Casey Anthony found not guilty

[mako88sb]

Wow! I haven;t really followed this a whole lot but I just assumed she would be found guilty. Seems like a stunning result that is sure to upset most people.

[AVGWarhawk]

Seems like a extreme injustice for the child and a complete failure of the state to obtain a guilty verdict.

****how does a mother explain away a child missing for a month and no one notified?****

:doh:

[Bubblehead1980]

Wow! I haven;t really followed this a whole lot but I just assumed she would be found guilty. Seems like a stunning result that is sure to upset most people.


I am not shocked, in fact about two weeks ago I predicted this would happen.The case against her was weak and circumstantial and am happy the jury saw this. The state overcharged her when they went for First Degree Murder, which they no doubt did due to the high profile nature of the case.

I can't wait to get a case like this one day and as Baez put it in his press conference "go home and tell my daughter I saved a life today."

[AVGWarhawk]

The case against her was weak and circumstantial


The jury was weak and circumstantial, the states lawyers the same. The woman is walking free. Again, how can she explain way not saying a word for a entire month before notifying the sheriffs department?

[Anthony W.]

The jury was weak and circumstantial, the states lawyers the same. The woman is walking free. Again, how can she explain way not saying a word for a entire month before notifying the sheriffs department?

Its a cold day in hell.

[Bubblehead1980]

The jury was weak and circumstantial, the states lawyers the same. The woman is walking free. Again, how can she explain way not saying a word for a entire month before notifying the sheriffs department?


She can't but that is not the point.The burden of proof is on the state ie the government.They did not prove their case, they could not even say for sure how the little girl died.All they had was some junk science and circumstantial evidence.The state was arrogant and overcharged her, now the woman responsible(in some way shape or form) for a young girl's death is not accountable.

On the flip side, this is why out system is great, it means the government must do their job and can't just railroad everyone.

[AVGWarhawk]

"It's all good Ms. Casey Anthony. You did not kill your child but we are charging you for lying about everything else."

We the jury.....:down:



"If the gloves don't fit you must aquite." Famous last words!!!

[AVGWarhawk]

She can't but that is not the point.The burden of proof is on the state ie the government.They did not prove their case, they could not even say for sure how the little girl died.All they had was some junk science and circumstantial evidence.The state was arrogant and overcharged her, now the woman responsible(in some way shape or form) for a young girl's death is not accountable.

On the flip side, this is why out system is great, it means the government must do their job and can't just railroad everyone.

As you can see.... I wrote weak and circumstantial jury and prosecution.:shucks: The state bungled this badly.....


Once again the media has crapped upon another case as well.

[Stealhead]

Got to agree with Bubble here the burden of proof was not met in this case I am not saying that Casey Anthony is guilty or not honestly there is just not enough showing what exactly happened in this case.There is just so much that is very questionable like that meter reader guy Krunk things about him a very strange he changed his story alot.Also the parents seem very odd as well story wise it seems that they new more than they are willing to admit to.

There needs to much stronger evidence than was given in that trail to convict a person in the 1st degree.Personally I think that either the child had some fatal accident and for whatever reason Casey Anthony did not report it right away or Casey Anthony in some way caused the death via neglect or abuse.

In the end god knows for sure what did or did not happen and if Casey Anthony did kill her daughter then she will be judged by god.

[magic452]

As soon as I saw it was a Murder One prosecution I figured she would walk.
No way did they have a case for murder one.

In all probability she killed she daughter but they could not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Casey got away with murder or manslaughter, we will never know which. What hurts is she doesn't seem to give a damn about the girl only that she got away with it. Maybe that will change over time??

Most all the legal analyses I saw were stunned by this verdict but many though it was the right one given the circumstances, the prosecution just didn't make their case.

Magic

[Factor]

I can't wait to get a case like this one day and as Baez put it in his press conference "go home and tell my daughter I saved a life today."

Or you could say, you aquitted a child killer today.

[Armistead]

Being dis abled right now and out of work I watched most of the case. I agree with Bubble, the state overstepped and probably would've done better with a lessor charge.

