My heart goes out to little Caylee Anthony, but...

innocent?


riiigghhhtt...

Iiiinnoceeeent....

Cindy reported her missing. If she didn't, there's little doubt we wouldn't have ever known there was an issue.

A crime was assuredly committed. The only question was it the crime the prosecution went after. Even Casey's legal defense was a crime. Not reporting the death and actively covering it up?

So, the mother asks repeatedly to see the child, and the mother always has excuses, so automatically the mother assumes the child is missing?

Heck, my mother has gone years without seeing her grandchildren, yet she's never called the police and said they were missing.

The mother knew something. I think she was covering her own ass.

Bullshit. The grandmother only suspected something b/c Casey was avoiding her. And as soon as she caught up with Casey she saw that Caylee wasn't there, and forced the issue with the police. Not sure where in all this you see Cindy covering anything up.

I don't see how you don't see it.

But ... whatever.

^ I don't see what you did there.

I can't help but wonder if you're even familiar with Cindy's account of Caylee's disappearance. You're the only person I've ever heard cast any suspicion on the grandmother.

That's not what happened. She didn't assume that until she located Casey and discovered that Caylee wasn't with her. From the sounds of it, she thought Casey was keeping Caylee from them, and had no reason yet to suspect that something had actually happened to the little girl.

Yet the mother clearly lied on the witness stand.

I don't think motive should be required in order to prove someone committed a crime.

Especially a murder. Who can really for sure say what motivates most killers.

As for the rest, based on what I've heard, I don't think a person could have a reasonable doubt. I don't see it as likely that someone else killed her.

Remember, the defense NEVER even claimed that someone else killed Caylee Anthony.

Their official "on the record" alternate theory of the crime was accidental drowning.

So, the actual defense theory placed Anthony in a position where she had means and opportunity to kill her daughter.

and in regards to motive, I really believe that Anthony's actions after her daughters death speak volumes as to that.

While this is true, it is neither unreasonable nor unexpected. Protecting Casey does not implicate Cindy in Caylee's death.

Are you living on this planet? It helps to know what you're talking about before talking/posting. The defense said the grandfather was watching her and she drowned in the pool. They did claim someone else was responsible.

Without motive in a circumstantial case, you are not going to get many convictions. Yes, in a case with witnesses and/or DNA evidence it is not really needed.

The prosecution already has the deck stacked in their favor. With the Grand Jury and vastly more resources than most defendants can afford, they are way ahead before they even start. We need to leave the defense with every tool available.

I can tell you where I live the number of people freed for wrong convictions is very high, as are the number of cases where prosecutorial abuse occurs. It has cost our city in excess of $100 million in payments to the wrongly convicted.

I didn't think they actually claimed the grandfather was responsible. I thought the basic claim was "accidental drowning".

I never understood the defense claim as to why the family would try to cover up an accidental drowning.

Children drown accidentally every summer across the United States. It isn't like the police (and wasn't the grandfather a former policeman) would say


"A child drowning by accident? Hell, that never happens!! Must have been a murder!"

To me, if the defense is going to offer an "alternate theory" of a crime, then the burden is on the defense to prove their theory.

If not beyond a reasonable doubt, then at least by a "preponderance of the evidence".

Because I consider using an "alternate theory" of a crime to like claiming self defense.

If you claim you acted in self defense in a court of law, you have to PROVE the self defense.

it is every bit as bad as you imagine. Jack Bauer could have saved a lot of ammo during his various interrogations...

^^ To Dayton: The burden is on the state and the prosecution. Our innocent until proven guilty is one of the major things that has separated us from the Communist/dictatorship gov'ts of the world.

If you read the rest of my post you'd understand that the prosecution has the overwhelming advantage and an extremely high conviction rate. I think the system is set fine in that regard as is.

I still believe that the prosecution should have the burden in proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

But.

I don't believe that a jury should accept an "alternate theory of a crime" unless the defense PROVES that theory by a preponderance of the evidence.

Once again, like self defense.

If you claim self defense for example, in the U.S., the accused is required to PROVE self defense. The burden of proof in self defense is on the accused.

Don't agree. If the prosecution is ironclad it should be able to stand up to an alternate theory by the defense. The jury doesn't have to buy their theory, but it should be up to them.

If nothing else, the whole family basically confessed to tampering with evidence, not reporting a death, giving knowingly false information to the authorities and so forth - actions which cost the state hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Is there a law in Florida that gives the state the right to bill them, or file a civil suit or whatever?

Put all three of those dumb asses living in a tent and put a lean on her supposed book deal. White trash slut can stay white trash at least.

Why should the jury have to consider an alternate theory?

and prosecutions are almost never "ironclad".

Once again, "reasonable doubt" does not mean "no doubt".

The fact that the defense is allowed to put on alternate theories and the prosecution wins over 75% of time (many places it is over 85%) should tell you that this system works. Obviously they know what reasonable vs no doubt means.

