Why no charges are brought... - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

egswanso · 07-06-2011, 01:24 PM

There are many cases where the boards seem to wonder why no charges are brought when there's a "suspicious" suspect, but major problems in any potential criminal case.

The recent verdict in the Anthony case should serve as a good example of what happens when you try to prosecute a suspect when you're pretty sure they are involved, but there's no solid evidence as to the mechanics of the crime and plausible alternative theories.

RobinW · 07-06-2011, 03:35 PM

Yes, ever since yesterday, I've been thinking about the Casey Anthony verdict and how her case compares to many of the other cases presented on UM. She probably looked more guilty than most of the infamous UM suspects combined, but it wasn't enough to convict her. After the verdict, I immediately had flashbacks to Donnie Hansen, who is definitely one of the guiltiest-looking people ever featured on UM, yet a jury had enough doubt about his involvement in the crime to acquit him.

If you've never read it, I encourage everyone to check out this old thread which casts some doubt on the idea of Paul Pollis murdering his wife. While it doesn't change my mind about him being guilty, it does raise some valid points of reasonable doubt. If Paul ever went to trial with the evidence they have now, I think any decent lawyer could use these points to sway a jury and get him acquited, and this is why he has never been charged with Charlotte's murder.
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/...d.php?t=277571

The best example of this logic would probably apply to Chad Noe and his family. While virtually EVERYONE believes they have committed murder and gotten away with it, there is just no solid evidence at all to build a successful case against them. In the Anthony case, there was at least a body, which is more than can be said about most of the UM cases, so now I just feel less surprised that the likes of Paul Pollis, Chad Noe or Mark Nichols have never had to face justice for their crimes.

Orange_Sody_84 · 07-06-2011, 10:54 PM

Oh boy... I'm not trying to start an arguement. but if she didn't kill Caylee then who did?? there is just far too much circumstantial evidence to the point where it stops being circumstantial. the Jury screwed up big time here.

-She failed to report her child missing for a whole month? really?
-If your child is missing the last thing you do is go out and party
-If your innocent why change your story multiple times and obstruct the investigation?
-What exactly does allegedly being abused by your sibling or Father have to do with your miurdered child? talk about stalling tactics.
-A regular person doesn't look up the search terms "Neck break", "Shovel", "Homemade weapons", & "Choloraform" for kicks and giggles on the computer.

Whatever... I just can't shake the feeling she got away with murder. and it just really cheeses me off. I could be wrong but alot of the evidence makes me feel otherwise.

Apostapler · 07-07-2011, 02:46 AM

Meh, this case is forever going to make blood boil. But, I do have a criticism of the prosecution. They didn't have enough concrete evidence to bring a Murder I charge against Casey. If they had tried her on a lesser charge, it probably would have had a better chance of sticking. Problem is, they can't back track. They can't even get her on a wrongful death or failure to report a death because they already argued that the way the defense claimed Caylee died was not true. They shot themselves in the foot. But they tried. I don't think anyone will argue that a kid dies a natural death with duct tape involved, before or after.

Cori aka ChrisSCrush · 07-07-2011, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orange_Sody_84

Oh boy... I'm not trying to start an arguement. but if she didn't kill Caylee then who did?? there is just far too much circumstantial evidence to the point where it stops being circumstantial. the Jury screwed up big time here.

-She failed to report her child missing for a whole month? really?
-If your child is missing the last thing you do is go out and party
-If your innocent why change your story multiple times and obstruct the investigation?
-What exactly does allegedly being abused by your sibling or Father have to do with your miurdered child? talk about stalling tactics.
-A regular person doesn't look up the search terms "Neck break", "Shovel", "Homemade weapons", & "Choloraform" for kicks and giggles on the computer.

Whatever... I just can't shake the feeling she got away with murder. and it just really cheeses me off. I could be wrong but alot of the evidence makes me feel otherwise.