I think the child did drown by accident, it makes sense. Did Casey try to cover it up, I think so...It should be a rather severe crime to cover up an accidental death, but I think her guilty charges are only for lying to police, not sure how they handle it.

She should've been charged with manslaughter. The child was in her care, being worthless she obvious wasn't caring or watching her. I was shocked she wasn't charged with that.

[Platapus]

The prosecution did not prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the elements of First Degree Murder as listed in the Florida Statutes.

I don't know if the prosecution got cocky and thought it was a slam dunk.

The prosecutor's case consisted of "we don't know when Caylee died; we don't know where Caylee died; we don't know how Caylee died; but somehow we do know that Casey, with premeditation, murdered her"

The prosecution had a weak case and it appeared that they were counting more on the emotional appeal than on evidence, which was lacking.

That being written, there is a huge difference between not-guilty and innocent.

That's why juries don't render a verdict of innocent.

[Platapus]

She should've been charged with manslaughter.

She was. She was acquitted of the Manslaughter charge also. Which did surprise me.

[magic452]

They spent so much time trying to prove 1st. Degree Murder and muddied the water so much, the jury just didn't believe the evidence.
Had they gone with Manslaughter or Negligent Homicide they might have gotten a conviction.

This should never have been a Death Penalty case or even 2nd. Degree Murder. The only evidence they had for murder was the duct tape and that just isn't enough.

Magic

[yubba]

Well the defence open with it being a acceidentail drowning and the state was looking for capital murder and were hopeing for a plea, the state couldn't prove anything, and the defence won out. I don't know if the state can go after her for child neglect, resulting in death. I'd like to see these party head moms be held accountable for their actions, Ive seen too much of this crap.

[gimpy117]

personally, when a case is weak and circumstantial, no matter how guilty you think a suspect might be, you cannot convict them. It would be a sad day in america when you can go to prison or put to death on speculation and hearsay. If somebody who is guilty has to walk now and then as a price to pay for being able to live in a society that does not allow for the loss of your freedom on weak charges, than so be it. I'd rather that than score of innocent people going behind bars because courts turn into places of public opinion and who-said-what rather than places of fact.

[TheDarkWraith]

whether she's guilty or not I don't really care. What I really care about is that the American justice system actually worked for once. Both sides made their case and the jury came to a verdict. You cannot build a case on circumstantial evidence. If I were her I'd go after the state now for deformation of character or the likes since they ruined her life and her family's lives when they had no firm case to begin with. This sue happy world needs to be brought to justice.

[Platapus]

If I were her I'd go after the state now for deformation of character or the likes since they ruined her life and her family's lives when they had no firm case to begin with.

Unfortunately that won't work. But I do feel she has a case against CNN and the other news meda for basically convicting her in the public eye years before the trial.

There has to be some restrictions on "freedom of the press" when it is demonstrated that the press is interfering with the justice department's duty to find an impartial jury. I especially found CNN's actions to be extremely unprofessional and dishonourable.

[Onkel Neal]

Honestly, I can't get too worked up over this. It was her child, right? Just a post-term abortion. I would be more upset if she had end the life someone else's child.

If the prosecution could not convince a jury she was guilty, she walks. That's how the system, works.

[Factor]

Just a post-term abortion.

You must not have kids. If so, wow. I know you own these boards, but that was a heartless callous remark.

She was a human being.

[Morts]

or maybe it was a joke ?

[Falkirion]

I'm appaled by the verdict but that just law. Its full of contradictions and loopholes.You can't prove beyond reasonable doubt, you can't convict. The lesser charges might've stuck as you all have said. But there's nothing we can do about it now.

[Onkel Neal]

You must not have kids. If so, wow. I know you own these boards, but that was a heartless callous remark.

She was a human being.

Obviously her mother didn't think so.

[Factor]

The sad thing is Neal, she will make millions off this, allowing her to live her Bella Vita.

After reading your post again, I take it that you were expressing Casey's mindset on her child....Not yours.

