become richer than you or I ever will be, live a life on an island where people have probably never even heard of her, probably never feel the guilt of murdering her daughter because she is an obvious sociopath, probably continue banging Jose Baez (her lawyer) in a hut on the beach of Fiji, and together create children born out of injustice and self pity.

I guess if I murder someone I'll be sure to do it in Florida.  I guess so long as I wear a hairnet and gloves I cannot be convicted of murder.

Justice System=Doing its job, sure - never said it wasn't.  All I said, spek, was FUCK IT.

[Spekkio]

Again, everything that you just cited is circumstantial. And while Casey might be a liar, the prosecution still didn't have anything definitive to say that she killed the child. They just had a dead child and a mound of evidence that this lady is a bad mother. This is why she got acquitted.

She looked up how to break a neck and the effects of/how to obtain chloroform

Did she admit this, or is this something the prosecution said she did but could not prove?

lied about where her daughter was and did not report her missing for 31 days (which, in my completely unprofessional opinion, seems like the amount of time someone would think forensic evidence takes to disappear), said Caylee was with a nonexistent "nanny named Zanny",

Would a reasonable person fear being wrongly prosecuted for the death of her child if her alibi (child fell in the pool) is true? At the very least, she would have dealt with an investigation. I just read a story of a West Point cadet who got arrested after some hack half-celebrity had her body guards jump him and beat him to stitches/concussion because he was standing too close to her luggage. While it sounds dumb to some innocent, law abiding citizens, it's somewhat reasonable that she would hide the body in fear of prosecution.

her mother (iirc) said that Casey's car smelled like a decomposition,

Actually, it was more than her mom; however, lab tests of the air apparently couldn't prove it.

was photographed drinking/partying/dancing at a bar after she reported her daughter missing,

Again, proof of being a bad mother, although I ask how long does one have to wait before it's acceptable to leave the house for entertainment after a tragedy?

said later that it was an "accident that snowballed out of control" ... accused her dad of helping her dispose the body after the "accident",

The "accident" refers to the child falling in the pool, so you are taking this out of context.

reportedly regretted mothering a child at that stage in her life,  and was proven by the court of law to be a liar when convicted of lying to investigators.

Yep, bad mother and a liar, but it's on the prosecution to prove her guilt, not the other way around.

You can watch any of the myriad of court shows on TV, where the standard of evidence is lower than criminal court. In a good deal of those cases, the defendant doesn't even need to speak. That's because it really doesn't matter whether or not the defendant is a liar, the prosecutor had no legal case. 

[Farley4Fan]

Again, everything that you just cited is circumstantial. And while Casey might be a liar, the prosecution still didn't have anything definitive to say that she killed the child. They just had a dead child and a mound of evidence that this lady is a bad mother. This is why she got acquitted.

Did she admit this, or is this something the prosecution said she did but could not prove?

Investigators found this on her computer.  The mom later testified that she looked up chloroform on her daughter's computer by basically stumbling upon it.  Okay.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/23/casey-anthony-cindy-anthony-chloroform-google-wikipedia_n_883541.html#s294277&title=Casey_Anthony_Personal

Would a reasonable person fear being wrongly prosecuted for the death of her child if her alibi (child fell in the pool) is true? At the very least, she would have dealt with an investigation. I just read a story of a West Point cadet who got arrested after some hack half-celebrity had her body guards jump him and beat him to stitches/concussion because he was standing too close to her luggage. While it sounds dumb to some innocent, law abiding citizens, it's somewhat reasonable that she would hide the body in fear of prosecution.

Not if the alibi is true.  Not if she doesn't blatantly lie to investigators.  Not if she handles it the right way and reports the death, doesn't dispose of her body, and then lie about not knowing where the body is.  Not if she has nothing to fear, spek, and she obviously did fear something with her non-stop crying pity/lie party.  She seemed to have something to celebrate afterwards, so that's nice.

Actually, it was more than her mom; however, lab tests of the air apparently couldn't prove it.

