PDA

View Full Version : Casey Anothy Verdict my take


Chris F
07-05-2011, 09:58 PM
http://southronpartisan.blogspot.com/2011/07/not-guilty-are-you-serious.html

This was a travesty sure enough but not a surprise at all

matthughesfan21
07-05-2011, 10:04 PM
Disgusting....a murderer walks free, but worse than that, a child murderer.....Anyone with half a brain knows she was guilty, she couldn't keep her story straight and was convicted of lying, but not murder, WHAT?

Chris F
07-05-2011, 10:09 PM
Disgusting....a murderer walks free, but worse than that, a child murderer.....Anyone with half a brain knows she was guilty, she couldn't keep her story straight and was convicted of lying, but not murder, WHAT?

I wish I could have been a fly on the wall during deliberation to see what on earth those people were thinking. My guess is lets just get out of here say she is guilty on the lesser charge and get home for some BBQ and fireworks

matthughesfan21
07-05-2011, 10:32 PM
I wish I could have been a fly on the wall during deliberation to see what on earth those people were thinking. My guess is lets just get out of here say she is guilty on the lesser charge and get home for some BBQ and fireworksJust sickening, complete injustice...Was this the same jury from the OJ murder trial?

F34R
07-06-2011, 12:32 AM
I don't know whether she was guilty or not, but...

Can those that think she was guilty explain the evidence that they heard that proves she murdered the child? Maybe I missed that part.

The link in the OP is an intolerable rant of a lunatic I think.

Chris F
07-06-2011, 12:40 AM
I don't know whether she was guilty or not, but...

Can those that think she was guilty explain the evidence that they heard that proves she murdered the child? Maybe I missed that part.

The link in the OP is an intolerable rant of a lunatic I think.

It would take a few days just go to just about any new source and they will have video I bet on the trial. They had everything they needed. The DA just could not present it in a way to overwhelm the huge doubt the defense put on. They threw out so many what if that the jury had no idea what to think. The Defense does not have to prove their theories just make people doubt. They changed their story about 12 times in 3 years. If I were on the jury I would not have said not guilty but I also have followed the case for 3 years and these jurors supposedly have not and so this could be why they were so ignorant.

Vizion
07-06-2011, 12:41 AM
Was the preponderance of empirally deductive evidence sufficient to sentence her guilty?

F34R
07-06-2011, 12:52 AM
It would take a few days just go to just about any new source and they will have video I bet on the trial. They had everything they needed. The DA just could not present it in a way to overwhelm the huge doubt the defense put on. They threw out so many what if that the jury had no idea what to think. The Defense does not have to prove their theories just make people doubt. They changed their story about 12 times in 3 years. If I were on the jury I would not have said not guilty but I also have followed the case for 3 years and these jurors supposedly have not and so this could be why they were so ignorant.

A few days? To explain what evidence showed that she did it? I have plenty of time.

ufcfan2
07-06-2011, 01:58 AM
I don't know whether she was guilty or not, but...

Can those that think she was guilty explain the evidence that they heard that proves she murdered the child? Maybe I missed that part.

The link in the OP is an intolerable rant of a lunatic I think.

I think there was alot of circumstantial evidence out there and alot of what the 'state' had was explained away even with the weak defense's stories. I don't think either side could actually come up with on how she actually died. They even had their forensic experts not know conclusively how she died.
I'm glad I wasn't on the jury as it would be hard to put ur emotions aside and just go by facts and the law. Some ppl couldn't do it as its guilty no matter as the media portrayed it,and its hard to cipher media ponder when ur emotions are being fueld by the media, so I can't imagine how this jury did that.
Whether u agree or not agree with verdict this is our justice system and u live and die by it. How many guilty ppl are really innocent and vice versa...
Any-who, I kindof hope they continue an investigation, but I seriously doubt they've got the resources to continue it.

Chris F
07-06-2011, 02:01 AM
Was the preponderance of empirally deductive evidence sufficient to sentence her guilty?

Yes

Chris F
07-06-2011, 02:04 AM
A few days? To explain what evidence showed that she did it? I have plenty of time.

Fox news CNN, Headline new courttv. happy watching there is your evidence. You are insane if you think I Waste that many hours of my life explaining the case on a forum to a 4-5 day jury trial. :laugh: I rather have a root canal or sit through another debate with Buzzard. You want the evidence it is there for your own research and that way you can draw your own conclusions instead of the filter of my views.


BTW spare the name calling if all you got is petty insults than go join buzzard in the welfare line If I am a lunatic than prove it till than shut your trap.

Chris F
07-06-2011, 02:14 AM
I think there was alot of circumstantial evidence out there and alot of what the 'state' had was explained away even with the weak defense's stories. I don't think either side could actually come up with on how she actually died. They even had their forensic experts not know conclusively how she died.
I'm glad I wasn't on the jury as it would be hard to put ur emotions aside and just go by facts and the law. Some ppl couldn't do it as its guilty no matter as the media portrayed it,and its hard to cipher media ponder when ur emotions are being fueld by the media, so I can't imagine how this jury did that.
Whether u agree or not agree with verdict this is our justice system and u live and die by it. How many guilty ppl are really innocent and vice versa...
Any-who, I kindof hope they continue an investigation, but I seriously doubt they've got the resources to continue it.

I have seen people put away with a lot less deviance. The defense attorneys did their job to cloud the jury with a bunch of red herrings. The prosecution should have did a better job pointing it out in their closing. Our leagal system is designed to protect the innocent and the system failed because the little girl who is dead will get no justice. Smoke and mirrors was all it was. The good ol' boys club get another W. But I also see your point and when you get a jury that is eager to get home they are going to careless about the details and focused on the last thing they heard. The defense closing and their smoke and mirrors. It would be nice if they continued the investigation but double jeopardy applies and when they have even more proof it is to late.

Buzzard
07-06-2011, 02:36 AM
I don't know whether she was guilty or not, but...

Can those that think she was guilty explain the evidence that they heard that proves she murdered the child? Maybe I missed that part.

The link in the OP is an intolerable rant of a lunatic I think.

I second that.

I watched a lot of the trial. The prosecution couldn't make the case. There is a saying in LE: If you are guilty get a jury trial, if innocent a trial by judge.

Buzzard
07-06-2011, 02:37 AM
Yes

Prove it! Obviously not or else she would have been found guilty.

Do I think she's guilty? Yes, but it couldn't be proven and wasn't. Next.

Quote from blog:So, why would any of you reading this or watching the new be shocked at all that 12 brain dead jurors who only wanted to hurry home to shoot off fireworks made the choice to let her get off?/quote

Speculation and utter disregard for the trying and consuming task of sitting on a murder trial. You are a work of art, a horrible disgusting work of art.

Quote from blog:Sure this may have been the ranting of a crazy Christian conservative Oklahoman...../quote

First truth in the blog.

Quote from blog:While it is so difficult to swallow we must keep in mind a jury of her peers (ignorant secular humanist indoctrinated by liberal propaganda) found her NOT GUILTY!!!! /quote

Wow! Seeing as how Florida is a part of the bible belt, I would think that the probability of there being christian people on the jury would be quite high. You have a lot of hate in your heart. It must suck to be you. I know it sucks that I share the world with you.

Buzzard
07-06-2011, 02:38 AM
Fox news CNN, Headline new courttv. happy watching there is your evidence. You are insane if you think I Waste that many hours of my life explaining the case on a forum to a 4-5 day jury trial. :laugh: I rather have a root canal or sit through another debate with Buzzard. You want the evidence it is there for your own research and that way you can draw your own conclusions instead of the filter of my views.


BTW spare the name calling if all you got is petty insults than go join buzzard in the welfare line If I am a lunatic than prove it till than shut your trap.

Ooh, I've gotten into your head. Go back in the closet with your hate filled views and quit thinking of me. Yeech.

Lunatic fringe, I know you're out there.

Chris F
07-06-2011, 02:39 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/anthony-trial-lack-evidence-good-defense-000636253.html

I think this article did a good job showing both sides. Like it says the burden was on the state and they failed big time. The jury with what was presented did what they thought was right but very very wrong. They wanted a smoking gun but got enough to convict if it was not for the red herring fest Baez put forth. People like him give good attorneys bad names but in the end he did his job better than the state did theirs.

So Vizion I guess if you must have a smoking gun to convict they did not have it and this is why it was not guilty. Maybe this is why the public schools are dumbing down the people so much. This way they can get away with more injustice.

J.B.
07-06-2011, 03:38 AM
Do I think she's guilty? Yes, but it couldn't be proven and wasn't. Next.

Are you cool with that, brother? :huh:

Buzzard
07-06-2011, 05:37 AM
Are you cool with that, brother? :huh:

Whether I'm cool with it or not doesn't really matter as it is what it is. If she's guilty, then absolutely not. I'm ok with the verdicts as is because from what I saw, the prosecution didn't and couldn't prove their case. My gut tells me that something is amiss, but without proof, I can only go with what the jury found.

I'd hate to wrongfully convict an innocent person due to my gut being wrong. In a trial situation, I'd have to go on the evidence at hand and not the feeling in my gut no matter how much I wanted her to be found guilty. Without sitting through the entire trial, I'm not qualified in determining her guilt or innocence, even though my gut says she was involved in some way in the killing of her poor daughter.

Play The Man
07-06-2011, 06:55 AM
Whether I'm cool with it or not doesn't really matter as it is what it is. If she's guilty, then absolutely not. I'm ok with the verdicts as is because from what I saw, the prosecution didn't and couldn't prove their case. My gut tells me that something is amiss, but without proof, I can only go with what the jury found.

I'd hate to wrongfully convict an innocent person due to my gut being wrong. In a trial situation, I'd have to go on the evidence at hand and not the feeling in my gut no matter how much I wanted her to be found guilty. Without sitting through the entire trial, I'm not qualified in determining her guilt or innocence, even though my gut says she was involved in some way in the killing of her poor daughter.
This seems like a pretty fair assessment. I certainly did not see the whole trial; however, from what I did see, I would lean towards conviction because she had the motive, means, and opportunity and displayed a consciousness of guilt and exhibited behavior consistent with sociopathy. The verdict has to be respected . . . but it sure feels like eating a s**t sandwich.

Bonnie
07-06-2011, 07:07 AM
I have to say I do think there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to find her guilty. If they didn't want to convict her on the 1st degree murder/death penalty, they could have convicted her on one of the lesser charges and given her life; but, to find her "not guilty" (which by the way does not mean they think she's innocent, just means they feel the prosecutor failed to prove their case) on any of the charges except the lying...is just absolutely incredible to me. I agree with something I heard Marcia Clark say tonight...give them a theory of reasonable doubt--the theory that Caylee drowned in the pool--and you give them "reason to doubt". :wink: I think it would be great if people didn't leave their common sense (if they have any to begin with :rolleyes:) at the door when they're picked for a jury.

The prosecutors had a difficult case to prove because unfortunately there wasn't any DNA or smoking gun pointing to Casey, and why was that, because Casey threw her baby in that marsh where her little body stayed for six months decomposing from the heat and water before it was found. By that time, whatever evidence was there, had deteriotated. But there was strong circumstantial evidence and also that duct tape. What parent has a child go missing, supposedly kidnapped by the nanny, and doesn't report it for 31 days--she wasn't even the one to report it, her mother was. Who goes out to clubs dancing and entering "hot body" contests and getting a tatoo meaning "beautiful life" AFTER and WHILE their child is missing?!

I agree with Chris there was enough circumstantial evidence to find her guilty at the very least of one of the lesser charges for Caylee's death, but Buzzard is also correct that there was no direct evidence/proof the prosecutor could offer up to satisfy the jury. The jury has spoken and she can never be tried again for any of these charges so it's all moot now, except there's still a dead baby, and the only person responsible will never be punished for it. In all likelihood, come Thursday, she's going to be walking out the door a free woman with "time served" for the four counts of lying they did find her guilty on.