[Onkel Neal]

Yes, you're right, but I am also a little disgusted with people who cringe with horror at the taking of this child's life, yet at the same time defend aborting a 6-month fetus as a "woman's right to choose". But that's just how I see it. This whole thing saddens me and I don't want to get into it, so just ignore me.

[gimpy117]

the thing is though, being a bad mother and murder are 2 different things. If she was on trial for poor parenting slap the cuffs on her...but by what i understand, the prosecution tried to prove she was a bad mother more than they proved she killed her daughter.

[Osmium Steele]

I especially found CNN's actions to be extremely unprofessional and dishonourable.

:har::har::har::har:

CNN ceased being professional and honourable during the Clinton administration.

The National Enquirer has more journalistic integrity.

[Aramike]

You cannot build a case on circumstantial evidence.Sure you can. The criminal justice system doesn't distinguish between circumstantial and direct evidence. In fact, if what you said was true, all one would have to do to get away with murder is not be seen or recorded.

Personally, I believe the prosecution over-extended itself. I wonder if things may have been different had this not been a capital punishment case. I think it's pretty clear that Anthony did SOMETHING that either resulted in or covered up her child's death, most likely the former. However, it takes a lot for a jury to put to death someone who's breathing and crying right in front of them, especially when that person is female.

In my opinion, this tramp is guilty as sin. It's too bad that being a horrible human being isn't a crime, because there's DIRECT evidence of that. Anyone who's partying while their child is missing deserves only the worst.

[Aramike]

Yes, you're right, but I am also a little disgusted with people who cringe with horror at the taking of this child's life, yet at the same time defend aborting a 6-month fetus as a "woman's right to choose". But that's just how I see it. This whole thing saddens me and I don't want to get into it, so just ignore me.:yep::up:

[Armistead]

whether she's guilty or not I don't really care. What I really care about is that the American justice system actually worked for once. Both sides made their case and the jury came to a verdict. You cannot build a case on circumstantial evidence. If I were her I'd go after the state now for deformation of character or the likes since they ruined her life and her family's lives when they had no firm case to begin with. This sue happy world needs to be brought to justice.

Tha't silly, the family called them, the mother stating the child was gone and she smelled death. Casey lied for 31 days, they found a dead body.

If it was an accident, it should've been reported at once, that would've been the end of it, they happen to kids all the time. That's what doesn't add up. George being a cop knows you can't just hide dead kids like they never existed, so don't think he had anything to do with it.

I was split 50/50 accident or murder, but if on the jury I would've voted not guilty.

[AVGWarhawk]

No need to sue. She will make bank on this case. After that she needs to fade away....

[mookiemookie]

The inevitable book deals, talk show appearances, movie rights, and on and on and on are going to be nauseating.

[AVGWarhawk]

The inevitable book deals, talk show appearances, movie rights, and on and on and on are going to be nauseating.


Without a doubt. Can't wait for the Lifetime Channel version! :down:

[Buddahaid]

Tha't silly, the family called them, the mother stating the child was gone and she smelled death. Casey lied for 31 days, they found a dead body.

If it was an accident, it should've been reported at once, that would've been the end of it, they happen to kids all the time. That's what doesn't add up. George being a cop knows you can't just hide dead kids like they never existed, so don't think he had anything to do with it.

I was split 50/50 accident or murder, but if on the jury I would've voted not guilty.

Your wrong. If it was an accident, she would have been charged with felony child endangerment for not being a perfect parent and she got scared. Hell, I'm 55 and I know that everyone from my generation was born from parents that by today's standards, would all be charged with neglect for allowing their kids to walk home alone, play outside unsupervised, by cigarettes for dad, etc.

[Task Force]

And ya know what the funny thing is, none of us would know about it if the press hadn't cough it and hung on to it like they did.

[AVGWarhawk]

Your wrong. If it was an accident, she would have been charged with felony child endangerment for not being a perfect parent and she got scared. Hell, I'm 55 and I know that everyone from my generation was born from parents that by today's standards, would all be charged with neglect for allowing their kids to walk home alone, play outside unsupervised, by cigarettes for dad, etc.

