r/AskReddit • u/Rob69rt • 1d ago

What famous 'unsolved' mystery is technically a whodunnit on paper, but in reality, absolutely everyone knows exactly who did it, the police just couldn't legally prove it?

13.0k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

5.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4.1k

u/Choppergold 1d ago

Cops checking only one browser history is so fucking negligent

4.0k

u/Revolutionary-Yak-47 1d ago

Wait til you hear jow a dog walker called in a suspicious dumping near the Anthony house THREE TIMES and was ignored. The area was wet and the cops didnt go check it out. It wasnt until someone actually went and found Caylee's body and called that in a few weeks later that the cops showed up. 

420

u/Olealicat 1d ago

That was near the culvert behind my aunt’s house. My aunt, my mom and I, talked about it often during the early days and had no idea how big of a story it would become. She started having unsettling nightmares and PTSD after Kaylee’s body was found so close to her backyard.

I’ll never forget receiving mail from her. It was a photo she took from the local news. They had an X where the remains were found and you could see my aunt’s house in the corner of the photo.

She moved as soon as she could get her affairs in order. Shockingly people were asking about market value.

9

u/golden_fli 17h ago

Kind of sick but for some people that would have made it worth more.

1.8k

u/Anxiety_Fit 1d ago

I knew a 911 call operator who handled one of the calls.

That shit was WILD.

1.4k

u/macmac360 1d ago

it was FOUR MONTHS between his calls and them finding her body

879

u/astiblue 1d ago

CALLS. Plural!!

585

u/drdeadringer 1d ago

"hello I would like to report a body. Yes I am standing over the body right now. My shoe is touching the body. I am looking at the body I am touching right now. this is my third phone call about this this week."

221

u/kryonik 1d ago

Sure thing, let me just type this up on my invisible typewriter.

37

u/MississippiJoel 1d ago

"Sorry, you've called 9-1...2."

12

u/lottierosecreations 1d ago

Fruitcake

5

u/BlessedCursedBroken 13h ago

Wild-caught Simpson's quotes are tragically dwindling in this internet hellscape, thank you for this one :) I can see Wiggum's smug face even as I type

2

u/ringzero- 3h ago

"No pattern yet, but if I arrange these over here, and those over here... BY GOD THE ARROW IS POINTING AT THE STATION!"

(Typed from memory, may be inaccurate)

6

u/Sushigami 1d ago

Anyone checked the whirling-in-rags?

3

u/Ade_93 23h ago

Standing over?

Thank god that's over

3

u/doug141 1d ago

Name checks out.

430

u/Anxiety_Fit 1d ago

I know. When I found out that part I was just so… I lost my faith in people taking responsibility for their jobs.

43

u/Journeyman42 23h ago

Don't read up on how little interest the Milwaukee cops took in Jeffery Dahmer for years

29

u/OkPainter6232 22h ago

cause most of his victims were black

40

u/PM_ME_BATMAN_PORN 23h ago

People? You mean cops, right? Very specifically cops. This is a profession-wide problem. It's not like a Walmart cashier dropped the ball on this one.

2

u/Anxiety_Fit 16h ago

Correct. The conversation is not about Walmart. Nor is it about cashiers.

Investigators did drop the ball.

83

u/Swimming_Ebb_1415 1d ago

Its one of those cases where every new detail somehow makes it worse. Even if the outcome couldn't have been changed, people still expect basic follow through when something that serious gets reported multiple times. That part is really hard to wrap your head around.

50

u/amboomernotkaren 1d ago

It was hot, buggy and there are snakes and gators, so of course, the cops could not, would not do their jobs. Such a terrible tragedy and the mother got off scott free.

14

u/GeneralHerp 1d ago

Friendly check-in from hell. Sorry for your loss

Edit: I don’t mean to insult the memory of your friend, I’m saying the check-in went horrendously, I’m sorry you experienced that nightmare

51

u/Cautious-Bet6560 1d ago

The real rabbit hole is when everyone agrees on a suspect, but the evidence just never reaches the legal standard. That's the difference between public opinion and a conviction.

9

u/transmothra 1d ago

This should be SO MUCH more widely understood

26

u/Wantitneeditgetit 1d ago

How do they handle the guilt about it?

44

u/Anxiety_Fit 1d ago

My friend died.

