Casey Anthony found innocent of all charges except for lying to police [Archive]

montanadave

07-05-11, 14:05

What the jury sees and hears is often a far cry from what those watching the media coverage are permitted to witness. I haven't really been following this case but I caught one news story last week were they showed the accused sobbing almost continuously while the jury was in the courtroom, only to turn off the waterworks and begin casually chatting with her family and attorneys as soon as the jury was removed.

Regardless of what the truth may actually be regarding this little girl's death, the mom is one severely damaged piece of goods.

d90king

07-05-11, 14:07

Are you surprised? O.J didnt saw his girlfriends head off either...I mean the gloves didnt go on his hand, didnt you see?

Yeah, I am! I always thought that the parents were really sketchy but this seems like a really jacked up verdict that came very quickly in a murder 1 case.

Not sure where the reasonable doubt came in, but I can only assume it was either the parents and guy who found the body...

At the end of the day a precious child was murdered and it will go unpunished...

BCmJUnKie

07-05-11, 14:10

At the end of the day a precious child was murdered and it will go unpunished...

Actually no it wont. Just because it justice doesnt happen the way we see fit or when we want it...this is going to HAUNT her forever, and she will answer for what she has done.

Iraqgunz

07-05-11, 14:15

Hopefully no one in their right mind will ever donate their sperm to this piece of trash again. How anyone can murder their own children is simply beyond belief.

Palmguy

07-05-11, 14:19

The state of Florida didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. I personally am glad that the jury saw fit to uphold that standard.

GermanSynergy

07-05-11, 14:20

I had a feeling she'd walk.....:mad:

FromMyColdDeadHand

07-05-11, 14:29

Guilty to lying to the cops about the murder of her daughter, but not guilty of murder... BRILLIANT. Public education juries ride again.

Uhm, then who did it?

Another reason never to go to Florida.

Packman73

07-05-11, 14:40

I'm stunned. Unbelievable.

montanadave

07-05-11, 14:59

I was just watching the press conference with the Orange County Sheriff and the state prosecutor. Goofiest thing I ever saw. A never ending litany of thanks to everybody involved with the case, congratulations to everybody for doing such a terrific job in presenting such a stellar case, and a hearty "job well done" for all.

Never a mention of the fact THEY LOST THE CASE!

Only comment that made any sense at all was the sheriff telling folks they need to respect the jury's verdict, as that is how the legal system works, and not resort to violence or civil disorder.

Palmguy

07-05-11, 15:22

Guilty to lying to the cops about the murder of her daughter, but not guilty of murder... BRILLIANT. Public education juries ride again.

Uhm, then who did it?

Another reason never to go to Florida.

She was convicted of lying about:

1. Being employed by Universal Studios
2. Leaving the child with someone named Zenaida Gonzalez on 6/9/2008
3. Telling two people about the disappearance of Caylee
4. Receiving a phone call from Caylee on 7/15/2008

She was not convicted of lying about not killing her daughter.

If you want to be pissed at Floridians, be pissed at the State Attorney's office that was unable to show how Caylee died or when Caylee died, much less who killed her.

I said it before, I'll say it again; the state didn't prove the first three counts of the indictment. If the fact that the jury recognized that fact means you don't want to come to Florida, well, we're a little overcrowded anyways.

parishioner

07-05-11, 15:23

Strange how there was enough evidence to hold her in jail for murder for the past three years but was only found guilty of providing false information. To me this indicates a disconnect somewhere.

Palmguy

07-05-11, 15:35

Strange how there was enough evidence to hold her in jail for murder for the past three years but was only found guilty of providing false information. To me this indicates a disconnect somewhere.

I doubt many people under indictment for first degree murder are granted bail. This isn't too far removed from "well they had enough evidence to charge them with something so they must be guilty". It's often one of the first questions asked in voir dire...whether or not you think that because someone is in the courtroom that they are guilty.

I would submit that the disconnect is between what the state charged and what the state was able to prove.

Jim D

07-05-11, 15:47

Does this mean I get to stop hearing about it every time I turn on the TV? :suicide2:

BVickery

07-05-11, 15:55

I have been brought up to believe that the US legal system is unique in the world. In it the State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the murder. No where does it indicate that the defendant has to prove they are innocent.

As many have pointed out, the state has not proved that Casey Anthony murdered her daughter, the MSM was the one who shoved it down our throats that she did. The case was almost entirely circumstantial in nature, where there was no hard evidence linking the mother to the crime scene or the act of murdering her children (a la Susan Smith).