And it goes on and on. Why implicate an innocent person, who is now suing for defamation?

egswanso · 07-07-2011, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apostapler

Meh, this case is forever going to make blood boil. But, I do have a criticism of the prosecution. They didn't have enough concrete evidence to bring a Murder I charge against Casey. If they had tried her on a lesser charge, it probably would have had a better chance of sticking. Problem is, they can't back track. They can't even get her on a wrongful death or failure to report a death because they already argued that the way the defense claimed Caylee died was not true. They shot themselves in the foot. But they tried. I don't think anyone will argue that a kid dies a natural death with duct tape involved, before or after.

Essentially, the system worked as it should. Innocent until proven guilty is the bedrock of the American criminal system. The State proved a child died, and proved Casey Anthony lied about it. They couldn't prove murder. Based on the evidence, I think the verdict as to Murder 1 was correct. I am more surprised that manslaughter wasn't found, but that goes directly to the prosecution's failure.

Orange_Sody_84 · 07-07-2011, 08:19 AM

Even if it was an accident she should still get jailtime. for obstructing the case and failure to report her child missing. if she accidently drowned in the pool why dump the body a mile away from the house? so many things don't add up in this case.

RobinW · 07-07-2011, 08:24 AM

For the record, I would not be surprised if the jury voted "not guilty" not because the case wasn't strong enough, but because they were peeved about having to be sequestered for the Fourth of July and didn't want to spend a couple more weeks of the summer being sequestered because they would have to vote on the sentencing phase. To unanimously vote "not guilty" is one thing, but the fact they agreed on this verdict so quickly makes me think there were twelve versions of Jack Warden's character from "12 Angry Men" on this jury.

I previously made a comparison to the Donnie Hansen trial, but I think a more apt comparison would be the jury's inexplicable decision to acquit Franklin Smith for the murder of Eileen Mangold despite his DNA evidence being on her! Florida juries really make me scratch my head sometimes...

TheCars1986 · 07-07-2011, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by egswanso

Essentially, the system worked as it should. Innocent until proven guilty is the bedrock of the American criminal system. The State proved a child died, and proved Casey Anthony lied about it. They couldn't prove murder. Based on the evidence, I think the verdict as to Murder 1 was correct. I am more surprised that manslaughter wasn't found, but that goes directly to the prosecution's failure.

This case and the OJ Simpson case are the foundations of how our justice system is flawed. There was more than enough evidence that implicated and indicated that both Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson were guilty. Simpson had the funds to buy the best defense team money could buy, and Anthony simply got lucky thanks to a lackluster prosecution. Jurors should convict someone whether or not they believe they are innocent. Yet in Anthony's case the jurors are stating they knew she was guilty, but there wasn't enough evidence to put her away. It's sickening.

asmitty · 07-07-2011, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

This case and the OJ Simpson case are the foundations of how our justice system is flawed. There was more than enough evidence that implicated and indicated that both Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson were guilty. Simpson had the funds to buy the best defense team money could buy, and Anthony simply got lucky thanks to a lackluster prosecution. Jurors should convict someone whether or not they believe they are innocent. Yet in Anthony's case the jurors are stating they knew she was guilty, but there wasn't enough evidence to put her away. It's sickening.

The problem with this is that what a juror "believes" could be based on a whole host of factors that have nothing to do with the facts of the case. It's why evidence of past criminal acts that could be overly prejudicial doesn't make it to court in most places. It's easy to say that our justice system is flawed in the wake of a very probably guilty suspect going free for murder, but these "flaws" are built into the system to stop innocent suspects from being imprisoned, which happens far too often in this country and most often because a jury is going with what they "believe" and not the facts presented in court.

I agree with Apostapler. The prosecution just didn't have the evidence to pursue murder 1 and prove pre-meditated murder. We can ask questions all day long that weren't answered. Why didn't she report her missing right away? Why did she dump the body if the death was accidental? Why lie and change your story if you're innocent. The problem is that the prosecution cannot walk into court and ask these questions to build their case. They have to have the answers to present when the case gets to trial. In this case they didn't.

Does that make me angry? You bet. But that's our justice system, and I'll take it over the alternative.

Kane · 07-07-2011, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

This case and the OJ Simpson case are the foundations of how our justice system is flawed. There was more than enough evidence that implicated and indicated that both Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson were guilty. Simpson had the funds to buy the best defense team money could buy, and Anthony simply got lucky thanks to a lackluster prosecution.