Today's standards...is there any of these anymore? I would agree however that by today "nanny state" standards my parents would be in better parenting classes! I walked home alone. I purchased cigarettes for my mom. $1.00 got two packs of Tareyton cigarettes. I played outside unsupervised all the time. Times were different then. Today the prevalance of issues arising with kids seems 10 fold. Is it really 10 fold or is it just advertised on the news much more to satiate those that enjoy the disgusting and bizarre? I would say it is more prevalent and probably due to access of whatever any devious mind can find on the internet that would eventually make this individual act upon his desires. Just a theory of mine and I can not prove it. However, we live in a society that allows internet sites such as NAMBLA. Really? Just more disgusting and bizzarre parts of society.

Anyway, accident by drowning does not often involve cholorphorm. Furthermore she made accuisations of sexual abuse by her father. Where is the proof this happened? Good old dad was not allowed to defend himself. The defense attorney went right for it in his opening statement. Abused little girl in a disfuntional family. As a result she learned (Anthony) to lie! This is how the defense began the case. I agree on one thing...her entire family is disfuntional.

[Thomen]

Anyway, accident by drowning does not often involve cholorphormI am not saying you are wrong, and I do think she had in some way something to do with the death of her kid. However,and to play devils advocate for second, the problem with the Internet search for the chloroform is that it can not be tied to anyone specifically. Especially if there is more than one person that has access to the computer.

To make matters worse, she also could have misspelled chlorophyl (and typed it with an f instead of ph). If you type chloro or chlorof in a smart browser search the first thing that comes up is chloroform. It is not uncommon to misspell it either way.

This particular case came up in my computer forensics class. As long as the suspect is denying ever searched for it (especially if she or he is not the only one that uses the computer), there is no way to pin it on somebody in particular. That's why her Mother got away with testifying that she was the one searching for chloroform.

I am not saying she is innocent, just that, as it was already said the prosecution went way over board and overshot the target.

[AVGWarhawk]

I'm certain she had something to do with the childs death. Intentional or not we will never know. As far as the misspelling of chlorophyll...why is she looking up this word anyway? I have not looked that word up since school. Scientist she is not. I understand the word was looked up several times on her computer. It is circumstancial evidence but I really think she was investigating chloroform.

[RickC Sniper]

This is our world. High profile case jurors know they are under scrutiny and circumstantial evidence isn't enough. They are not influenced by emotion and they look at the facts and the letter of the law. Period.

Did Anthony kill her child? Probably.
But if the prosecution could not even tell the jury what the cause of death was, how the hell can they assign blame to someone with out a doubt?

The jury acted rationally, unlike that family.

[Armistead]

The problem with these high profile cases if the jury knows they can make big money. I heard they came in that morning all dressed in suits, so they had made their decision not long after being dismissed, maybe an hour. Already several have been offered 5 figure deals to be on shows. I think these made the decision to not guilty on all big charges because it would have a bigger response and more money to be made. To not even charge her with manslaughter...amazing.

In the end it's gonna be a get rich deal for most involved.

[AVGWarhawk]

unlike that family


The family is extremely odd. This might come out in the wash after all. One of them will crack eventually. :03:

[Anthony W.]

http://www.supportcayleeslaw.com/

[Sharkstooth]

I think there is a difference between "a reasonable doubt" and " a shadow of a doubt"

Having said that, I still cannot place the blame totally at the jurors feet.

[nikimcbee]

This is still in the news? Why?:doh:

[AVGWarhawk]

This is still in the news? Why?:doh:

It will continue to be news for quite sometime. Much like OJ was.

[Platapus]

CaNN (Casey Anthony News Network) is rerunning highlights of the trial.

Highlights of a trial? Trials are now for entertainment of the masses?

Nancy Grace can't let this cash cow go. Perhaps soon there will be another dead child she can exploit.

Until then, Casey Anthony is the ATM machine that keeps on giving.