I mean, with the SERIOUS hatchet job the Defense attorney did for Anthony's defense, and he still lost, do you really think the DA's case was THAT strong, esp. when you have tons of lawyers (even some DA's) claiming that even if found guilty Anthony has an EASY case to appeal based on incompetent counsel.

Kchen986

07-05-11, 16:02

Bail? Florida statutorily presumes detention for people charged with capital offenses (i.e. First Degree Murder).

While people jump up and down prejudging a case without seeing all of the evidence presented, I'm personally glad that the system worked as it should have.

I have idiots telling me that 'children are most often killed by their parents' and thus she must be guilty.

I don't know about you all, but I sure as hell don't think that's any way relevant, and that if you were charged, the rules of evidence would prevent such bullshit from coming in to evidence.

Remember. Presumption of innocence. The State is a 500 pound gorilla that can uproot your life through an information (indictment). Be glad that their standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Being a bad mother doesn't necessarily translate to being a first degree murderer.

SHIVAN

07-05-11, 16:03

"Innocent" does not equal a finding of "not guilty".

Skyyr

07-05-11, 16:09

LowSpeed_HighDrag

07-05-11, 16:12

The system, regardless of how much we like or dislike it, worked today. The defense did their job, the prosecution didnt do theirs. If she TRULY is innocent, then thank God she wasnt convicted. If she is guilty of murdering her own child, then the prosecution now has blood on their hands. The jury acted correctly because the prosecution did not present to them enough concrete evidence to convict.

tgace

07-05-11, 16:14

Presumption of innocence...
Burden of proof..
Beyond a reasonable doubt...

What really matters is who you have on the jury. This could have easily gone the other way and we would all be talking about how the system worked as it should.

IMO this was a stronger case than the Scott Peterson trial and Peterson is sitting on death row.

outrider627

07-05-11, 16:49

"Innocent" does not equal a finding of "not guilty".

Sadly, this is correct.

Like someone else online: "It's not what you know. It's what you can prove."

SteyrAUG

07-05-11, 17:02

Actually no it wont. Just because it justice doesnt happen the way we see fit or when we want it...this is going to HAUNT her forever, and she will answer for what she has done.

Funny thing about people capable of this kind of thing, they usually don't have it haunt them. Many can go the rest of their lives without any significant feelings of guilt. They are capable of convincing themselves that they had to do it for some reason, were within their rights to do it or in some cases they can actually create an alternate reality where it never happened.

The kinds of people who would be haunted by such actions, usually don't commit those kinds of crimes.

LowSpeed_HighDrag

07-05-11, 17:05

Funny thing about people capable of this kind of thing, they usually don't have it haunt them. Many can go the rest of their lives without any significant feelings of guilt. They are capable of convincing themselves that they had to do it for some reason, were within their rights to do it or in some cases they can actually create an alternate reality where it never happened.

The kinds of people who would be haunted by such actions, usually don't commit those kinds of crimes.

Exactly, good people are haunted by their actions. Bad people are haunted by the consequences.

TriumphRat675

07-05-11, 17:10

This. She might be guilty, but I'd rather she walk unless the state has something non-circumstantial. Our legal system was set up so that the state must prove beyond any doubt that the guilty are indeed guilty, which, in all fairness, they could not and did not.

This is not correct.

The state needed to prove their case beyond a "reasonable doubt," not beyond "any doubt." That is an impossible standard to meet. I'm not an expert on this case, but there was only one story that made sense in light of all of the evidence I heard, and that is that Casey Anthony is responsible for the death of her daughter. No reasonable doubt in my mind of that. I would not presume to say that she is guilty of first degree murder, et al. I wasn't in the courtroom every day.

Circumstantial evidence is often the best evidence. Direct evidence, such as eyewitness testimony, is notoriously inaccurate, and demonstrably more so than evidence based on good science. But people are seemingly hard-wired to demand direct evidence and discount circumstantial evidence. I've seen this dynamic in action myself. People are not rational, as much as we like to think we are, and juries are often quite irrational.

The state presented all of the evidence it had, and by all accounts did a good job. By all accounts the defense did not do a very good job, but managed to confuse the issues, which was probably all they could do in any event. The jury did what juries do. The outcome could have been different, and probably should have been, but it is what it is.

Anyone who thinks a jury trial is anything other than a crapshoot has not spent much time around juries.

Palmguy

07-05-11, 17:31

This is not correct.

