• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Would you watch an interview with Casey Anthony?

Yes, I would... because I'd like to hear her explain her side of the whole thing, most notably her behavior during the time period her daughter was missing.
 
It's the pre-interview, "ok, you can ask me this on the air but you can't ask me that," that I'd like to watch.
 
I wouldn't because I have no interest supporting a person like this (and viewers = support = $$ in her coffer). Did she kill her child? I can't say that for sure. She did party immediately after her disappearance, and that is sick enough for me not to want to hear any more.
 
I could care less what she does. The problem with anything around that case is simple, the media has blown it completely out of proportion. 8 out of 100,000 infants will be killed by their parents. About 1,400 births per 100,000 people. Which equals about 4 million babies a year, about 3,200 infants die a year, and this is the case they focus on. Did she do it, I not know or care. The prosecution had zero case and decided to try it in the media, knowing they could prove nothing. Here is my pet theory on it though. She dump the child off on someone(she willing admits she did this), that person dumped it off on someone and that person dumped it off on some person. The mother thought someone else had the child, that person someone else, and so forth. By the time they started to try to figure out where the child was, it was already too late. They then spent time blaming each other until she took it to the police. My best guess is she spent a large amount of time away from the child in the past, so this was nothing new to her. The police did nothing to help this mess, in fact bungled the case to the point of stupidity. How many times does someone need to call 911 because of a body? How many times?
 
lornaevo said:
I think it would be interesting to watch. I mean, who can say for sure if she did it or not?
Click to expand...

Nobody can. Will an interview with her make anyone in the public change their mind? Likely not. What we CAN say for sure is that she partied as if nothing was wrong while her kid was missing. As mentioned, did she killed her kid? Uncertain. Did she show signs of being a bad/negligent parent? You bet!
 
lordofthereef said:
Nobody can. Will an interview with her make anyone in the public change their mind? Likely not. What we CAN say for sure is that she partied as if nothing was wrong while her kid was missing. As mentioned, did she killed her kid? Uncertain. Did she show signs of being a bad/negligent parent? You bet!
Click to expand...

She showed signs of having murdered her kid, but none of those signs left solid evidence, so the verdict was correct, in my opinion. I'd like to see her talk about that verdict.
 
Frisco said:
She showed signs of having murdered her kid, but none of those signs left solid evidence, so the verdict was correct, in my opinion. I'd like to see her talk about that verdict.
Click to expand...

I agree, the evidence was circumstantial. You cannot convict without facts, aka "Beyond a reasonable doubt". I do think being able to watch her body language and listening to her answer questions would be a good way for me to at least get some more insight. In the end, it doesn't matter I guess, I just think there could be some value and something to be learned from it.
 
I actually think she might tell the truth now. She can't be tried again, so MAYBE her truthful story might come out.
 
nlsme said:
I actually think she might tell the truth now. She can't be tried again, so MAYBE her truthful story might come out.
Click to expand...

If she admits to something, they will try her on a different angle. Anyway, how often do people get acquitted and then come clean? I have never heard of it (in a case that was this well known anyway).

You certainly could be right. Either way, her immediate future is pretty abysmal I think.
 
nlsme said:
I actually think she might tell the truth now. She can't be tried again, so MAYBE her truthful story might come out.
Click to expand...

Well.. admitting something she was acquitted of could have big consequences in litigation down the road. She's best off to continue her bald faced lying.
 
lordofthereef said:
If she admits to something, they will try her on a different angle. Anyway, how often do people get acquitted and then come clean? I have never heard of it (in a case that was this well known anyway).

You certainly could be right. Either way, her immediate future is pretty abysmal I think.
Click to expand...

It is called double jeopardy, if found not guilty, you cannot be charged again for the same crime. She will NEVER be charged again for the death of her daughter. Ever.
 
nlsme said:
It is called double jeopardy, if found not guilty, you cannot be charged again for the same crime. She will NEVER be charged again for the death of her daughter. Ever.
Click to expand...
They will find something to try her for. Death of her daughter? No... Perhaps parental negligence or a dozen other things that could perhaps be made to stick, with a full admission. Who knows, maybe she had someone do it for her and she is protecting them. The point is, a full admission is probably not in her best interest.

Not to mention she is a known entity in the US. Let's say she admits to killing her kid. Can't be tried for that crime again, but you can be killed by a vigilante. There are people that want her dead and only need a reason - admission.
 
She has already been tried and convicted of negligence, and interfearing with an investigation. She will NEVER face another charge with regards to her daughters death.

As for the vigilante's, I am sure she is already scared for her life. I didn't say it WAS in her best interest to confess killing her kid. I said maybe she will tell a truthful story now.
 
This is a discussion. You say you think she will, I say I think she won't because I don't feel she has incentive to do so. That is all, nothing more. When prosecutors have a personal vendetta, and you can bet they do, they will look for things they think they can make stick. Might not be murder (in fact it certainly won't be). But, perhaps conspiracy to commit murder. That is a whole different charge.
 
lordofthereef said:
This is a discussion. You say you think she will, I say I think she won't because I don't feel she has incentive to do so. That is all, nothing more. When prosecutors have a personal vendetta, and you can bet they do, they will look for things they think they can make stick. Might not be murder (in fact it certainly won't be). But, perhaps conspiracy to commit murder. That is a whole different charge.
Click to expand...
Double jeopordy does not state that you can't face the same charge twice. It states you cannot face charges for the same crime. She will never face charges with regards to her daughters death again. END OF STORY.As for incentive, maybe she would want to not take something horrible to her grave? The ONLY reason she would have for not telling the truth is public image, wich, if you haven't noticed, is pretty low.
 
Double jeopardy refers to a person being tried again for the same offense after being acquitted. Double jeopardy is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states: "…nor shall any person be subject for the same offence [sic] to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb…".
The Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: [1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense. However, if charges are brought by independently by state and federal governments, it has been found not to violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Click to expand...


from Double Jeopardy Law & Legal Definition


Unless I am somehow reading this wrong, you are incorrect. Committing murder and committing conspiracy to commit murder are two differing offenses.
 
If one is acquited on 1st degree murder, they cannot then be tried on second degree murder. Or manslaughter, or "conspiracy to commit murder". She will never face charges with regards to her daughters death.
[1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal
 
Conspiracy to commit murder is not the same offense as committing murder. Various degrees of murder are the same offense, however.
 
The merger of conspiracy into the completed crime has been abandoned by modern rules. Keep in mind that in this respect, conspiracy differs from the other inchoate crimes of solicitation and attempt. As discussed in the other sections, solicitation and attempt "merge" with the completed crimes. Conspiracy, however, does not merge with the completed crime. Therefore, defendants who conspire to commit a crime and who then actually commit the crime can be convicted of both the conspiracy and the completed crime.
Click to expand...

from Conspiracy
 
I may watch. She's pretty good-looking. Not too good with kids, I hear. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom