Casey Anthony Trial Verdict

[Azred]

I see that some states are staring to push for versions of "Caylee's Law" in their Legislatures, which will make it a felony for parents or anyone else in charge of supervising children to fail to report the disappearance of a child within 24 hours.

Sounds good, right? Wrong.

I don't know the age limit on such a law but let's look at scenario 1. Your teenaged kid goes to spend the weekend with their friend, something which has happened before and nothing bad ever happened. This time, though, the kids have decided to skip out of state for a weekend campout. By the time you find out, it has been more than 24 hours. Does the felony clock start when they leave or when you realize they are not where they are supposed to be?

Scenario 2. The younger kids have gone on a camping trip with the grandparents in an RV to the Black Hills (or wherever) and cell phone reception is not possible. One kid gets lost hiking in the woods. Again, by the time the grandparents realize he is lost and are able to get to somewhere where they can report him missing more than 24 hours has elapsed. Are the grandparents now felons?

We could keep coming up with scenarios but I think the point has been made. There are already laws on the books to cover these sorts of things (like Amber's Law and the Amber Alert program, which is now national) so another law is not necessary, especially one based on only one emotionally-charged case.

Laws enacted because of emotion are bad laws.

[SpiritWarrior]

Clock would most likely start tolling after the time the guardian had reasonable inclination to believe their kid went missing. Case by case basis i'd expect. Don't see it being an issue. I mean, this has kinda been unofficially in the books beforehand iirc, but the parents could only then be held liable for neglect or somesuch. Now its gonna be more specific, is all.

[John D Harris]

The Prosecution did over reach on capital murder (premedetated) Thorugh they did shoot down any doubt that the Grandmother did any internet searches, they showed that she was at work at the time the searches were conducted. SO there is no reasonable doubt at all, it is beyond reasonable doubt to think a person can be in two places at the same time. No human being since we were created, or crawled from the mud which ever you asspire to believe has found a way to circomvent the laws of Physics, time, or time/space. The procescution showed that Casey was the last person seen with Caley. The Defense didn't offer any reasonable doubt on that.

As Cerek said the drowning was not reasonable, it is not reasonable that anyone would make an accident look like a crime, and no former police officer would be so stupid, to mkae a drowning look like a crime then dump the body inside the same jurisdiction were it could be easily found. Police offericer know damn good and well, one of the biggest impedimnets to and investigation is jurisdictional lines. It's unreasonable to buy a former police officer would try to make an accident look like a crime, try to hide the body were it would eaisly be found.

RTB any doubt is not beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable modifies the word doubt and sets the paremiters of the type of doubt that is alowed. You are correct it is beyond a reasonable doubt not beyond doubt. Do you see the difference in those two?

Six months ago I was on a jury for murder trial, the death penalty was off the table but the guy was up for life. The defense claimed self defense because gun fire was exchanged between both parties, The prosecution did prove that the fatal shot was fired After the viticim was leaving, and the defendant had to run over 100 yards to make shot. The defense never ever placed any reasonable doubt on that fact, in fact they stipulated in their opening statement that the defendant fired the shot. So the only things in question was when did he fire it, where was everbody at the time the shot was fired. They ended up taking a plea deal. Everybody on the jury knew it was a blind ass lucky shot a one in a million shot, there was no intent to kill the guy it was a ha ha ha I got the last shot in thing. We knew that life was to harsh for what had happened but to everyone of us were going to vote guilty, even through we thought the punishment was to harsh for a blind ass lucky shot. We knew there was no way he could have intentionaly aimed the shot hitting a moving target after running 100 yards up hill and firing before he got set, caught his breath, slowed his heart rate down, took time to aim. We would have all hated it but we would have all voted Guilty.

[John D Harris]

Originally Posted by Azred I see that some states are staring to push for versions of "Caylee's Law" in their Legislatures, which will make it a felony for parents or anyone else in charge of supervising children to fail to report the disappearance of a child within 24 hours. Sounds good, right? Wrong. I don't know the age limit on such a law but let's look at scenario 1. Your teenaged kid goes to spend the weekend with their friend, something which has happened before and nothing bad ever happened. This time, though, the kids have decided to skip out of state for a weekend campout. By the time you find out, it has been more than 24 hours. Does the felony clock start when they leave or when you realize they are not where they are supposed to be? Scenario 2. The younger kids have gone on a camping trip with the grandparents in an RV to the Black Hills (or wherever) and cell phone reception is not possible. One kid gets lost hiking in the woods. Again, by the time the grandparents realize he is lost and are able to get to somewhere where they can report him missing more than 24 hours has elapsed. Are the grandparents now felons? We could keep coming up with scenarios but I think the point has been made. There are already laws on the books to cover these sorts of things (like Amber's Law and the Amber Alert program, which is now national) so another law is not necessary, especially one based on only one emotionally-charged case. Laws enacted because of emotion are bad laws.

Azred, I have some of the same concerns, while the law sounds good right now, there are all kinds of scenarios where a child could be killed and it take some time before the parent learns of it. You are right an emotionaly charged law is a bad one. Laws are to be made through thought, not feelings. We run into trouble when we let our hearts do the thinking, Hearts are made for thinking.

[Azred]

Originally Posted by John D Harris Thorugh they did shoot down any doubt that the Grandmother did any internet searches, they showed that she was at work at the time the searches were conducted. SO there is no reasonable doubt at all, it is beyond reasonable doubt to think a person can be in two places at the same time. No human being since we were created, or crawled from the mud which ever you asspire to believe has found a way to circomvent the laws of Physics, time, or time/space.

No, but I could take my laptop to a public wireless network, remote onto computer B, use Hide My IP (or something like it) to confuse where I really am, use computer B to remote onto computer C and then use computer C to commit some sort of crime or perform internet searches for "chloroform" or "hydrogen sulfide" or whatever and make it a) difficult to pinpoint my exact location and b) make it look like I am somewhere that I am not. That sure is a lot of work to break the law, though.

I think you meant to say "hearts are not for thinking".

[robertthebard]

I do see the difference, and I believe that is why the jury returned the verdict they did, they had reasonable doubt. Burden of Proof is there for a reason, and it's a good one. Circumstantial evidence can be used to make anyone look guilty. Our system requires that law enforcement prove they are. As has been stated, they failed to do so, at least to 12 men and women, and that's what matters now.

Regarding the law, it could be a really bad thing. Yeah, they'll go case by case, but on the off chance that they decide to charge somebody who was innocent, it could end up costing that person everything, for something they had no control over. Especially considering the fact that if you file a missing person's report, most states require them to be gone at least 24 hours. So now, will one rule cause an arrest and possibly a conviction, just because they couldn't say "Hey, my kid was supposed to be back from his camping trip today, and hasn't shown up", and the cop says, "we can't do anything until they've been missing 24 hours". Dilemma City, waiting to happen.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by robertthebard I do see the difference, and I believe that is why the jury returned the verdict they did, they had reasonable doubt. Burden of Proof is there for a reason, and it's a good one. Circumstantial evidence can be used to make anyone look guilty. Our system requires that law enforcement prove they are. As has been stated, they failed to do so, at least to 12 men and women, and that's what matters now. Regarding the law, it could be a really bad thing. Yeah, they'll go case by case, but on the off chance that they decide to charge somebody who was innocent, it could end up costing that person everything, for something they had no control over. Especially considering the fact that if you file a missing person's report, most states require them to be gone at least 24 hours. So now, will one rule cause an arrest and possibly a conviction, just because they couldn't say "Hey, my kid was supposed to be back from his camping trip today, and hasn't shown up", and the cop says, "we can't do anything until they've been missing 24 hours". Dilemma City, waiting to happen.

I agree about the burden of proof.

I think the clock starts tolling after 24 hrs as normal. But it becomes a crime to not report a kid missing over 24 hrs I imagine.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally Posted by John D Harris The Prosecution did over reach on capital murder (premedetated)

I don't know what else needs to be said. They should have included lesser offenses and put her behind bars for being a crazy bitch who lied to the cops. Obstruction? That's what you get when you're the president. Howsabout perjury?

Bitch hid a dead baby. Isn't that worth at least 10 years?

[John D Harris]

Originally Posted by Azred No, but I could take my laptop to a public wireless network, remote onto computer B, use Hide My IP (or something like it) to confuse where I really am, use computer B to remote onto computer C and then use computer C to commit some sort of crime or perform internet searches for "chloroform" or "hydrogen sulfide" or whatever and make it a) difficult to pinpoint my exact location and b) make it look like I am somewhere that I am not. That sure is a lot of work to break the law, though. I think you meant to say "hearts are not for thinking".

Lol Yeah that's what happens when you type with rented fingers.

Sure she could have used the wireless, but then again that wasn't brought up as evidence, so to factor that in would be called ASSuming facts not in evidence something a JURY is NEVER EVER EVER supossed to do. Minus any evidence of your phantom remote to computer, it's the old if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he jumps. Hey she could have also steped through a time/space anomaly and been in two places at the same time.... hey we don't need any evidence for that just let somebody think it up and it has to be that way... rules of evidence... rules of evidence .... we don't need no stinkin' rules of evidence.

[John D Harris]

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis I don't know what else needs to be said. They should have included lesser offenses and put her behind bars for being a crazy bitch who lied to the cops. Obstruction? That's what you get when you're the president. Howsabout perjury? Bitch hid a dead baby. Isn't that worth at least 10 years?

Yeah they should have included charges all the way down to pissin' on the sidewalk. Or dancing like a stripper and not taken her top off.