The state needed to prove their case beyond a "reasonable doubt," not beyond "any doubt." That is an impossible standard to meet. I'm not an expert on this case, but there was only one story that made sense in light of all of the evidence I heard, and that is that Casey Anthony is responsible for the death of her daughter. No reasonable doubt in my mind of that. I would not presume to say that she is guilty of first degree murder, et al. I wasn't in the courtroom every day.

Circumstantial evidence is often the best evidence. Direct evidence, such as eyewitness testimony, is notoriously inaccurate, and demonstrably more so than evidence based on good science. But people are seemingly hard-wired to demand direct evidence and discount circumstantial evidence. I've seen this dynamic in action myself. People are not rational, as much as we like to think we are, and juries are often quite irrational.

The state presented all of the evidence it had, and by all accounts did a good job. By all accounts the defense did not do a very good job, but managed to confuse the issues, which was probably all they could do in any event. The jury did what juries do. The outcome could have been different, and probably should have been, but it is what it is.

Anyone who thinks a jury trial is anything other than a crapshoot has not spent much time around juries.

A tremendously basic and fundamental question that the state was unable to answer is this: How did Caylee Anthony die? Along with that, when? Those are pretty damn important questions to answer for premeditated murder, or even manslaughter. If you can tell me what exactly Casey Anthony did that caused the death of her daughter, I'd like to hear it....because Ashton and Co. couldn't answer that question.

Regarding the accounts of the jobs done by the prosecution and the defense; suddenly today there has been some backtracking on that and some "well the defense did a hell of a job in closing" and that kind of thing. I take the opinions of the network talking heads with a huge carton of salt, and think that in many cases they saw what they wanted to before this thing was over and that colored the commentary to a decent extent.

variablebinary

07-05-11, 17:44

Actually no it wont. Just because it justice doesnt happen the way we see fit or when we want it...this is going to HAUNT her forever, and she will answer for what she has done.

Pfft, you think this bitch will be haunted.

She'll be clubbing, stinking of Jagermeister, and swallowing before the weekend...you know, just like she was right after she murdered her kid.

TriumphRat675

07-05-11, 17:54

A tremendously basic and fundamental question that the state was unable to answer is this: How did Caylee Anthony die? Along with that, when? Those are pretty damn important questions to answer for premeditated murder, or even manslaughter. If you can tell me what exactly Casey Anthony did that caused the death of her daughter, I'd like to hear it....because Ashton and Co. couldn't answer that question.

Those are not always answerable questions, though. The state isn't required to prove an exact "when." The charging instrument reads "on or about" for a reason. Regarding cause of death, the prosecution did not have to prove an exact mechanical cause - they only had to prove that Casey ended Caylee's life. The state set out a theory that was consistent with the evidence - i.e., that the cause of death was being smothered with duct tape after being sedated with chloroform.

I'll throw out two observations here: 1) requiring the state to prove an exact when and how would preclude a lot of otherwise solid cases from going forward, and under the law, would do so unnecessarily; and 2) because "reasonable doubt" is such a subjective notion, you and I might reasonably disagree on whether it exists in any particular case without either of us being in the wrong.

Regarding the accounts of the jobs done by the prosecution and the defense; suddenly today there has been some backtracking on that and some "well the defense did a hell of a job in closing" and that kind of thing. I take the opinions of the network talking heads with a huge carton of salt, and think that in many cases they saw what they wanted to before this thing was over and that colored the commentary to a decent extent.

I didn't base my assessment of how the two sides performed on the news media's opinion, and completely agree with your assessment of them. The cable news media made this case a circus. The shrillness and lack of nuance made even their actual news reporting look bad.

Pfft, you think this bitch will be haunted.

She'll be clubbing, stinking of Jagermeister, and swallowing before the weekend...you know, just like she was right after she murdered her kid.

She will be haunted by the 3/4 of America that is convinced she murdered her child, judging by the reaction in my office's lunchroom today. Her life is not going to fun for the next couple of decades. Better than prison, but not much fun. She's going to get a righteous beatdown the first time she steps into a bar...

Palmguy

07-05-11, 18:15

Those are not always answerable questions, though. The state isn't required to prove an exact "when." The charging instrument reads "on or about" for a reason. Regarding cause of death, the prosecution did not have to prove an exact mechanical cause - they only had to prove that Casey ended Caylee's life. The state set out a theory that was consistent with the evidence - i.e., that the cause of death was being smothered with duct tape after being sedated with chloroform.