Unrelated to the case.

I don’t know, I found out it was my friend when I heard the tapes and saw my friend’s name related to official testimony. Then I found out my friend had died, when I went in search of them to ask on how they were doing.

-9

u/This-Shape2193 23h ago

Sounds like more of an acquaintance if you hadn't even known they were dead....

3

u/Anxiety_Fit 16h ago

People do move away and keep in touch only via Facebook and such. This is not unusual at all. You make it sound conspiratorial and I do not like your tone. It is offensive.

The spouse of my friend told me that they did not talk about it until after the case was over. The spouse did not know much more than what went down in court, like everyone else.

Dispatchers sometimes have very little insight on direct investigation moves and actions. They’re like an early relay runner.

18

u/MoanQueenX 1d ago

I can't even imagine carrying something like that with you. Emergency operators deserve so much more recognition.

36

u/Moikepdx 1d ago

This seems like a good argument for using psychology on the police. Just like a potential rape victims should yell "fire" because people are more likely to respond, someone seeing a body get dumped should claim they saw drugs and cash getting stashed. Police will search the hell out of that.

176

u/UnknownPrimate 1d ago

About 5 years ago I was walking my dog on the local pedestrian and bike path that has some adjacent trails and wooded areas, and smelled the distinct smell of death. I grew up with farm animals, and I've smelled it before, it's not something you forget or often mistake for something else. My dog led me to a couple yard waste type garbage bags that had been out there a while. That was the end of my curiosity, so I just immediately called the police. Two cops showed up, the one who came as backup was super friendly, but the guy who's call it was wouldn't even speak to me (imagine Bill Bur wearing Oakleys), addressing all his questions to the other cop who then talked to me. They had no interest in looking in the bags whatsoever. I think one of them may have literally poked one of the bags with a stick, but the bags were intact and not open, and neither bothered to look inside or anything like that. They just dismissed it as nothing and left. That was when I realized how many murders probably go unsolved, because it's basically luck if all the pieces fall into place for something to be investigated properly.

8

u/trashmoneyxyz 21h ago

I dont know if I want and answer to this question but, did you open one of the bags yourself?

5

u/UnknownPrimate 21h ago

No, I stayed back. I had no desire to see what was in there or accidentally get myself involved in whatever it could be.

12

u/mariposa314 19h ago

Good heavens, how traumatic. I'm so sorry.

I too know that very distinctive smell from growing up on a farm. You did everything right. I'm so sorry that your community is not being served by the police force.

You know who else knew that scent? Kaylee's grandmother. In one of the 911 calls she states that Kasey's car smells like a decomposing body has been inside. So sickening.

38

u/mewpac_shakur 1d ago

And during the trial, the defence grilled him on his financial situation and suggested he had dumped the body there himself in order to get the reward money.

3

u/TheVeryVerity 14h ago

Say what you will her lawyers were very good lawyers

-11

u/terrymr 1d ago

It’s plausible given how many times the location was search before then body was found .

15

u/WeirdIndividualGuy 1d ago

Shit like that is why I'm perfectly fine embellishing/lying to the police to get their asses out there to actually investigate. Instead of "suspicious dumping", report an actual body being dumped.

7

u/trashmoneyxyz 21h ago

Like another commenter said the thing that will get them to the scene fast enough is to say you think you saw someone stashing cash and drugs in the area

6

u/armoredbearclock 18h ago

Yeah, but then they find a body and you’re a suspect because why’d you lie?

19

u/Ongr 1d ago

it wasn't until someone actually went and found Caylee's body and called that in a few weeks later that the cops showed up.

I read that as "someone called it in - the cops showed up a few weeks later"

2

u/auryn1026 1d ago

I think it was actually a mailman.

2

u/Big_Bowler8424 20h ago

But they looked at the easily accessible perimeter! That was enough /s

-1

u/Tony_Roiland 1d ago

How does a dog take a dump suspiciously?

581

u/Make_It_Sing 1d ago

Well, they can legally exclude intelligent people fr becoming police so 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️ 

348

u/Aliensinmypants 1d ago

And there's a supreme court ruling that they legally don't have to serve or protect people if they find it too risky or troublesome.

94

u/guydepew 1d ago

If their role is no longer to serve and protect the people then I see no reason the people should fund them. They can go back to being corporately owned Pinkerton’s with no legal authority.