I'm curious where you think the importance of consistent testimonies from various people ends, and when the obviously unreliable tests start to hold the highest importance when proving something.  When her own mother says the car smelled like a dead person, is it not damning?  I guess not if chronic lying without purpose is a genetic trait inherited from the mother.

Again, proof of being a bad mother, although I ask how long does one have to wait before it's acceptable to leave the house for entertainment after a tragedy?

So with all this proof of being a bad mother, why is this woman not facing - at the very least - child neglect charges?  To answer your question, I'm sure our reasonable opinions on that subject would differ from Casey's.  Usually, as in 99% of the time, the accidental death of a 2 year old can cause people to grieve for multiple months.  I had a professor whose wife had a miscarriage.  He took the rest of the term off (2 months) to grieve the loss of an unborn infant.  He couldn't work, I doubt he partied.  It's ridiculous of you to downplay PARTYING at a nightclub by saying "leaving the house", as if dancing on a pole is the same thing as showing your face in public without the fear of breaking down randomly.  Tell me, do you think she only partied after she filed the missing person's report?   

The "accident" refers to the child falling in the pool, so you are taking this out of context.

So, she basically admits to hiding the body.  That has to be some kind of crime other than lying to investigators spekkio.  Sounds like forensic testing isn't so reliable after all, the body must have been in the car at some point.  I guess I'm to believe automatically that Caylee fell into an above-ground pool?  Why?  Because Casey says so?  Why did we only hear this story after she spent time in jail with another woman who used the same exact story? 

Yep, bad mother and a liar, but it's on the prosecution to prove her guilt, not the other way around.

I guess you can get away with murder so long as no one can "prove it".  You can almost admit to doing it (See OJ) but not be found guilty.  If anything was proven during this case, it's that forensic evidence is unreliable - the irony is that she was found not guilty because of the newfound importance of forensic evidence.  Why is it so fucking important?  Sometimes it doesn't even matter when you DO have it (See OJ).

You can watch any of the myriad of court shows on TV, where the standard of evidence is lower than criminal court. In a good deal of those cases, the defendant doesn't even need to speak. That's because it really doesn't matter whether or not the defendant is a liar, the prosecutor had no legal case.

Thanks for reminding me why our justice system fucking blows.  Everything these days is either "circumstancial" or due to "insanity".  You can lie, lie, lie, lie, be found guilty for lying, but then watch the jury ignore the lies as evidence.  There's no accountability.  Your alibi can be full of more holes than Osama's face so long as there is no blood under you fingernails.

The notion that it is doing its job is moot and beside the point, I question its job as a whole.

[Tidenburg]

Thanks for reminding me why our justice system fucking blows.  Everything these days is either "circumstancial" or due to "insanity".  You can lie, lie, lie, lie, be found guilty for lying, but then watch the jury ignore the lies as evidence.  There's no accountability.  Your alibi can be full of more holes than Osama's face so long as there is no blood under you fingernails.

I think you've ran away with this too much. The fact you seem to think you can plead insanity easily just shows that you've prolly got most of your knowledge from TV shows. Do you want evidence we consider circumstantial to be non-circumstantial? Do you realise how stupid that would be?

If you don't have that 'definitive' piece of evidence, you could be putting away an innocent person for something they didn't do, or worse in America, to death. I think most of your argument is going on the fact that the person is always secretly guilty (again, tv shows). There are other reasons that people lie to the police and the courts. I think even I'd lie if I accidentally cause a death of someone if I thought I could get clean off with it, you can't look at it with the solid state of mind you have now, you've just killed someone. All her weird behaviour after her death could just be her trying to normalise to deal with it.

I guess I'm to believe automatically that Caylee fell into an above-ground pool?  Why?  Because Casey says so?  Why did we only hear this story after she spent time in jail with another woman who used the same exact story? 

The onus is on you to prove she did so (killed her daughter), not for her to prove she did not. You can be suspicious all you want but you need proof. The fact the woman in jail had the same story doesn't mean anything because what if they did coincidentally have the same story? It's nothing definitive.