Getting the "best defense" wasn't the only factor in OJ Simpson's acquittal. Another was the change in venue. Former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi (who successfully prosecuted Charles Manson) criticized the decision to try the case in Los Angeles instead of Santa Monica, which was much closer to where the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman took place. In a 1995 interview on the now-defunct CNBC talk show Rivera Live, Bugliosi argued that the L.A. jury was not a representative jury, adding that they were biased against the prosecution and biased in Simpson's favor.

He also faulted the prosecution for not introducing some of the most vital pieces of evidence against OJ Simpson:

- The items found in the Bronco after the infamous slow-speed chase, including a passport, a disguise, and a large amount of money. On the Rivera Live interview (which I recommend you check out at YT), Bugliosi described this evidence as "exceedingly incriminating."

- The so-called suicide note, which Simpson wrote shortly before he went on the run. Bugliosi says the note "reeks" with guilt.

- The half-hour police interrogation tape in which Simpson made some incriminating statements about the cut on his finger. Bugliosi called this "powerful circumstantial evidence of guilt."

This is all detailed in Bugliosi's book, Outrage: The Five Reasons Why OJ Simpson Got Away With Murder.

TheCars1986 · 07-07-2011, 02:07 PM

I personally don't think they were the best defense team, but those words were constantly bantered about by people describing this case. He had the funds to hire several lawyers to help him beat the wrap, and that's exactly what he did. You're preaching to the choir about how the prosecution dropped the ball. The slow speed chase in the Bronco (with a passport and a disguise) would be enough indication that he had something to hide. Kato Kaelin's testimony didn't help the prosecution either, since it seemed like he tended to ramble on about certain aspects. Had the prosecution focused more on the little details instead of looking at the big picture (getting the conviction), I think they would have won. At least the scumbag is where he deserves to be now.

synthisislab · 07-07-2011, 05:41 PM

Well I think the jury was correct in the Casey Anthony case. There was too much reasonable doubt to convict her of the serious charges against her. Maybe if they charged her with negligent homicide, tampering with evidence, and/or improper disposal of human remains or whatever the equivalent charges would be in Florida, if there are those sorts of charges here in this state, then I'd say she is guilty of those (definitely the improper disposal of human remains one). I watched that trial for the majority of the case with what I thought was objectivity and was won over by the state's case, especially after their closing arguments on July 3rd. I was only able to see the first 20-30 minutes of the Baez's closing arguments and saw the whole final rebuttal the final day and was totally shocked the next day when she was found innocent of all the major charges. Then I watched the defense's full closing arguments just now on the most popular video site (search for Casey Anthony murder trial 7/3/11 parts 5-10) and what Baez and Mason said in their closings caused me to do a complete 180 as to her being guilty of 1st degree murder, aggravated child abuse, or aggravated manslaughter of a child. There was way too much reasonable doubt to convict on any of those and the case the state presented on those was completely debunked by the defense. So 3 years in jail for what she did seems fair or close to being fair for what she did, I feel. I mean she's always going to have to live with the stigma surrounding her that so many people think she's a cold-blooded sadistic baby killer like she's been portrayed as for 3 years in the media. So she will have to live in a sort of prison of the kind as a recluse because of her infamy until she dies because there will always be the media trying to get to her and crazy people with a lynch mob mentality.

I do hope now that she can put her story out there as to what her side is without getting into trouble for it, that she reveals what really happened, or at least whatever story she decides to come up with as to what happened anyhow.

TheCars1986 · 07-07-2011, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by synthisislab

I mean she's always going to have to live with the stigma surrounding her that so many people think she's a cold-blooded sadistic baby killer like she's been portrayed as for 3 years in the media.

That's because she is a cold blooded sadistic baby killer. She failed to report her daughter missing for an entire month. She then claimed her daughter was kidnapped, yet never made any attempt to contact the authorities. She blamed a totally unrelated woman, whom she never met mind you, as the one who abducted her daughter. She lied to her parents constantly during the duration that her daughter was missing, be it about where she was working at the time or where her daughter was located. To top it all off the entire time her daughter was missing, she was out at clubs dancing, drinking, and partying. Am I not getting something here? That's more than enough reasonable doubt for me. She never once has appealed to the media to go out and get the real person who murdered her daughter. Never. Then there are those who say this was a covered up accidental death. Why the lies then? Why the constant celebrating and carousing around town? It's quite obvious to me that this woman got away with murder, plain and simple.