Damn, Dayton...if the explanation of one side is as good as the other, you still think the state should get a free ride to give you a ticket to death row? Getting a conviction is not easy. It's not supposed to be easy. I'm sure Cuban or Chinese courts would agree with you, but ....damn man, think about what you're saying.

Hold your horses there buddy! Did you just say you have to prove you are acting in self-defense in a court of law? Where have you been these last 20 years?!

Castle doctrine in most decent states means law enforcement must assume you were acting in self defense if you kill someone in your home, car, or place of work.

Good grief, Charlie Brown.

Castle doctrine is not universal.

And yes, self defense is known as an "affirmative defense".

That is the burden of proof is on the defense at trial if it is claimed.

Here are some of the requirements of "castle doctrine"

In general, (one) or a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)

As you can see, a fairly lengthy group of requirements before someone is protected by the "Castle Doctrine".

The big things about "Castle Doctrine" is that it removes the "requirement to retreat" from a person.

I should hope not! Give up your defensive position, further encouraging the intruders to continue the act? Not on my watch.

:bick:

I agree with you.

But I'm familiar with the legal justification for "retreat requirement".

The idea is that nothing in your home possession wise is worth the life of a person (even that of a criminal) so you are required to retreat from the home rather than use lethal force.

The idea being that using lethal force is only justifiable if you are in imminent physical danger and you have no opportunity to remove yourself from that danger.

One of my law professors in college explained it this way (this was in the late 1980s),

"The criminal that just stole your television has a greater right to his life than you have to your television".

He was explaining why you can't use lethal force to obtain the return of stolen goods.

Having a hard time with the "life of a criminal" when it involves the potential for crimes to escalate.

I agree that hunting someone down who stole from you is wrong.

But an intruder in your home (with a situation unfolding) is not the same as taking things too far "after the fact."

It's one thing for there not to be a murder weapon found. Obviously killers often hide or destroy murder weapons, and in some cases, the actual murder weapon can't be identified.

It's another for there not to be an identified cause of death or time of death.

I don't really care to do any research on the subject, but I'd guess that the percentage of successful homicide prosecutions where there is no identified cause or time of death is far far lower than the percentage of successful homicide prosecutions overall.

Of course. And my understanding is in jury instructions generally speaking, judges tell jurors something along those lines.

Here is what the standard Florida jury instructions are about reasonable doubt, according to this web site:
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions.shtml#

(I've highlighted part and removed a parenthetical in it)

See above.

Reason should tell you that there are rarely just two possible, or even probable, explanations for a situation where so much is unknown.

Strictly speaking, it's not. All that's needed is that all the elements of a crime are proven, and motive as such is usually not one of those elements.

However, motive's strong for overcoming doubt. People tend to want explanations for events that they can understand, hence the desire to show motive.

In many cases, the motive can be readily inferred. A gang member kills for rep or turf or because of a slight, real or imagined. A husband/wife kills out of jealousy or to end abuse or for money.

In other cases, the killer confesses and puts forth a motive. Now of course, sometimes those motives they admit might be half lies, or the confession might be otherwise faulty.

But the notion that motives are mostly mysterious seems to be mistaken.

Likely? Maybe not.

But possible? Certainly.

And even if she killed her, is it possible that it was an accident?

To put it another way, would you (or anyone convinced of Casey's guilt) bet most of what you owned that Casey Anthony killed Caylee Anthony deliberately, with malice aforethought? Would you bet your immortal soul, if you could?

If you'd answer no, to me that indicates at least some acknowledgement of there being reasonable doubt (or I guess that you're averse to wagering).

Not to mention that they have a bunch of professionally trained investigators in the police, plus much better PR than defense attorneys, plus media essentially on their side projecting information pointing to guilt, plus a system that gives prosecutors various other advantages (the ability to decide what to charge, when to offer pleas, immunity for 99 percent of their decisionmaking, etc.) plus that many judges at a minimum have incentive to seem tough on crime and often are former prosecutors and thus are likely to share their viewpoints on things, plus the existence of a "jury tax" (where defendants who go to trial generally get harsher sentences than defendants who plead guilty to the same crimes)

There are very few "affirmative defenses" where the defense has an obligation to prove anything at all -- self-defense, insanity, duress/necessity, and a few others that aren't coming to mind.

In most other areas, the defense doesn't have to prove a damn thing. And that's the way it should be.

If there was a system where the defense had to actually prove any of its contention, it would shift the burden from the prosecution to the defense.

Thankfully, that's not allowed.

Clearly Dayton's understanding of the US criminal justice system was shaped by old episodes of "Perry Mason."

I never thought she was guilty. If she was guilty the government would be able to prove it without creating a media shit storm to try and influence any potential jury. She was only convicted of lying to the cops, which I personally have no problem with because cops will lie to the average citizen in a microsecond and there really should be laws against that.