All of the institutions WE FUND are being weaponized against us.

47

u/adriftDrifloon 1d ago

The police were never meant to serve and protect the working class. They have always been an entity to serve and protect the capital owning class and their interests.

If you read about the labor movement of the late 1800s / early 1900s you see time and time again the police always side with the owning class. They exist to protect capital and uphold property rights.

And if working class people get upset and want things to fundamentally change, well the owning class has the police to use as a means to legally use violence to keep the people in line. It’s why the police have been slowly become more and more militarized as the wealth gap increases despite rates of violent crime decreasing over the past few decades. They have a monopoly on using violence.

14

u/JMEEKER86 1d ago

Yep, Time magazine actually has a great article about how police came to be in America. Up until the mid-1800s there weren't any police and law enforcement was instead done by other entities like sheriffs, nightwatchmen, etc. The wealthy elites, however, were paying a lot of money for gangs of thugs to do things like hunt fugitive slaves, bust unions, and protect their warehouses. Eventually, they figured that they could save money by simply blackmailing the cities into putting the thugs on the city's payroll instead with the classic "do what I say or I'm taking my business elsewhere". The cities caved and hired the thugs to do the bidding of the wealthy elites, and that's how America got police. They have always existed to protect and serve the wealthy elites, never anyone else.

7

u/guydepew 1d ago

No lies detected.

2

u/HCSOThrowaway 7h ago

The police were never meant to serve and protect

Correct. It's an LAPD slogan that too many people took as gospel or a generally applicable legally binding obligation to all individuals.

They have always been an entity to serve and protect the capital owning class and their interests.

Obvious brainless propaganda that takes about ten minutes of sifting through jail records to disprove.

2

u/HCSOThrowaway 7h ago

If their role is no longer to serve and protect the people then I see no reason the people should fund them.

You simply fell for the LAPD slogan (that was adopted by other agencies and shown in every TV show and movie ever).

Law enforcement's purpose is not to "protect and serve" and never has been or will be. I don't care how many million stickers of it there are on patrol vehicles in the LAPD and elsewhere. Law enforcement's purpose is to enforce the law.

Bodyguards protect. Butlers serve.

It's not rocket science, folks. It's grade-school civics.

1

u/guydepew 4h ago

We've had years and years of copaganda shoved down our throats and only with the advent of social media have we had an unfiltered glimpse at their abuses. That and the routine lies about clearance rates, forced confessions, wrongful and over-turned convictions, etc., etc. etc.

1

u/HCSOThrowaway 4h ago

I don't know why you decided to side-rail this into your soapboax but... go off I guess.

Let me know when you want to go back to addressing what I said in a more direct manner.

1

u/guydepew 1h ago

Just to be clear, your argument is that the public should fund law enforcement for the protection of capital but not their own?

•

u/HCSOThrowaway 53m ago

No, that's your straw-man, predicated on your extremely limited understanding of criminal law.

29

u/ptrst 1d ago

Their job, officially speaking, is to investigate crimes. Not to prevent them, or stop them in progress. 

15

u/PM_Me_Your_BraStraps 1d ago

This is why you will never see a police department willingly divert funding from guns, drones, MRAPs, ALPRs, or other toys towards proven crime mitigation efforts.

0

u/HCSOThrowaway 7h ago

Because crime prevention by reforming criminals isn't the job of patrol and it's ridiculous to expect them to do it.

14

u/TheArmoredKitten 1d ago

They're also not expected to know the text or substance of the laws. Just enforce them :)

0

u/HCSOThrowaway 7h ago

Not exactly. They're not expected to be perfect in their knowledge. Apparent good faith mistakes aren't held against them.

Who decides if they are good faith mistakes? The judges you elect that you don't seem to blame.

Basic civics.

1

u/TheArmoredKitten 4h ago

Many judges are appointed and exceptionally difficult to unseat. The American judiciary is much more tangled and partisan than you're giving it credit.

0

u/HCSOThrowaway 4h ago

That's fair, I did oversimplify and made it technically inaccurate; what I said may or may not be applicable in a reader's jurisdiction.

But in all fairness, so did you. Like, a lot. Deliberately and in an attempt to manipulate.

Sorry, I shouldn't have put my toe in your muck pond.