Cori aka ChrisSCrush · 07-08-2011, 07:14 AM

O. J. Simpson also denied ever having owned the type of gloves and shoes indicated at the crime scene. Later, not just a photograph, but negatives of a whole series of photographs, were found revealing him wearing both the gloves and the shoes! The jury knew nothing of this till the trial was over as it emerged while they were sequestered and was never admitted into evidence. It showed he was willing to lie about any detail.

07-06-2011, 01:24 PM	#1
egswanso Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Jan 06, 2009 Location: NYC Posts: 463	Why no charges are brought... There are many cases where the boards seem to wonder why no charges are brought when there's a "suspicious" suspect, but major problems in any potential criminal case. The recent verdict in the Anthony case should serve as a good example of what happens when you try to prosecute a suspect when you're pretty sure they are involved, but there's no solid evidence as to the mechanics of the crime and plausible alternative theories.

07-06-2011, 03:35 PM	#2
RobinW Member Senior Member Join Date: Jul 14, 2010 Posts: 1,874	Yes, ever since yesterday, I've been thinking about the Casey Anthony verdict and how her case compares to many of the other cases presented on UM. She probably looked more guilty than most of the infamous UM suspects combined, but it wasn't enough to convict her. After the verdict, I immediately had flashbacks to Donnie Hansen, who is definitely one of the guiltiest-looking people ever featured on UM, yet a jury had enough doubt about his involvement in the crime to acquit him. If you've never read it, I encourage everyone to check out this old thread which casts some doubt on the idea of Paul Pollis murdering his wife. While it doesn't change my mind about him being guilty, it does raise some valid points of reasonable doubt. If Paul ever went to trial with the evidence they have now, I think any decent lawyer could use these points to sway a jury and get him acquited, and this is why he has never been charged with Charlotte's murder. http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/...d.php?t=277571 The best example of this logic would probably apply to Chad Noe and his family. While virtually EVERYONE believes they have committed murder and gotten away with it, there is just no solid evidence at all to build a successful case against them. In the Anthony case, there was at least a body, which is more than can be said about most of the UM cases, so now I just feel less surprised that the likes of Paul Pollis, Chad Noe or Mark Nichols have never had to face justice for their crimes.

07-06-2011, 10:54 PM	#3
Orange_Sody_84 Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Aug 05, 2010 Location: Myrtle Beach Posts: 234	Oh boy... I'm not trying to start an arguement. but if she didn't kill Caylee then who did?? there is just far too much circumstantial evidence to the point where it stops being circumstantial. the Jury screwed up big time here. -She failed to report her child missing for a whole month? really? -If your child is missing the last thing you do is go out and party -If your innocent why change your story multiple times and obstruct the investigation? -What exactly does allegedly being abused by your sibling or Father have to do with your miurdered child? talk about stalling tactics. -A regular person doesn't look up the search terms "Neck break", "Shovel", "Homemade weapons", & "Choloraform" for kicks and giggles on the computer. Whatever... I just can't shake the feeling she got away with murder. and it just really cheeses me off. I could be wrong but alot of the evidence makes me feel otherwise.

07-07-2011, 02:46 AM	#4
Apostapler Member Forum Regular Join Date: Mar 06, 2009 Location: Indiana Posts: 872	Meh, this case is forever going to make blood boil. But, I do have a criticism of the prosecution. They didn't have enough concrete evidence to bring a Murder I charge against Casey. If they had tried her on a lesser charge, it probably would have had a better chance of sticking. Problem is, they can't back track. They can't even get her on a wrongful death or failure to report a death because they already argued that the way the defense claimed Caylee died was not true. They shot themselves in the foot. But they tried. I don't think anyone will argue that a kid dies a natural death with duct tape involved, before or after.

