Casey Anthony

[lilbug]

Well, one thing's for certain it has gotten this country all fired up. I think the whole thing was so convoluted, it was difficult to follow. Because Cayley died so long ago, there was a lack of any real evidence so the idea was to baffle 'em with BS, and it apparently worked. They should have issued all the jurors a pair of waders for this one. I think they had a very difficult job, one I would not have wanted, and were also privy to parts of the trial we armchair jurors weren't, so far be it from me to second guess their decision. What I don't get now is why the special handling for Casey's release? Let her out like and let her face the consequences like everyone else. Might prove to be more just than any other sentence.

 

[FA_Q2]

Search group sues Casey Anthony for costly efforts

A non-profit group on Wednesday served Casey Anthony in jail with a lawsuit seeking to recoup more than $100,000 spent on the massive 2008 search for her 2-year-old daughter Caylee.

That will not make it past summary judgement.

Why not. She lied to the cops creting this waste of cash...

I can see the argument though I dont see how it will matter. Does she actally have any money ti take?

 

[FA_Q2]

You Have a Right To Lie to the Police

In Casey Anthony’s case we see an example of a grave injustice in the modern system. I’m not talking about her acquittal. When the prosecutor fails to prove someone’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the only responsible thing for the jury to do is refuse to damn the suspect to time in a cage. An innocent person imprisoned is so much worse than a guilty person let go, as in the former instance the state seduces all of society to cheer on and legitimize an injustice. Also, whereas justice for the guilty is at least a metaphysical possibility outside of prison, it is downright precluded institutionally for the innocent on the inside.

The actual travesty here is the offense of which Casey Anthony has been convicted: four counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. This should not be an offense in a free society, and I am struck by how little this horror has gained attention in the last week.


Lying in most circumstances is immoral. And lying to cover up one’s crimes might be especially egregious, and arguably criminal in itself. But Casey Anthony was acquitted of the actual crime of murder. As far as the state is concerned, she has not been proven guilty. So why is her dishonesty with the police an offense against the law?

The Right to Lie to the Cops by Anthony Gregory

.

Asinine. You have the right to not speak to the cops. You do not have the right to mislead them. How is that less then freedom? How is it restrictive for you to not be able to purposely abort justice?

 

[Liability]

You Have a Right To Lie to the Police

In Casey Anthony’s case we see an example of a grave injustice in the modern system. I’m not talking about her acquittal. When the prosecutor fails to prove someone’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the only responsible thing for the jury to do is refuse to damn the suspect to time in a cage. An innocent person imprisoned is so much worse than a guilty person let go, as in the former instance the state seduces all of society to cheer on and legitimize an injustice. Also, whereas justice for the guilty is at least a metaphysical possibility outside of prison, it is downright precluded institutionally for the innocent on the inside.

The actual travesty here is the offense of which Casey Anthony has been convicted: four counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. This should not be an offense in a free society, and I am struck by how little this horror has gained attention in the last week.


Lying in most circumstances is immoral. And lying to cover up one’s crimes might be especially egregious, and arguably criminal in itself. But Casey Anthony was acquitted of the actual crime of murder. As far as the state is concerned, she has not been proven guilty. So why is her dishonesty with the police an offense against the law?

The Right to Lie to the Cops by Anthony Gregory

.

Asinine. You have the right to not speak to the cops. You do not have the right to mislead them. How is that less then freedom? How is it restrictive for you to not be able to purposely abort justice?

It depends.

In Florida, as with the Feds, it is a crime to lie to the police.

Here in the Empire State, if you initiate the conversation, you can be charged with "falsely reporting an incident" if you lie to the cops.

Alternatively, you could be charged with a crime along the lines of "obstructing governmental administration" if you lie to a cop during an investigation and thereby impede the criminal investigation.

Otherwise there is no NY State "crime" for simply lying to a state or local cop in NY.

 

[Contumacious]

You Have a Right To Lie to the Police

In Casey Anthony’s case we see an example of a grave injustice in the modern system. I’m not talking about her acquittal. When the prosecutor fails to prove someone’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the only responsible thing for the jury to do is refuse to damn the suspect to time in a cage. An innocent person imprisoned is so much worse than a guilty person let go, as in the former instance the state seduces all of society to cheer on and legitimize an injustice. Also, whereas justice for the guilty is at least a metaphysical possibility outside of prison, it is downright precluded institutionally for the innocent on the inside.

The actual travesty here is the offense of which Casey Anthony has been convicted: four counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. This should not be an offense in a free society, and I am struck by how little this horror has gained attention in the last week.


Lying in most circumstances is immoral. And lying to cover up one’s crimes might be especially egregious, and arguably criminal in itself. But Casey Anthony was acquitted of the actual crime of murder. As far as the state is concerned, she has not been proven guilty. So why is her dishonesty with the police an offense against the law?

The Right to Lie to the Cops by Anthony Gregory

.

Asinine. You have the right to not speak to the cops. You do not have the right to mislead them. How is that less then freedom? How is it restrictive for you to not be able to purposely abort justice?

During the grand jury, [Susan] McDougal stated her full name "for the record", then refused to answer any questions. From September 9, 1996 until March 6, 1998, McDougal spent the maximum possible 18 months imprisonment for civil contempt, including 8 months in solitary confinement, and subjected to "diesel therapy," the practice of hauling defendants around the country and placing them in different jails along the way.

Susan McDougal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.

 

[Gadawg73]

You Have a Right To Lie to the Police

In Casey Anthony’s case we see an example of a grave injustice in the modern system. I’m not talking about her acquittal. When the prosecutor fails to prove someone’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the only responsible thing for the jury to do is refuse to damn the suspect to time in a cage. An innocent person imprisoned is so much worse than a guilty person let go, as in the former instance the state seduces all of society to cheer on and legitimize an injustice. Also, whereas justice for the guilty is at least a metaphysical possibility outside of prison, it is downright precluded institutionally for the innocent on the inside.

The actual travesty here is the offense of which Casey Anthony has been convicted: four counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. This should not be an offense in a free society, and I am struck by how little this horror has gained attention in the last week.


Lying in most circumstances is immoral. And lying to cover up one’s crimes might be especially egregious, and arguably criminal in itself. But Casey Anthony was acquitted of the actual crime of murder. As far as the state is concerned, she has not been proven guilty. So why is her dishonesty with the police an offense against the law?

The Right to Lie to the Cops by Anthony Gregory

.

Asinine. You have the right to not speak to the cops. You do not have the right to mislead them. How is that less then freedom? How is it restrictive for you to not be able to purposely abort justice?

During the grand jury, [Susan] McDougal stated her full name "for the record", then refused to answer any questions. From September 9, 1996 until March 6, 1998, McDougal spent the maximum possible 18 months imprisonment for civil contempt, including 8 months in solitary confinement, and subjected to "diesel therapy," the practice of hauling defendants around the country and placing them in different jails along the way.

Susan McDougal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.

Grand jury are not police.

 

[Contumacious]

Asinine. You have the right to not speak to the cops. You do not have the right to mislead them. How is that less then freedom? How is it restrictive for you to not be able to purposely abort justice?

During the grand jury, [Susan] McDougal stated her full name "for the record", then refused to answer any questions. From September 9, 1996 until March 6, 1998, McDougal spent the maximum possible 18 months imprisonment for civil contempt, including 8 months in solitary confinement, and subjected to "diesel therapy," the practice of hauling defendants around the country and placing them in different jails along the way.

Susan McDougal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.

Grand jury are not police.

Really? So they should be considered as your homies.

A grand jury is a type of jury that determines whether there is enough evidence for a trial. Grand juries carry out this duty by examining evidence and issuing indictments, or by investigating alleged crimes and issuing presentments.

.

 

[Gadawg73]

During the grand jury, [Susan] McDougal stated her full name "for the record", then refused to answer any questions. From September 9, 1996 until March 6, 1998, McDougal spent the maximum possible 18 months imprisonment for civil contempt, including 8 months in solitary confinement, and subjected to "diesel therapy," the practice of hauling defendants around the country and placing them in different jails along the way.

Susan McDougal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.

Grand jury are not police.

Really? So they should be considered as your homies.

A grand jury is a type of jury that determines whether there is enough evidence for a trial. Grand juries carry out this duty by examining evidence and issuing indictments, or by investigating alleged crimes and issuing presentments.

.

As a licensed private investigator for 30 years with an agency license I know what a grand jury is and does.
I have testified before grand juries dozens of times.
I have served on grand juries.
I have provided evidence to grand juries.
And again, grand juries are not police.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So if someone testifies in their own defense, claim they didn't do it, but is found guilty, do you charge them with perjury too?

We need a loser pay system but in civil, not criminal court

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So if someone testifies in their own defense, claim they didn't do it, but is found guilty, do you charge them with perjury too?

