Harleyman Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Absolutly,But I would have thought the method of death was irrelevant since the coroner classed it as homicide.I can see how she's ben found not guilty,but I think its more of a flaw in the american justice system,rather than she's actually not guilty. Heres an interesting timeline for anyone that is unfamiliar with the case... http://www.cfnews13.com/casey-anthony-timeline How would the coroner classify it as a homicide if after he examined the remains he was unable to ascertain the cause of death? I'm assuming that apart from the duct tape there was no evidence of trauma to the skull or the rest of the bones. He ruled cause of death purely on the duct tape strapped around the mouth, suspicious enough but as the defence cousel pointed out the mouth could have been sealed after death to stop the leakage of decomposition fluids. The child might have drowned in the pool and Casey, (not the sharpest tool in the shed even if a cunning liar) panicked and in her clumsy way did what she did to cover it up. I'm not a psychologist but sometimes after a traumatic event a person will try to dismiss it from the mind by acting completely at odds with what would expected to be normal behaviour. Anyway the true story may never be known but from a jury's point of view if there's even a shadow of doubt they will not rule a guilty verdict especially if the death penalty is involved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLADE8T1 Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Well it is classed as "homicide by undetermined means". Either way the coroner is happy to say its a homicide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 How would the coroner classify it as a homicide if after he examined the remains he was unable to ascertain the cause of death? I'm assuming that apart from the duct tape there was no evidence of trauma to the skull or the rest of the bones. He ruled cause of death purely on the duct tape strapped around the mouth, suspicious enough but as the defence cousel pointed out the mouth could have been sealed after death to stop the leakage of decomposition fluids. The child might have drowned in the pool and Casey, (not the sharpest tool in the shed even if a cunning liar) panicked and in her clumsy way did what she did to cover it up. I'm not a psychologist but sometimes after a traumatic event a person will try to dismiss it from the mind by acting completely at odds with what would expected to be normal behaviour. Anyway the true story may never be known but from a jury's point of view if there's even a shadow of doubt they will not rule a guilty verdict especially if the death penalty is involved Flippin ell Harley have you become a bleeding heart liberal in your old age? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLADE8T1 Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 [QUOTE=BLADE8T1;7841519]Absolutly,But I would have thought the method of death was irrelevant since the coroner classed it as homicide.I can see how she's ben found not guilty,but I think its more of a flaw in the american justice system,rather than she's actually not guilty. Heres an interesting timeline for anyone that is unfamiliar with the case... http://www.cfnews13.com/casey-anthony-timeline How would the coroner classify it as a homicide if after he examined the remains he was unable to ascertain the cause of death? I'm assuming that apart from the duct tape there was no evidence of trauma to the skull or the rest of the bones. He ruled cause of death purely on the duct tape strapped around the mouth, suspicious enough but as the defence cousel pointed out the mouth could have been sealed after death to stop the leakage of decomposition fluids. The child might have drowned in the pool and Casey, (not the sharpest tool in the shed even if a cunning liar) panicked and in her clumsy way did what she did to cover it up. I'm not a psychologist but sometimes after a traumatic event a person will try to dismiss it from the mind by acting completely at odds with what would expected to be normal behaviour. Anyway the true story may never be known but from a jury's point of view if there's even a shadow of doubt they will not rule a guilty verdict especially if the death penalty is involved Well I dont know what to believe. Part of me thinks accidental drowning,then then another part of me thinks,well why would she be searching for chloroform before her death?.Lets also remember that she only started blaming her parents framing her this may.So I dont buy the whole "items planted" story. I was trying to use my new found "lie to me" skills,but I was rubbish at it lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Flippin ell Harley have you become a bleeding heart liberal in your old age? Hey bf I've done jury service several times. Not on a murder trial yet but if ever I had to I would want the evidence cast iron (as I do on any other case). With a possible sentence of death involved I'd never want to spend the rest of my life thinking "Well........ I'm fairly sure he did it" That's not good enough. I have to live with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomdido Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I knew nothing until I saw it on Twitter today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 How would the coroner classify it as a homicide if after he examined the remains he was unable to ascertain the cause of death? I'm assuming that apart from the duct tape there was no evidence of trauma to the skull or the rest of the bones. He ruled cause of death purely on the duct tape strapped around the mouth, suspicious enough but as the defence cousel pointed out the mouth could have been sealed after death to stop the leakage of decomposition fluids. The child might have drowned in the pool and Casey, (not the sharpest tool in the shed even if a cunning liar) panicked and in her clumsy way did what she did to cover it up. I'm not a psychologist but sometimes after a traumatic event a person will try to dismiss it from the mind by acting completely at odds with what would expected to be normal behaviour. Anyway the true story may never be known but from a jury's point of view if there's even a shadow of doubt they will not rule a guilty verdict especially if the death penalty is involved Well I dont know what to believe. Part of me thinks accidental drowning,then then another part of me thinks,well why would she be searching for chloroform before her death?.Lets also remember that she only started blaming her parents framing her this may.So I dont buy the whole "items planted" story. I was trying to use my new found "lie to me" skills,but I was rubbish at it lol. Harley's reply below It was not a clear cut case of murder "commited beyond a reasonable doubt" so I think that was the basis for the verdict Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puplet Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I agree with Harleyman, the evidence has to be cast iron and they just couldn't prove it was her. I'm not sure the media has helped to encourage her innocence nor her lies and the inordinate amount of questions and doubt this has led to. BUT you can't find her guilty with so many doubts that's how the legal system works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLADE8T1 Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I totally understand what your your saying,and if I was on the jury I would need to be 100%.But I still cant help but think theres a very high chance she had something to do with that childs death.And I would also think some of the jurors think the exact same as that. Heres something I dont understand though,and you being american may be able to help me out on this one. Whats the bail bonds all about?.I mean she got bailed twice for different crimes,both around 500,000.Who would pay this?,and why?.What benefits are there to be gained in bailing out a possible criminal?. Just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I totally understand what your your saying,and if I was on the jury I would need to be 100%.But I still cant help but think theres a very high chance she had something to do with that childs death.And I would also think some of the jurors think the exact same as that. That may well be true, and maybe she was involved in the child's death, but "maybe" means she's innocent. "Very probably" would still mean she was innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.