I'll throw out two observations here: 1) requiring the state to prove an exact when and how would preclude a lot of otherwise solid cases from going forward, and under the law, would do so unnecessarily; and 2) because "reasonable doubt" is such a subjective notion, you and I might reasonably disagree on whether it exists in any particular case without either of us being in the wrong.

I'm not saying it shouldn't have been at trial; but that requirement for the state to prove those elements is at the discretion of the jury, as you know, and in the view of the jury the prosecution did not prove what they alleged. I know that the indictment gives a two-day time window that the offense is alleged to have occurred but unless I'm mistaken that time window wasn't proven in court. The issues of chloroform and duct tape were sort of ambiguous as well; and even if the "how" isn't required to be explicitly proven statutorily it obviously was required for these 12 jurors and I'm inclined to agree with them.

I agree with your characterization of reasonable doubt and our disagreement on the issue.

BCmJUnKie

07-05-11, 19:10

Funny thing about people capable of this kind of thing, they usually don't have it haunt them. Many can go the rest of their lives without any significant feelings of guilt. They are capable of convincing themselves that they had to do it for some reason, were within their rights to do it or in some cases they can actually create an alternate reality where it never happened.

The kinds of people who would be haunted by such actions, usually don't commit those kinds of crimes.

I can agree with that. Maybe it wont, but maybe it will. Either way, she gonna answer for what she did, maybe not today or next week, shit like that comes back. Karma

crusader377

07-05-11, 19:17

I was stunned at the verdict today. The jury should of found her guilty. Now this piece of trash will unfortunately make a few million dollars off of a book deal and or movie deal due to much of societies love of sensationalism and celebrity.

tgace

07-05-11, 19:25

There's something not right with this tramps parents too. If your daughter and her child lived at home with you, how do YOU not think something is "up" when your grandchild is missing for a month??

Alpha Sierra

07-05-11, 19:46

tgace

07-05-11, 19:49

Scott Peterson is a male. Male = evil in the minds of many sheeple. Southern California is infested with sheeple.

Makes sense now?

Can't say that didn't cross my mind.

Gunfighter.45

07-05-11, 19:51

Guilty to lying to the cops about the murder of her daughter, but not guilty of murder... BRILLIANT. Public education juries ride again.

Uhm, then who did it?

Another reason never to go to Florida.

Man you said it.. this state ****ING SUCKS!! Been here 35 years.. it's never going to get better. This state is being run by a bunch of ****ING in breeders.

R/Tdrvr

07-05-11, 20:14

Man you said it.. this state ****ING SUCKS!! Been here 35 years.. it's never going to get better. This state is being run by a bunch of ****ING in breeders.

More like being run by liberals from the north that keep moving into the state and setting up shop. :eek:

As far as Casey Anthony is concerned, karma is a bitch. This will come back to her in some way. Like getting hit by a city bus one day...

ForTehNguyen

07-05-11, 21:27

there was no hard evidence at all, verdict was to be expected. Perhaps she did do it, but the prosecution did a horrible job.

FromMyColdDeadHand

07-05-11, 21:46

I guess what killers can learn from this is stop burying bodies and get a good friend who is a pig farmer or make sure the body won't be found for at least a few months. If you dispose of a body in a manner that doesn't allow an accurate autopsy to be done, you get to walk? Buy stock in Lime companies.

You lie (and lay) all over the place while your daughter is missing and then she turns up dead and you can't seem to come up with a coherent story about how it happened? That little girl wasn't a set of car keys that you can't remember where you left them? Are they in the kitchen or a 1/4 mile in the swamp, I forget.

At least get her for child abuse.

LowSpeed_HighDrag

07-05-11, 21:51

I guess what killers can learn from this is stop buying bodies and get a good friend who is a pig farmer or make sure the body won't be found for at least a few months. If you dispose of a body in a manner that doesn't allow an accurate autopsy to be done, you get to walk? Buy stock in Lime companies.

You lie (and lay) all over the place while your daughter is missing and then she turns up dead and you can't seem to come up with a coherent story about how it happened? That little girl wasn't a set of car keys that you can't remember where you left them? Are they in the kitchen or a 1/4 mile in the swamp, I forget.

At least get her for child abuse.
The more you post, the more you make sense. +10000

variablebinary

07-05-11, 22:34

If I'm in the mall, and one of my kids is out of sight for 5 seconds, I start looking for them with the sense of urgency rising by the second

When Caylee Anthony was missing for 4 days what was mom doing? What every good mom does when their kid is missing: enter a hot body contest! This is no B.S. either. Purple dress.

http://guanabee.com/media/wp-legacy-content/uploads/2009/03/cache/casey_anthony_4_display.jpg

Honu

07-06-11, 02:52

whats sick is she will most likely make millions book deal movie deal something sick and stupid and a bunch of sick stupid SOB will throw themselves at her
makes my puke the way she acted when her kid was missing shows her guilt and lack of any moral judgement
saying things about her dad etc.. also the same !!!!

my only thoughts being religious I believe she will get hers in the end of this short life on earth and spend eternity paying for her evil

ThirdWatcher

07-06-11, 05:09

As far as Casey Anthony is concerned, karma is a bitch. This will come back to her in some way.

This was my first rational thought when I heard the verdict. Karma is known by many different names throughout this planet so it's gotta be a real thing and that scumbag really has it coming.

Watrdawg

07-06-11, 07:30

In the end she will be judged accordingly. If she did it, when her time comes she won't be repentent in anyway and we all know where she will be headed.

The_War_Wagon

07-06-11, 07:49

Now she & OJ are free to roam the golf courses of FL, in search of the "REAL" killer. :rolleyes:

Well, OJ can in a FEW years... :o

orionz06

07-06-11, 11:32

SHIVAN

07-06-11, 12:13

If Casey Anthony is the sole custodian of that child, and the child died and was not reported missing for 30 days ending in death, at the very least there should have been a slam dunk case of child neglect, resulting in death.

How did the child go missing Casey? With whom did you leave Caylee, Casey? What do you mean you do not know? Do you understand what neglect means? Do you understand that just because you were not present that as the custodian of the child you have a responsibility to keep the child healthy...

If she can not provide a solid story of why and how Caylee was outside her care, it is slam dunk neglect/abandonment.

WTF, over?

mrbieler

07-06-11, 12:26

This time last year I had just finished up 6 weeks as a juror on a murder trial. After the trial, I had the ability to spend time talking to the judge and the prosector. After that, because of my sons sports team, I've had the pleasure of becoming friends with one of the defense attorneys. Those conversations really helped me put a perspective on what I went through as a juror.

Prior to that, I spent 3 weeks on a case that involved California's 3 strikes sentencing which was another interesting and challenging situation.

I a both in awe of, and at the same time disgusted by, things that occur in our system. The one thing I do know based on my limited experience is that there is way too little information being shared outside the courtroom to know what went on and what the jury heard/saw/deliberated.

Palmguy

07-06-11, 12:29

This time last year I had just finished up 6 weeks as a jurist on a murder trial. After the trial, I had the ability to spend time talking to the judge and the prosector. After that, because of my sons sports team, I've had the pleasure of becoming friends with one of the defense attorneys. Those conversations really helped me put a perspective on what I went through as a jurist.

Prior to that, I spent 3 weeks on a case that involved California's 3 strikes sentencing which was another interesting and challenging situation.

I a both in awe of, and at the same time disgusted by, things that occur in our system. The one thing I do know based on my limited experience is that there is way too little information being shared outside the courtroom to know what went on and what the jurist heard/saw/deliberated.

Forgive me for jumping into semantics here, but you served as a juror. The term jurist would apply to a judge, for instance, not someone serving on a jury.

mrbieler

07-06-11, 12:34

Forgive me for jumping into semantics here, but you served as a juror. The term jurist would apply to a judge, for instance, not someone serving on a jury.

Corrected. Thanks.

LowSpeed_HighDrag

07-06-11, 12:55

I think the bigger shame is how she will be treated despite the verdict. Everyone who was not there, did not witness the murder, and was not present for the entire trial will treat her as if they watcher her kill the girl. The court of public opinion once again fails us.

Perception is reality. Casey painted a vivid picture of just how caring she was, and the public will look at that picture and see a lying mother who cared not for her daughter's well being, and not only that, but Casey was far more scared of her daughter being recovered, so scared in fact, that she let her rot in a swamp.

Perception is reality, and in this case, the public will perceive that she is a murderous whore. But Casey gave that perception to us.

GermanSynergy

07-06-11, 13:15

Perception is reality. Casey painted a vivid picture of just how caring she was, and the public will look at that picture and see a lying mother who cared not for her daughter's well being, and not only that, but Casey was far more scared of her daughter being recovered, so scared in fact, that she let her rot in a swamp.

Perception is reality, and in this case, the public will perceive that she is a murderous whore. But Casey gave that perception to us.

How long until she's doing the reality TV circuit?

Thomas M-4

07-06-11, 13:35

The Fox new commentator summed it by saying ,Everybody failed, that little girl. Her mother, grandparents, police, the damned meter reader and the prosecutor all FAILED .

bp7178

07-06-11, 15:30

The Fox new commentator summed it by saying ,Everybody failed, that little girl. Her mother, grandparents, police, the damned meter reader and the prosecutor all FAILED .

Because Fox news commentators are unusually brilliant and have an uncanny ability to offer insight into situations they know nothing about. :rolleyes:

Sometimes the evidence you need doesn't exist. You can't really go around creating it.

CSI would have us belive you can get DNA from and finger print running water. It just isn't so. In many cases, when evidence is recovered, it doesn't meet court standards. "Partial prints" are complete bullshit. A finger print match needs something like 11-16 points of identification to hold up in court. This is only one example. This doesn't mean evidence wasn't recovered, but it may be the case whereas the evidence which was recovered could never be introduced.

The gap that occurs here is what the general population, who's education about the system is largley from popular media, and what actually happens.

A system that makes it hard to convict someone makes it really hard to convict someone that is actually innocent.

And guess what...all evidence outside of eye-witness testimony is circumstancial. And by which are 99% of people who are wrongly incarcerated for? Eye-witness testimony. Ten people will see the exact same thing and give you ten different versions of what happened.

Thomas M-4

07-06-11, 16:21

Because Fox news commentators are unusually brilliant and have an uncanny ability to offer insight into situations they know nothing about. :rolleyes:

Sometimes the evidence you need doesn't exist. You can't really go around creating it.

CSI would have us belive you can get DNA from and finger print running water. It just isn't so. In many cases, when evidence is recovered, it doesn't meet court standards. "Partial prints" are complete bullshit. A finger print match needs something like 11-16 points of identification to hold up in court. This is only one example. This doesn't mean evidence wasn't recovered, but it may be the case whereas the evidence which was recovered could never be introduced.

The gap that occurs here is what the general population, who's education about the system is largley from popular media, and what actually happens.

A system that makes it hard to convict someone makes it really hard to convict someone that is actually innocent.

And guess what...all evidence outside of eye-witness testimony is circumstancial. And by which are 99% of people who are wrongly incarcerated for? Eye-witness testimony. Ten people will see the exact same thing and give you ten different versions of what happened.

Never said any thing about Fox news having brilliant commentators.
I remember when they would do retracts on stories almost ever single day because they jumped the gun on reporting them.

That particular comment from the commentator wasn't directed at evidence or CSI it was directed at the multiple witness that changed there story on the witness stand from the time the were interviewed by the detectives, and the failure to find the body when the meter reader first reported in that swamp months before , to the prosecution trying to get a capital murder conviction with a case with so little physical evidence that would have had a good chance of being overturned on appeal even if she did get convicted . Has others have already pointed out there were other charges she should have been charged with and they would have been more likely to have gotten a conviction on. It might not have been full justice for the crime but at least it would have been partial justice. Has it is now she going to make millions on interviews and book deals:bad:

bp7178

07-06-11, 17:03

Never said any thing about Fox news having brilliant commentators.
I remember when they would do retracts on stories almost ever single day because they jumped the gun on reporting them.

That particular comment from the commentator wasn't directed at evidence or CSI it was directed at the multiple witness that changed there story on the witness stand from the time the were interviewed by the detectives...

Happens all the time. ALL THE TIME.

and the failure to find the body when the meter reader first reported in that swamp months before

Ever try to find a body in a swap? I haven't been trained to do so, but I would imagine its fairly difficult. The bodies we get out of the river are extremely decomposed in a very short time. I had a rather long (and nasty) conversation with one of our MEs about same. Its much more difficult than you think.

to the prosecution trying to get a capital murder conviction with a case with so little physical evidence that would have had a good chance of being overturned on appeal even if she did get convicted . Has others have already pointed out there were other charges she should have been charged with and they would have been more likely to have gotten a conviction on.

People have been convicted on less. And I think its foolish to assume the prosecutors didn't weigh any of that before deciding on what charges to move forward with. Murder cases aren't tried on a whim.

It might not have been full justice for the crime but at least it would have been partial justice.

Partial justice? The system has NOTHING to do with justice. Nothing is a more assinine concept than partial justice, or the belief that a system so full of personal bias has anything to do with justice. We like to think of these grand noble ideas, but they just don't play out. Do you think if she was a fat ugly man she would have gotten convicted? Me thinkums the odds would have been much higher.