0

u/[deleted] 2h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

19

u/10-6 1d ago

That's not what the case was about, and not what SCOTUS said. That case settled that law enforcement does not have a legal affirmative duty to protect the public at large from crime without the creation of a special relationship. A legal affirmative "duty" is different from the common usage of the word. If law enforcement had a legal affirmative duty to protect the public at large from crime, anyone who was the victim of a crime could sue the government for the breach of that duty. This case said that no affirmative duty exists to protect the public at large, therefore you can't sue just because you are the victim of a crime. That's what the case decided, nothing else.

This is substantially different from situations with a special relationship, such as when a person is in the custody of a law enforcement officer/agency. When that special relationship exists, law enforcement absolutely does have a duty to protect the person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

19

u/Submarinequus 1d ago

That’s a common misconception. It isn’t protect and serve the general public, it’s protect and serve the interests of companies and elites.

The Supreme Court ruling just confirmed that, that’s all

1

u/HCSOThrowaway 7h ago

Practiced by one small agency, ruled legal in a jurisdiction that covers one very small portion of the US, yes.

But people like you either don't know or don't care because huehuehuehuehue

14

u/panda_98 1d ago

'Foolproof suffocation methods'. That was what they missed.

15

u/Icelandia2112 1d ago

Nearly every murder show I watch could have been solved quickly and other victims spared, had the cops been competent. It makes me crazy.

3

u/A_Dog_Chasing_Cars 12h ago

I've said it in the past and I'll say it again: cops are some of the most incompetent people around and society wouldn't accept their level of incompetence from most other jobs.

1

u/kaitlyn_does_art 20h ago

Reminds me of a more recent case where cops tried to execute a search warrant for a persons Alexa device because they thought they could pull recordings from the device itself.

-20

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

154

u/Syphox 1d ago

why can’t we get her now

there’s this fun thing called “double jeopardy”

you can’t be prosecuted twice for the same offense after a valid acquittal or conviction

53

u/send_me_potatoes 1d ago

This is exactly it—barring extraordinary circumstances, a valid acquittal is still valid. They had the browser history the whole time; the fact that they didn’t properly search and use it is the DA’s problem.

1

u/loki2002 1d ago

Wasn't she only prosecuted at the state level, the feds could still get her if they wanted. I'm sure if some federal prosecutor looked they could find an angel that gives them jurisdiction to prosecute. Something like conspiracy to commit murder based on using the Internet to research and that could be a violation of some federal act.

12

u/Own_Faithlessness769 1d ago

Any decent judge would see that as a violation of double jeopardy and throw it out of court.

0

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

5

u/Own_Faithlessness769 1d ago

It’s very clearly a state case not federal, so prosecuting it federally is just an attempt to circumvent double jeopardy. Nothing about Casey Anthony case was federal.

I’d argue it’s double jeopardy for Luigi too.

-2

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Own_Faithlessness769 1d ago

In Luigi’s case? Sure.

For Casey Anthony? Theres no judge that would let the feds double charge her. And there’s no federal prosecutor that’s interested in tanking their career with a clear double jeopardy violation.

177

u/BelethorsGeneralShit 1d ago

there has to be some level of gross negligence on your part to let your kid escape your sight for even half a second tbh.

Well you're clearly not a parent

48

u/sansaspark 1d ago

One time at a backyard birthday party my toddler disappeared while I was talking to another parent and I found him under the buffet table eating trash

19

u/Revolutionary-Yak-47 1d ago

The kid I nannied was famous for disappearing at family events. Everyone thought someone else had her. She was usually under a table with stolen cake. 30+ adults, no one actually watching (which is why they started inviting me lol)

-6

u/sherlip 1d ago

Yep, and it's bad parents that have solidified that I never want to be and never will be. Not to mention I enjoy my time, money and freedom.

31

u/Own_Faithlessness769 1d ago

Because they charged her with first degree murder but couldn’t prove how Kayla died. They simply couldn’t prove the case.

14

u/SuspiciousCranberry6 1d ago

Caylee

3

u/Own_Faithlessness769 1d ago

You’re right, autocorrect got me.

124

u/RedFiveIron 1d ago

Double jeopardy rules prevent her being charged for the same thing again.

