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.

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

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:

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.

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.

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.

I 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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