There are a lot of views in this thread from outside people looking in. There is a huge gap in this country regarding education of and in ragards to the criminal justice system. I was surprised by how ****ed up it really is. Nothing close to what I thought it was going into it. Beyond that, I'm quite sure there is a ton of stuff that never made it on TV.

She is a shitty parent without a doubt. But don't for a second think the world isn't full of them.

ForTehNguyen

07-06-11, 19:10

im not surprised, the prosecutions case just sucked ass to be honest. Also just because the jurors said not guilty doesn't mean they think shes not guilty, only that they couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That's how our justice system works and it functioned like it was suppose to.

Shes screwed forever anyways, dunno how she can ever get a job or endure death threats for the rest of her life. And we still have a dead child. Nobody won. Guilty person probably went free, but they couldn't prove it obviously. You need some pretty hard evidence to convict 1st degree murder, but it simply wasnt there.

No cause of death, no motive, no confession, no definitive evidence linking the killing to her and they are trying to get murder 1? What a shoddy prosecution. They lost their chance now.

Magic_Salad0892

07-06-11, 19:52

The case was ****ed based on the charge. I knew from the beginning they couldn't get Murder 1.

If they had tried Manslaughter, they would have convicted her without a doubt.

Also, didn't some physiologist say that people usually party, or do things out of character after somebody they want gone leaves their life? Like a divorce, or in this case, the death of a child?

I'm almost surprised that the circumstantial evidence didn't get a conviction, but when I look at the whole picture, it's blindingly obvious why they couldn't get a conviction, and if they had gotten one. I'd be bitching, about them convicting her wrongly - not because I think she's innocent - but because the jury would have convicted her without apt evidence.

Still... if they'd gone for Manslaughter, and Child Neglect, they'd have put her away for a very long time. Stupid prosecutors, man.

Variablebinary: I love bjs, but your comment grossed me out really bad for some reason. Thank you.

Suwannee Tim

07-06-11, 20:06

The jury was instructed on manslaughter and child abuse charges and had those as options. I'd like to know what Florida statute criminalizes lying to the police. They can lie to you. I think she shouldn't have been prosecuted due to lack of evidence though the State was no doubt under great pressure to do something. Sometimes the right thing to do is nothing. Soon she will be as free as a bird and immune from any prosecution no matter what evidence may emerge. Also, being unconvicted, she can sell her story for mucho bux. The prosecution was not bad, they did the best they could with almost nothing. It wasn't enough.

bp7178

07-06-11, 20:07

Why is everyone stuck on lesser charges are easier to prove?

Depending on the Flordia state law regarding such matters, abuse of a child which results in death can very well carry the same severity.

titsonritz

07-06-11, 21:10

She should have walked, the prosecution presented a less than iron-clad case in a serious matter, and they are ****ups.

This was a murder case, what was the hurry? If they didn’t have enough on her to put her away, wait her out. Bug her phones, stick a probe up her father's rear end. Keep at it until there is enough for a conviction. Knowing and proving are two different things, it takes proof.

Murder has no statute of limitations, but a double jeopardy protection from retrying the case is forever.

VooDoo6Actual

07-07-11, 10:36

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/teehee321/CaseyOJ.png

SHIVAN

07-07-11, 10:57

Why is everyone stuck on lesser charges are easier to prove?

Child neglect resulting in death. Casey was the sole custodian of Caylee. If Casey did not, in good faith, leave her with someone capable of adequate care and safety, then neglect should be a reasonable jump from A --> B for just about anyone, especially a responsible parent on a jury.

How would the defense counter? With whom did you leave Caylee? A made-up nanny? A friend? Who? Where? No one wants to be the one to get tagged with being the temporary custodian of Caylee during those critical hours, so they start turning on each other.

Police have her for lying, jury agreed. She lied about the nanny. So Casey left her with no one? An irresponsible friend? Easy neglectful progression to walk them through....

theblackknight

07-07-11, 18:14

Ill raise you one hop
http://thedrunktank.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Casey-Anthony-and-OJ-hide-your-kids-hide-your-wife.jpg

Palmguy

07-07-11, 18:28

Child neglect resulting in death. Casey was the sole custodian of Caylee. If Casey did not, in good faith, leave her with someone capable of adequate care and safety, then neglect should be a reasonable jump from A --> B for just about anyone, especially a responsible parent on a jury.

How would the defense counter? With whom did you leave Caylee? A made-up nanny? A friend? Who? Where? No one wants to be the one to get tagged with being the temporary custodian of Caylee during those critical hours, so they start turning on each other.