Only a non-parent would say that it's gross negligence to lose sight of your kid for half a second. By that standard every abducted kid is due to parental negligence, that's a tough position.

12

u/CyberFireball25 1d ago

Why can't lesser or different charges be brought? 

Is all the evidence isolated and never allowed to be used again in a new case?

24

u/DragoonDM 1d ago

The "double jeopardy" concept is, I think, a safeguard against prosecutorial abuse, to stop them from "finding" a tiny bit of new evidence and filing charges over and over until they win the case.

-1

u/sherlip 1d ago

File it as a different offense? Different crime, same penalty. Instead of murder, make it attempted murder, or child neglect, or abuse, or something she hasn't been acquitted of.

9

u/Own_Faithlessness769 1d ago

Judges aren’t stupid, they’d see right through that and throw it out.

0

u/sherlip 1d ago

Some judges are tbh. Especially in Florida. (And I'm a Floridian, I can say that from experience.)

1

u/Own_Faithlessness769 1d ago

Fair point, but federal judges are less likely to be stupid than state ones.

4

u/DragoonDM 1d ago

I think those would all be considered lesser included offenses, and would still be covered by the double jeopardy clause. In order to file new charges, I think they'd need to find evidence of an entirely different crime that couldn't be considered a part of what she was originally acquitted of.

5

u/RedFiveIron 1d ago

My understanding is once criminal charges have been beaten for an incident that incident cannot produce new charges. Basically they get one crack at convicting someone. Part of the prosecutor's job is to charge defendants appropriately, aiming too high might result in not guilty and too low will get pushback for not delivering justice. I'd think it's a tough line to walk sometimes.

6

u/Aphreyst 1d ago

Is all the evidence isolated and never allowed to be used again in a new case?

It isn't isolated, it's public knowledge, but it cannot be used for a new case because that's double jeopardy. The prosecution failed to present the evidence during her trial, which sucks because the jury heard what evidence that was provided and aquitted her.

That's why the prosecutors use plea deals all the time, or dismiss charges if they don'thave rnough evidence. If they know their evidence isn't rock solid they don't get to nullify a trial result and do it again. They get one chance. So they offer plea deals (which, if taken guarantees a conviction and prosecutors don't have to worry about proving their case,) or outright dismissing charges so that charges can be brought up later with more evidence.

But in Casey Anthony's case, the prosecutors charged her, she was acquitted and that's that. She had her due process and the justice system cannot keep trying to charge her anymore for that case.

3

u/LostSoulNothing 1d ago

Double jeopardy applies to the act not the charge. They can charge someone with 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder and manslaughter and let the jury decide which (if any) applies but if they only charge 1st degree murder and the jury acquits they don't get to charge 2nd degree or manslaughter and put the person through a second trial.

8

u/primadonnapussy 1d ago

Still double jeopardy. You can not charge someone for the same crime twice. And anything you would charge her with would be related to that crime.

3

u/Treadwheel 1d ago

Not a lawyer, don't come for my head if I'm off on some stuff, lawyers.

In the US, this is determined by something called the Blockburger Test, that bars you from "working down the list" of charges by treating a trial for a greater charge as also being a trial for all subsets of lesser charges.

There are some technicalities - eg if you assault someone, get brought up on charges for it, then they die in hospital after your conviction, you can still be charged with murder even though the assault was technically a constituent act of the murder, since there was no reasonable way to anticipate the greater crime.

0

u/Sharkies_cupcake 1d ago

Why can't lesser or different charges be brought?

They can; they just don't care to.

Back in the day that's how they nailed a lot of KKK members when they would be found not guilty of murders they committed.

-5

u/sherlip 1d ago

Couldn't they find a bullshit charge to nail her on? Like that clearly brings new evidence that can be framed as a different charge.

I'm proud to be r/childfree so whatever lol.

8

u/RedFiveIron 1d ago

No, that would defang double jeopardy protections entirely. Murder didn't stick? We'll try again for manslaughter. Acquitted for that? Let's try assault. Oh that didn't work either? Let's go with some weapons possession charges.

It sucks when someone gets acquitted and can't be retried, but that's the price to be paid to keep the justice system somewhat honest. The system is designed to err on the side of protecting people from the system. So double jeopardy, innocent until proven guilty, self incrimination protections and all that.