We need a loser pay system but in civil, not criminal court

 

[Steerpike]

It shouldn't be a crime to lie to the police to begin with. You're not testifying under oath in that situation, and the police are often free to lie to the suspect. Also, the charge of lying to police is a catch-all charge thrown into the mix for the State to fall back on when they can't prove the underlying case, and that's problematic as well. It's just there to make sure the government can get their pound of flesh out of the citizen, whether they can prove an underlying crime or not.

 

[Liability]

So if someone testifies in their own defense, claim they didn't do it, but is found guilty, do you charge them with perjury too?

We need a loser pay system but in civil, not criminal court

There is a practice in one DA's Office in the Big City that says that IF a defendant elects to exercise his right to testify before a Grand Jury, and denies his guilt to the Grand Jury, obviously under oath, then IF he later pleads guilty to that very same crime he must also plead guilty to a charge of perjury for having lied before the Grand Jury.

Technically, the DA's Office may have a point. Practically speaking, it's kinda goofy.

 

[SFC Ollie]

It shouldn't be a crime to lie to the police to begin with. You're not testifying under oath in that situation, and the police are often free to lie to the suspect. Also, the charge of lying to police is a catch-all charge thrown into the mix for the State to fall back on when they can't prove the underlying case, and that's problematic as well. It's just there to make sure the government can get their pound of flesh out of the citizen, whether they can prove an underlying crime or not.

Um, No. The charge is there because when someone like Miss Anthony lies to the police about where her daughter is then it costs the tax payers thousands of dollars to follow up on those lies.

You do understand that over $100,000 was spent trying to find this little girl whose mother knew the whole time exactly where she was. Yet you think it shouldn't be a crime? I hope they charge her for every dime and then some.

 

[Contumacious]

Grand jury are not police.

Really? So they should be considered as your homies.

A grand jury is a type of jury that determines whether there is enough evidence for a trial. Grand juries carry out this duty by examining evidence and issuing indictments, or by investigating alleged crimes and issuing presentments.

.

As a licensed private investigator for 30 years with an agency license I know what a grand jury is and does.
I have testified before grand juries dozens of times.
I have served on grand juries.
I have provided evidence to grand juries.
And again, grand juries are not police.

OK Vern, quit being dense.

both the police and the Grand Jury gather evidence to assist the prosecution.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

 

[Liability]

Really? So they should be considered as your homies.

A grand jury is a type of jury that determines whether there is enough evidence for a trial. Grand juries carry out this duty by examining evidence and issuing indictments, or by investigating alleged crimes and issuing presentments.

.

As a licensed private investigator for 30 years with an agency license I know what a grand jury is and does.
I have testified before grand juries dozens of times.
I have served on grand juries.
I have provided evidence to grand juries.
And again, grand juries are not police.

OK Vern, quit being dense.

both the police and the Grand Jury gather evidence to assist the prosecution.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

LOL.

The prosecution effectively runs the Grand Jury to create the prosecution in the first place.

The prosecutors issue GRAND JURY

​

subpoenas to GET evidence to then "present" to the Grand Jury; and the prosecutors present the evidence TO the Grand Jury selecting the witnesses to represent; and there is no judge present in the Grand Jury; and the legal instructions given TO the Grand Jury is given BY the prosecutors; and at least in some states the accused doesn't even have a lawyer present INSIDE the Grand Jury room when (if) the defendant testifies.

SOME Grand Juries figure out that THEY are a Constitutional body and then take a kind of control for themselves. But that's pretty damn rare.

 

[FA_Q2]

You Have a Right To Lie to the Police

In Casey Anthony’s case we see an example of a grave injustice in the modern system. I’m not talking about her acquittal. When the prosecutor fails to prove someone’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the only responsible thing for the jury to do is refuse to damn the suspect to time in a cage. An innocent person imprisoned is so much worse than a guilty person let go, as in the former instance the state seduces all of society to cheer on and legitimize an injustice. Also, whereas justice for the guilty is at least a metaphysical possibility outside of prison, it is downright precluded institutionally for the innocent on the inside.

The actual travesty here is the offense of which Casey Anthony has been convicted: four counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. This should not be an offense in a free society, and I am struck by how little this horror has gained attention in the last week.


Lying in most circumstances is immoral. And lying to cover up one’s crimes might be especially egregious, and arguably criminal in itself. But Casey Anthony was acquitted of the actual crime of murder. As far as the state is concerned, she has not been proven guilty. So why is her dishonesty with the police an offense against the law?

