(This thread is quite long so I didn't go through every question, please excuse me if my question has been asked previously)
This is hypothetical, of course but.. say the whole Anthony family had knowledge of what happened to Caylee.. and sometime in the future, something comes out, perhaps by Casey herself, since she believes she is safe due to double jeopardy, from any prosecution, and she says something to the fact that she did have knowledge and her parents took part in helping her plot a scheme to get out of trouble. My question to you is: Having knowing with what she was charged with already, could a totally different charge be brought up for a felony charge of conspiracy or accomplice to murder or even plotting to hide evidence or anything along those lines be charged to her? Is that separate charges from those that she was charged with and therefore seen different in the eyes of the law?
For instance.. if it 'was' an accident and she has information that 'someone' did the burial (if that's what they want to call it.. but never reported it, then conspired with her family to hide the facts surrounding that knowledge of evidence destroyed.. would that be a whole other charge and not double jeopardy? OR if she committed the murder herself *cough* which she cannot be charged with again.. but also conspired with others to hide evidence or purposely mislead and proof later comes out of those facts could charges be brought about separately on those basis? Just asking because they are totally separate charges than what she was charged with, or so I think
Also.. Just out of my own curiosity, why is it that if a court proceeding is about getting to the truth of the matter.. why is it that so much of the truth is withheld from being entered into the court for the jury to have full knowledge of what is going on? Shouldn't they get the full story then decide for themselves with all of the evidence, good and bad, based on everything, what is best? To get a full picture instead of bits and pieces of a puzzle, constantly stepping in and out and getting totally confused as to what they can and can't take in to consideration?
I've followed this case as much as possible since Caylee was missing and most people here know more than I do and what's pathetic is.. I know way more than any juror that sat in that courtroom.. I find that quite a shame.. they came out half clueless it seems, and it's hard to blame them for that, because they got hogwashed by so much BS instead of facts and evidence alone. It was as if Baez was starring in his own show rather than presenting valid facts half the time to me, and they were entertained more by him than the prosecution.. and the Emmy goes to. That doesn't seem to be how our justice system is suppose to work, or is it the sign of the times? *sigh*
Maybe if I ever need a lawyer, I should check the tv guide instead of the yellow pages. (sarcasm) sorry, no offense to any of you.. I just still don't understand how this could have happened. It just seems that a lot of good evidence wasn't included, good witnesses were ignored, and some evidence they may have had, they didn't wait to get because they were in such a rush to get to trial.