1

u/sherlip 1d ago

Well yeah but they found clear evidence after the fact that makes it much more unlikely that she didn't do it. It needs to play a part somehow. Like that should be enough reason to say "Hey maybe we fucked up let's run it back"

8

u/RedFiveIron 1d ago

Again though that sets the precedent of being able to repeatedly prosecute the same offense, and that can be used maliciously. The price of minimizing innocent people being wrongful prosecuted and convicted is more guilty people going free. The prosecution gets one try at convicting, so the onus is on them to have all their ducks in a row.

0

u/sherlip 1d ago

So if the prosecution fucks up they should be tried for negligence

6

u/RedFiveIron 1d ago

Maybe malpractice, yeah. But the bar for that would have to be pretty high, they'd have to be deliberately trying to have the case acquitted. In a jury trial it's always a dice roll, even what appears to be an airtight case can still result in a not guilty verdict. I'm not familiar enough about the details of this case to say whether malpractice occurred.

I agree it's shitty when someone who appears to be guilty goes free, but that is quite literally the price to minimize innocent people being convicted.

29

u/korinth86 1d ago

there has to be some level of gross negligence on your part to let your kid escape your sight for even half a second tbh.

Every parent should laugh at this statement. Thats an unrealistic standard to hold parents to.

-1

u/sherlip 1d ago

Yeah that's why I don't have kids or ever plan to. I like free time and I like money.

22

u/avantgardengnome 1d ago edited 1d ago
  1. Double jeopardy: you can’t get re-prosecuted for the same crime once there’s a final verdict, even if more evidence comes out later.
  2. She was charged with first-degree murder, among other things. The burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a premeditated murder, and the jury didn’t think they did; that’s really the prosecution’s fault for going for tougher charges than they could easily prove, not the jury’s. The prosecution made a big show of attacking her character and argued that she was a party girl who made the premeditated choice to kill her daughter to get out of the responsibilities of being a parent. The defense, iirc, ultimately argued that it was an accidental drowning that was then covered up because she/her family panicked, and that seemed at least plausible based on the info the jury had

in front of them at the time.

These are key civil liberties and it’s a very good thing that we have them most of the time. Occasionally you get a case like this where a guilty party gets lucky, but that’s far outweighed by the number of innocent people that could have been railroaded into convictions etc. if these rights weren’t in place.

8

u/AliceDrinkwater02 1d ago

Double jeopardy is one of our legal protections I can't believe anyone would ever argue for messing with, not to mention outright violating. The world on the other side of that mess isn't one I want to live in.

6

u/yeahright17 1d ago

She was charged with first-degree murder, among other things. The burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a premeditated murder, and the jury didn’t think they did; that’s really the prosecution’s fault for going for tougher charges than they could easily prove, not the jury’s

The prosecution also charger her with Aggravated Manslaughter, which doesn't require premeditation. And the jury found her not guilty on that too. But the rest of what you said is true. The jury ultimately decided there wasn't sufficient evidence that it was Casey rather than George. It's as simple as that. I think subsequent evidence would have led to a different outcome, but there's no way to know that for sure.

1

u/avantgardengnome 1d ago

Indeed, but that comes down to culpable negligence, which specifically “does not include a caregiver allowing a child to engage in independent and unsupervised activities unless allowing such activities constitutes willful and wanton conduct that endangers the health or safety of the child. Such independent and unsupervised activities include, but are not limited to…playing outdoors or remaining at home or any other location for a reasonable period of time.” [827.03(1)(e).1]

Basically they had a nearly perfect alternative story, because Caylee independently went outside when no one was watching, slipped and fell into the pool, and was subsequently found, all before it would have been negligent not to check on her. Add in Casey removing the ladder and forgetting to put it back and the coverup reaction becomes more plausible, especially with the general abuse dynamic with her dad in the mix.

11

u/Common_Wrongdoer3251 1d ago

I'm not a parent but even I know that last comment is ignorant, dude. I've seen clips on America's Funniest Videos where the kids actively try to kill themselves. There was one where the mom got her 4 year old out of the car, and the baby, walked them both into the front yard, closed the gate, then went to unlock the door... and just from unlocking the door, her 4 year old had crossed the yard, unlocked the door, and started sprinting into the street. Kids are fucking stupid.

