Casey Anthony

[🪦 mybankey ●]

[color="#FFFF00"]You're right, they cannot find more "charges" against her in a criminal court. That would be double jeopardy.

However, as for going to prison from a civil court - that's an impossibility. You just lose your case and have to pay reparations or damages. Even OJ didn't serve time for the Nicole Simpson case. He was convicted civilly and just paid one helluva bill.[/color]



[color="#FFFF00"]First of all - Welcome to the board, Cheri! I'm sure you and my own wife would have much to complain about in terms of both her and your respective husband's mask-collecting habits!

As to why Anthony was not found guilty on manslaughter (as you're right - it is a mothers legal obligation to save her child from a "peril" provided that she herself was not in danger....) was because the prosecution never successfully proved HOW Kaylee died. Unfortunately no one will ever know. To prove the manslaughter charge for refusing to save your own child would rest on the fact that she did - indeed - drown. No one in the trial ever established this. The defense did NOT have to prove that Casey "allowed" her child to drown and did not administer CPR, as the burden of proof rested on the prosecution. The investigative team apparently was not successful in proving any of this. Anthony's father even denied the drowning story. All the defense had to do was cast doubt into how the prosecution claimed Kaylee was killed. This "burden of proof" was not ever convincingly demonstrated in this case....hence, the "not guilty" verdict.[/color]




[color="#FFFF00"]By no way am I saying that she wasn't guilty. I'm just saying one of the pillars of greatness which the United States rests upon is the due process clause of the 6th Amendment. She was given a fair trial with her own peers judging her guilt or innocence. Her own peers have emotions and feelings just like all of us, however, they still chose to judge her as "not guilty" due to their own legal obligation to administer fair justice. I just feel who are "we" to claim that the jurors were wrong in their opinion? They represent a fairly even cross-section of the U.S. (or at least of Florida) and I'm sure their decision was based on sound evidence, or lack thereof.

However, if we were all willing to convict Casey Anthony without a fair trial, then why even have a judicial system in the United States?

The old legal adage goes, "It is better to allow 100 guilty men to go free, than to have one innocent man serve time."

I guess now is the time to ask, do we, as the citizenry of this great country, still believe that?[/color]

Thanks for the welcome...you're wife sounds wonderful I really understand what you are saying...I just can't understand the dismisal of so much evidence. To your proof of drowning; Casey said she drown, that's how she died; regardless of George's denial, she said that's what happened. You can't, and by 'You' I mean the opposition, call Casey a liar but believe Kaylee drown & that Casey has no idea what happened after, how she got into those woods. You can't say George is hiding something but believe him when he says that she didn't drown. It just seems like they picked the areas they wanted to and got home as quickly as they could. There are just too many weird details that don't add up when it comes to Casey. We'll never know and we can all argue this without resolution. It is what it is, I've said my peace & I thank everyone for letting me vent!

Thanks again,
Cheri

PS - My husband says I'm never allowed to talk on here again. I guess this is goodbye forever..lol