Police have her for lying, jury agreed. She lied about the nanny. So Casey left her with no one? An irresponsible friend? Easy neglectful progression to walk them through....

The problem here is you assume that Caylee was alive during this time. It is entirely possible that she wasn't. The state didn't prove that there was a live child that Casey did not in good faith leave with someone capable of adequate care and safety. Because they couldn't prove when or how Caylee died, you can't prove that it wasn't an accident and you can't prove that any alleged neglect was responsible for her death.

The prosecution did go down this path of pointing out the holes in the story about the nanny and all that stuff, but there simply wasn't anything definitive.

variablebinary

07-07-11, 20:26

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/teehee321/CaseyOJ.png

LOL. That is the funniest thing I have seen in awhile.

FromMyColdDeadHand

07-07-11, 20:46

Hopefully the dad will come forward and file a civil suit and get a verdict. Only thing left.

SHIVAN

07-07-11, 20:51

The problem here is you assume that Caylee was alive during this time. It is entirely possible that she wasn't. The state didn't prove that there was a live child that Casey did not in good faith leave with someone capable of adequate care and safety. Because they couldn't prove when or how Caylee died, you can't prove that it wasn't an accident and you can't prove that any alleged neglect was responsible for her death.

The prosecution did go down this path of pointing out the holes in the story about the nanny and all that stuff, but there simply wasn't anything definitive.

Oh, ok so did she or did she not leave Caylee with someone capable of care? If so, who? Where?

Caylee was not in her care. Casey is the sole custodian. The charge being neglect, there needs to be something that offsets the charge, the absence of a viable caretaker from the defense actually cements the prosecution's case, doesn't it?

They had video of her in Target without the child. Show it, then ask one of the witnesses if they were in the care of Caylee at this time.

Next witness for the defense, show the video again, or pictures of her out partying again, and ask them again, if they were caring for Caylee at this time...

Rinse and repeat. Tell the judge that the defense is clearly trying to provide doubt to the jury, but since these are the witnesses coming forth, we would like to clarify if they had custody of Caylee during these time periods, or if they can establish who did....

If not, the leap from A --> B becomes very easy.

Honu

07-08-11, 01:05

and now she is saying she wants to get prego and adopt kids ?

yikes

Magic_Salad0892

07-08-11, 04:06

Ill raise you one hop
http://thedrunktank.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Casey-Anthony-and-OJ-hide-your-kids-hide-your-wife.jpg

BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

He climbin' in yo windows
He's snatchin' yo people up
Tryin' to rape 'em
So you'll need...
To hide ya kids,
And hide ya wife..

(Hide ya kids,
Hide ya wife...)

And hide ya husbands
'cause they rapin' everybody out here.

VooDoo6Actual

07-08-11, 14:11

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/teehee321/CaseyBJ.jpg

parishioner

07-08-11, 14:28

For the jay-z fans out there...

http://troll.me/images/casey-anthony/i-got-99-problems-but-a-kid-aint-one.jpg

Magic_Salad0892

07-08-11, 17:05

Oh God I love this.

SWATcop556

07-09-11, 05:54

Hopefully the dad will come forward and file a civil suit and get a verdict. Only thing left.

I was fortunate enough that I was able to avoid this cluster **** of a case and TV circle jerk (thank you DVR). Did they ever say who the dad was? Never heard if he was even named or spoke out.

Iraqgunz

07-09-11, 09:43

If I had to choose between her innocence or the existence of an alien life form preparing to invade our planet, the aliens would win.

I think SHIVAN makes a very good point and had he prosecuted this feces pile he probably could have sent her to the chair. I'm still in shock that she got away with it.

parishioner

07-09-11, 09:48

Did they ever say who the dad was? Never heard if he was even named or spoke out.

First she said Caylee was her fiance's at the time. He took a paternity test and it turns out he wasn't the dad. Then she had another story about who it was and then told another story. Nobody knows. She probably doesn't know either. Cheating slut whore.

obucina

07-09-11, 10:22

For the jay-z fans out there...

http://troll.me/images/casey-anthony/i-got-99-problems-but-a-kid-aint-one.jpg

all we need is a pic of her throwin' up the Roca diamond!

theblackknight

07-09-11, 11:16

LOL

Vivid video offered to put her on the roster, then pulled out. . . .

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/07/casey_anthony_porn_vivid.php

montanadave

07-09-11, 11:28

LOL

Vivid video offered to put her on the roster, then pulled out. . . .

Maybe they pulled out due to premature adjudication!

11B101ABN

07-10-11, 10:01