The Right to Lie to the Cops by Anthony Gregory

.

Asinine. You have the right to not speak to the cops. You do not have the right to mislead them. How is that less then freedom? How is it restrictive for you to not be able to purposely abort justice?

During the grand jury, [Susan] McDougal stated her full name "for the record", then refused to answer any questions. From September 9, 1996 until March 6, 1998, McDougal spent the maximum possible 18 months imprisonment for civil contempt, including 8 months in solitary confinement, and subjected to "diesel therapy," the practice of hauling defendants around the country and placing them in different jails along the way.

Susan McDougal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.

I would like to see more on that case and why this was allowed. Can a lawyer here shed more light on what happened and why she was imprisoned for this action?

I still contend that you *should* have the right not to talk to the cops but you should NOT have the right to DELIBERATELY mislead an investigation. The latter is dishonest and ACTIVELY disrupting legal operations.

 

[Sunshine]

Just like Casey, this thread is not going to die!

 

[Liability]

Asinine. You have the right to not speak to the cops. You do not have the right to mislead them. How is that less then freedom? How is it restrictive for you to not be able to purposely abort justice?

During the grand jury, [Susan] McDougal stated her full name "for the record", then refused to answer any questions. From September 9, 1996 until March 6, 1998, McDougal spent the maximum possible 18 months imprisonment for civil contempt, including 8 months in solitary confinement, and subjected to "diesel therapy," the practice of hauling defendants around the country and placing them in different jails along the way.

Susan McDougal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.

I would like to see more on that case and why this was allowed. Can a lawyer here shed more light on what happened and why she was imprisoned for this action?

I still contend that you *should* have the right not to talk to the cops but you should NOT have the right to DELIBERATELY mislead an investigation. The latter is dishonest and ACTIVELY disrupting legal operations.

You have a right not to speak when it might implicate you in a crime. The Fifth Amendment guarantee is powerful and real.

But if the matter is beyond the reach of a criminal prosecution, like say if you have been given a grant of immunity, then there is no threat of criminal prosecution. Under those circumstances, with very few exceptions (like attorney-client privilege, spousal privilege, doctor-patient privilege, priest-penitent privilege and a few along those very rigorous lines), since there is no threat of a criminal prosecution and your words cannot be used against you at a trial which cannot be undertaken, you lose the the 5th Amendment privilege. So, if you get a subpoena, you are obliged to answer lawful questions put to you.

NOW you are obliged to answer the questions put to you before a Court of law or before a Grand Jury (or even before Congress). And you are obliged to do so honestly on pain of criminal prosecution for perjury (if you lie) or contempt if you still refuse to answer.

The contempt is generally pretty interesting since the idea is to compel you to do your duty: i.e., answer the questions. Therefore, you essentially are given the keys to your own jail cell. Answer the questions and you get to go home.

 

[Contumacious]

Asinine. You have the right to not speak to the cops. You do not have the right to mislead them. How is that less then freedom? How is it restrictive for you to not be able to purposely abort justice?

During the grand jury, [Susan] McDougal stated her full name "for the record", then refused to answer any questions. From September 9, 1996 until March 6, 1998, McDougal spent the maximum possible 18 months imprisonment for civil contempt, including 8 months in solitary confinement, and subjected to "diesel therapy," the practice of hauling defendants around the country and placing them in different jails along the way.

Susan McDougal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.

I would like to see more on that case and why this was allowed. Can a lawyer here shed more light on what happened and why she was imprisoned for this action?

I still contend that you *should* have the right not to talk to the cops but you should NOT have the right to DELIBERATELY mislead an investigation. The latter is dishonest and ACTIVELY disrupting legal operations.

"The Woman Who Wouldn't Talk," Susan McDougal, Talks With BuzzFlash.Com

A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW

Some people don't seek to become heroes, but circumstances conspire to put them in a situation where they can either be a coward or a champion of honesty and integrity. Such was the role thrust upon Susan McDougal by the self-righteous prosecutor for the right-wing extremists who ran roughshod over our legal system in their effort to unseat Bill Clinton. And Susan paid the price.

"The Woman Who Wouldn't Talk," Susan McDougal, Talks With BuzzFlash.Com - A BuzzFlash Interview

.

 

[Gadawg73]

Search group sues Casey Anthony for costly efforts

That will not make it past summary judgement.

You bet your ass it will.

Do you even know what summary judgement is?
They have no case. No one made a contract with them.
WELL DUH!