07-07-2011, 08:19 AM	#7
Orange_Sody_84 Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Aug 05, 2010 Location: Myrtle Beach Posts: 234	Even if it was an accident she should still get jailtime. for obstructing the case and failure to report her child missing. if she accidently drowned in the pool why dump the body a mile away from the house? so many things don't add up in this case.

07-07-2011, 08:24 AM	#8
RobinW Member Senior Member Join Date: Jul 14, 2010 Posts: 1,874	For the record, I would not be surprised if the jury voted "not guilty" not because the case wasn't strong enough, but because they were peeved about having to be sequestered for the Fourth of July and didn't want to spend a couple more weeks of the summer being sequestered because they would have to vote on the sentencing phase. To unanimously vote "not guilty" is one thing, but the fact they agreed on this verdict so quickly makes me think there were twelve versions of Jack Warden's character from "12 Angry Men" on this jury. I previously made a comparison to the Donnie Hansen trial, but I think a more apt comparison would be the jury's inexplicable decision to acquit Franklin Smith for the murder of Eileen Mangold despite his DNA evidence being on her! Florida juries really make me scratch my head sometimes...

07-07-2011, 02:07 PM	#12
TheCars1986 #VLSKMS Forum Fanatic Join Date: Nov 22, 2008 Location: Maryland Posts: 8,606	I personally don't think they were the best defense team, but those words were constantly bantered about by people describing this case. He had the funds to hire several lawyers to help him beat the wrap, and that's exactly what he did. You're preaching to the choir about how the prosecution dropped the ball. The slow speed chase in the Bronco (with a passport and a disguise) would be enough indication that he had something to hide. Kato Kaelin's testimony didn't help the prosecution either, since it seemed like he tended to ramble on about certain aspects. Had the prosecution focused more on the little details instead of looking at the big picture (getting the conviction), I think they would have won. At least the scumbag is where he deserves to be now.

07-07-2011, 05:41 PM	#13
synthisislab Member Forum Regular Join Date: Mar 11, 2006 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 552	Well I think the jury was correct in the Casey Anthony case. There was too much reasonable doubt to convict her of the serious charges against her. Maybe if they charged her with negligent homicide, tampering with evidence, and/or improper disposal of human remains or whatever the equivalent charges would be in Florida, if there are those sorts of charges here in this state, then I'd say she is guilty of those (definitely the improper disposal of human remains one). I watched that trial for the majority of the case with what I thought was objectivity and was won over by the state's case, especially after their closing arguments on July 3rd. I was only able to see the first 20-30 minutes of the Baez's closing arguments and saw the whole final rebuttal the final day and was totally shocked the next day when she was found innocent of all the major charges. Then I watched the defense's full closing arguments just now on the most popular video site (search for Casey Anthony murder trial 7/3/11 parts 5-10) and what Baez and Mason said in their closings caused me to do a complete 180 as to her being guilty of 1st degree murder, aggravated child abuse, or aggravated manslaughter of a child. There was way too much reasonable doubt to convict on any of those and the case the state presented on those was completely debunked by the defense. So 3 years in jail for what she did seems fair or close to being fair for what she did, I feel. I mean she's always going to have to live with the stigma surrounding her that so many people think she's a cold-blooded sadistic baby killer like she's been portrayed as for 3 years in the media. So she will have to live in a sort of prison of the kind as a recluse because of her infamy until she dies because there will always be the media trying to get to her and crazy people with a lynch mob mentality. I do hope now that she can put her story out there as to what her side is without getting into trouble for it, that she reveals what really happened, or at least whatever story she decides to come up with as to what happened anyhow.

07-08-2011, 07:14 AM	#15
Cori aka ChrisSCrush Member Senior Member Join Date: Dec 30, 2001 Location: USA and still trying to be proud of it! Posts: 2,068	O. J. Simpson also denied ever having owned the type of gloves and shoes indicated at the crime scene. Later, not just a photograph, but negatives of a whole series of photographs, were found revealing him wearing both the gloves and the shoes! The jury knew nothing of this till the trial was over as it emerged while they were sequestered and was never admitted into evidence. It showed he was willing to lie about any detail.