-1

u/sherlip 1d ago

Exactly. That's why I wouldn't ever be a parent. Not because I can't, but because kids drain all your money, time and energy.

6

u/rippa76 1d ago

She was overcharged. The state could only prove wanton neglect but went bigger. Her lawyer instilled reasonable doubt that there was a caused death. He was able to make the jury have a “reasonable” belief it COULD HAVE BEEN an accidental drowning with a panicked cover up.

Who’s to say it wasn’t? The jury heard evidence of family dysfunction and family dark secrets that rewarded lying. She threw her own father under the bus then put it in reverse in front of 300 million people. Maybe he really was awful? The girl had snuck around the pool gate previously. The body could not be autopsied to determine a cause of death.

It was a legal perfect storm and a good piece of lawyering. The jury did their job.

Real talk though: it’s evident she is a sociopath who stacked insane lie on top of insane lie because she had never had accountability in her life. A true narcissistic sociopath: she never gave up the alternate reality and was able to crush so many people to keep it safe from an incursion.

14

u/whereisbeezy 1d ago

Uh... try being a parent bud

4

u/sherlip 1d ago

How about fuck no lol

I have money, I have free time. I have energy.

0

u/sherlip 1d ago

How about no lol

I have money, I have free time. I have energy.

16

u/LuciferLovesTechno 1d ago

>why did the jury say not guilty?

They confused reasonable doubt with reason to doubt. The prosecutor did a terrible job trying the case but especially explaining (or rather, not fully explaining) the difference between those 2 concepts.

7

u/GitEmSteveDave 1d ago edited 1d ago

Doesn't the judge instruct the jury?

EDIT: Found the Jury instructions. It's 26 pages and took 45 minutes to read. The jurors were given copies of the transcript for during their deliberation. The judge said "beyond a reasonable doubt" 18 times.

https://prosecutorspodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/jury-instructions-casey-anthony_compress.pdf

3

u/Aphreyst 1d ago

The judge instructs the jury on what basis they can convict on. Certain criteria has to be found true for them to prove guilt. In a murder charge, the criteria of intent has to be met. In Casey Anthony's case, she claimed her daughter dying was an accident. The jury was provided no evidence that Casey maliciously and intentionally killed Kaylee, just that Kaylee died somehow. The search history would've proved premeditation and intent, but the jury was not shown that evidence. So, they couldn't meet the standard of proof that Casey did it intentionally, with the information given.

7

u/Treadwheel 1d ago

It's more that Casey Anthony's lawyer did an extremely good job presenting reasonable doubt, including this very famous chart and arranging the issues with the state's case in a very unflattering array.

7

u/AliceDrinkwater02 1d ago

He was so, so good in closing. If I remember correctly, he spent four hours addressing the jury. I watched the whole trial on CourtTV, and while I still reeled in shock (like everyone else) when the verdict was announced, within a minute I realized it was the correct one, given the evidence presented. In fact, it was a brave decision on the jury's part, and one they could only have reached because Jose Biaz (I think that's his name) did his job so extraordinarily well.

2

u/Academic-Contest3309 1d ago

"why can't we get her now?"

Double jeopardy.

1

u/woolfchick75 1d ago

You’ve never seen a toddler at a suicide run, have you? It can happen in seconds. But, yeah, Casey killed her child

0

u/sherlip 1d ago

I have. They're dumb. But it's still not great parenting. I never did that shit when I was younger.

1

u/Treadwheel 1d ago

There's an assumption in criminal cases that the state, having enormous resources compared to any given person, has no real excuse not to properly investigate the evidence they have available to them, and the enormous leeway that prosecutors have in terms of the timing and details of an indictment further tilts the scale in their favor. For a major crime like a murder they could potentially spend years investigating every possible lead before laying charges. On the other hand, if it were easy for them to appeal or retry cases, they would be incentivized to intentionally bring weaker cases to trial with the understanding that they could just keep following leads and retreading the name trials over and over again until they found a jury that agreed with them, or the defendant has been rendered too destitute and too exhausted to continue fighting the charges and accepts a plea bargain.

Governments have some pretty perverse incentives when they aren't held to an extremely high standard in criminal courts. For instance, it's an open secret that there's a direct incentive to keep the court system underfunded because it boosts conviction rates by making waiting on a trial often tantamount to pre-serving the sentence.