In my opinion it could go either way, but even trying to get neglect (not reporting her 'missing') would probably go down as diminished responsibility if she was going a bit batshit after the accident. She could have killed her, could not have, but they definitely needed more evidence to try getting a murder charge, no clue what would wrap it all up though.

[Wh1tE_Dw4rF]

I find it amusing how everyone takes on the role of private detective.

[frvge]

Being a private detective is only scheduled for PS2.0. So like in... 2020.

[Spekkio]

One interesting thing to note is that most murder cases come down to a question of motive. There usually is significant evidence that a person is dead and that death was caused by the person on trial, but the prosecution has to prove that the defendant planned the killing.

This case didn't revolve around motive, it revolved around whether the death was actually murder in the first place. They couldn't even get to motive. Not a very good place to start.

[Farley4Fan]

I think you've ran away with this too much. The fact you seem to think you can plead insanity easily just shows that you've prolly got most of your knowledge from TV shows. Do you want evidence we consider circumstantial to be non-circumstantial? Do you realise how stupid that would be?

Do you have forensic evidence of that claim Tidenburg? 

If you don't have that 'definitive' piece of evidence, you could be putting away an innocent person for something they didn't do, or worse in America, to death. I think most of your argument is going on the fact that the person is always secretly guilty (again, tv shows). There are other reasons that people lie to the police and the courts. I think even I'd lie if I accidentally cause a death of someone if I thought I could get clean off with it, you can't look at it with the solid state of mind you have now, you've just killed someone. All her weird behaviour after her death could just be her trying to normalise to deal with it.

As I said before, she set herself up to go through a trial where people believe guilty until proven innocent.  With her non-stop lying, crying, partying, why in the hell should we believe her?  As far as I'm concerned, if you are going to lie straight to the courts and be convicted of it, then you better prove your own innocence. 

Thproof. The fact the woman in jail had the same story doesn't mean anything because what if they did coincidentally have the same story? It's nothing definitive.e onus is on you to prove she did so (killed her daughter), not for her to prove she did not. You can be suspicious all you want but you need

This I agree with to an extent.  The prosecutors failed.  However, Tidenburg, there are too many "coincedences" in this case to be considered reasonable.  Oh, "she just happened to be" is what I hear over and over and over again - and I believe that means she has some explaining to do.  She hasn't explained anything.  Just cried in the corner while her lawyer said "zanny just happens to rhyme with nanny".  How many coincendental pieces of evidence (Yes, this is evidence) is needed before you start to question the unreliable forensic tests?

In my opinion it could go either way, but even trying to get neglect (not reporting her 'missing') would probably go down as diminished responsibility if she was going a bit batshit after the accident. She could have killed her, could not have, but they definitely needed more evidence to try getting a murder charge, no clue what would wrap it all up though.

That may be, but then again, another jury may not have needed more evidence.  That's why I'm pissed at the system.  I cited the Scott Peterson case because there was a similar amount of evidence to go off of and he got the death penalty (Casey walks).  It's not the worst system, but it strikes me as immoral time and time again. 

@Spek, I thought the motive was rather clear.  She regretted her child. 
http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-national/casey-anthony-regretted-having-a-child-so-young-drugged-daughter-caylee-according-to-inmates
Looking up "chloroform/how to break a neck" on google and then inmates testifying that she admitted to regretted the child and using chloroform means she planned it and probably follwed through with it.

To me it does.  And because evidence means different things to different people we are stuck looking at someone who I think probably got away with murder.  I guess I'm expecting too much from people.  You can't expect justice in a world made up of people like us.  Yeah, I'm probably being over dramatic, yeah, it's probably the best system our world has, but does that mean it's immune to criticism? 

I bet some new law will come out of this case, and hopefully our system will improve.

[Spekkio]

There are plenty of young mothers who regret or second guess having their child, yet they don't commit murder.

[Farley4Fan]

So what the fuck would be a motive for murdering a child then? 

Scott Peterson's alleged motive was that he wanted to start a new relationship with the woman he was cheating on his wife with.  But then, there are plenty of young men who cheat on their wives, yet they don't commit murder.