Yikes!Pinellas County Gets Put On The Map By Casey Anthony Verdict! (home, law)

[phillybound]

and the alternate juror the High school teacher from Pinellas county, what a joke, I can not believe he is a social sciences teacher, his interview was unbelievable, you pay him a salary to teach ???? What a dope!

[BBI]

Originally Posted by phillybound

...they could have ruled for child abuse, so please do not make me puke

There seems to be a common misconception. The prosecution never asked the jury to find her guilty of child abuse, so the jury couldn't have found her guilty of child abuse.

The prosecution went after aggravated child abuse. I'm not a family lawyer, but, as I understand it in lay terms, to prove aggravated child abuse, the prosecution has to show that the defendant intentionally severely injured or tortured the child. Once the jury found reasonable doubt as to her killing the kid because it might have been an accident in the pool, there is absolutely no way they could have found her guilty of aggravated child abuse.

I think we can debate whether the jury was right in finding reasonable doubt about her killing the kid. But, given the facts of this case, the murder and aggravated child abuse charges had to both come out the same way.

[TXRyan23]

Originally Posted by jambo101

You think one media circus over a court case and thats all it takes to turn Fla Liberal? doesnt say much for the toughness of your republican ideals.

I actually cited 3 things, not just this trial, and for the record, I'm not a republican or a dreaded teabagger..

[TXRyan23]

Originally Posted by jambo101

Cant blame the jury,they just went with the evidence given them and the charge that was laid.Obviously the prosecution couldnt prove what they charged the woman with..
Although this appears to be one case that slipped through a crack in the justice system i'd not be willing to now have jury's start judging cases on what they think happened.

I watched most of the trial myself and find it sick, even the simplest person in the world could see she was guilty. They may not have had a "smoking gun" but there was more then enough evidence that she did it.

[user8]

Originally Posted by phillybound

please refrain from your talking head mumble, they could have ruled for child abuse, so please do not make me puke

what are you talking about? there was no charge of plain old child abuse, therefore the jury can't render a verdict.

on second thought, just read bbi's post.

ps - start puking

Originally Posted by BBI

There seems to be a common misconception. The prosecution never asked the jury to find her guilty of child abuse, so the jury couldn't have found her guilty of child abuse.

The prosecution went after aggravated child abuse. I'm not a family lawyer, but, as I understand it in lay terms, to prove aggravated child abuse, the prosecution has to show that the defendant intentionally severely injured or tortured the child. Once the jury found reasonable doubt as to her killing the kid because it might have been an accident in the pool, there is absolutely no way they could have found her guilty of aggravated child abuse.

I think we can debate whether the jury was right in finding reasonable doubt about her killing the kid. But, given the facts of this case, the murder and aggravated child abuse charges had to both come out the same way.

[BucFan]

Exclusive: Casey Anthony Juror No. 3 | Video - ABC News

[Irishiis49]

Originally Posted by BBI

There seems to be a common misconception. The prosecution never asked the jury to find her guilty of child abuse, so the jury couldn't have found her guilty of child abuse.

The prosecution went after aggravated child abuse. I'm not a family lawyer, but, as I understand it in lay terms, to prove aggravated child abuse, the prosecution has to show that the defendant intentionally severely injured or tortured the child. Once the jury found reasonable doubt as to her killing the kid because it might have been an accident in the pool, there is absolutely no way they could have found her guilty of aggravated child abuse.

I think we can debate whether the jury was right in finding reasonable doubt about her killing the kid. But, given the facts of this case, the murder and aggravated child abuse charges had to both come out the same way.

Their was ZERO evidence put forth by the defense of a drowning!While the prosecutor put forth evidence of chloroform.The jury could disregard evidence of one but regard no evidence of drowningIt is illogical!

[Irishiis49]

The third charge could fit with this fact pattern while sedating Caylee with chloroform Casey over did it the child died she kept her in the trunk for a few days then dumped her in a wooded lot that was famliar to her!So the jury could have disregarded some of the prosecutions assertions of intent but still have found her guilty!The state has no burden to prove Casey's motive(leave that to Dr.Drew)just like Casey had no burden to take the stand!

[lorelei1954]

Shame on typical Florida mentality! More emphasis is placed on sea turtles & manatee than our children. There is no state pride in Florida. Too many outsiders checked their hometown values,(morals, pride and care for kids) at the Florida border. This would NOT have happened in most other states that value children, family and God! Shame on these jurors. What is it going to take; a video of a mommy killing her beautiful toddler? Heaven forbid any of us pick up a sea turtle egg; we'll be put away for some time!

[ferret111]

Originally Posted by lorelei1954

Shame on typical Florida mentality!

Yeah, okay.