But you know what I think, I think Casey is going to find trouble again (just like OJ did) because the person she was going into jail is still that person coming out of jail, a pathological liar and thief. She won't change her spots and eventually she'll do something again. I just pray when she does, she's her only victim. :wink:

Buzzard
07-06-2011, 08:16 AM
I have to say I do think there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to find her guilty. If they didn't want to convict her on the 1st degree murder/death penalty, they could have convicted her on one of the lesser charges and given her life; but, to find her "not guilty" (which by the way does not mean they think she's innocent, just means they feel the prosecutor failed to prove their case) on any of the charges except the lying...is just absolutely incredible to me. I agree with something I heard Marcia Clark say tonight...give them a theory of reasonable doubt--the theory that Caylee drowned in the pool--and you give them "reason to doubt". :wink: I think it would be great if people didn't leave their common sense (if they have any to begin with :rolleyes:) at the door when they're picked for a jury.

The prosecutors had a difficult case to prove because unfortunately there wasn't any DNA or smoking gun pointing to Casey, and why was that, because Casey threw her baby in that marsh where her little body stayed for six months decomposing from the heat and water before it was found. By that time, whatever evidence was there, had deteriotated. But there was strong circumstantial evidence and also that duct tape. What parent has a child go missing, supposedly kidnapped by the nanny, and doesn't report it for 31 days--she wasn't even the one to report it, her mother was. Who goes out to clubs dancing and entering "hot body" contests and getting a tatoo meaning "beautiful life" AFTER and WHILE their child is missing?!

I agree with Chris there was enough circumstantial evidence to find her guilty at the very least of one of the lesser charges for Caylee's death, but Buzzard is also correct that there was no direct evidence/proof the prosecutor could offer up to satisfy the jury. The jury has spoken and she can never be tried again for any of these charges so it's all moot now, except there's still a dead baby, and the only person responsible will never be punished for it. In all likelihood, come Thursday, she's going to be walking out the door a free woman with "time served" for the four counts of lying they did find her guilty on.

But you know what I think, I think Casey is going to find trouble again (just like OJ did) because the person she was going into jail is still that person coming out of jail, a pathological liar and thief. She won't change her spots and eventually she'll do something again. I just pray when she does, she's her only victim. :wink:

I think that they had more circumstantial evidence against her than they did for the Scott Peterson case in which he was convicted. If she's guilty, hopefully the guilt will rot through her like a cancer and she will remove herself from this world.

NateR
07-06-2011, 09:51 AM
As much as I dislike it sometimes, in America we are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I've only read a little bit about this case, but from what I understand, they never even determined a cause of death for Caylee Anthony and the mother's lies after her daughter's disappearance definitely helped confuse matters.

According to our justice system, she is innocent and has always been innocent. I'm not going to pronounce her guilty based on a few magazine and internet articles.

Either way, if she really is guilty she might have gotten away with murder; but unless some new evidence pops up, there is really nothing we can do but leave it in GOD's hands and trust that He will see justice done for Caylee Anthony's murder. Maybe not in this lifetime, but the killer WILL answer for their crimes.

County Mike
07-06-2011, 11:43 AM
Agree with Buzzard and NateR here. I THINK she's guilty but there wasn't enough proof to convict her. The jury returned the only verdict that they could. If the prosecution had a better case, maybe it would have gone the other way.

People compare this to the OJ trial but that's not accurate. The prosecution DID have plenty of evidence against OJ. There was blood from both victims in his car. DNA matches, etc. That was a case of the jury being fooled and giving a bad verdict. All the prosecution had for Casey was people talking about a smell from her trunk. No DNA or anything to really link it together. Yes, she lied to the police and she was found guilty of that. That's all they've really got.

adamt
07-06-2011, 01:08 PM
e'erbody grab yer torches and pitchforks and follow me! We is gonna go on a witchhunt!!!!

I'm gonna burn me a witch, cause I seen stuff on tv and everything on tv is true and unbiased, so that #itch needs to burn!!!

So let's pass a judgement having never met her and based only on the same journalism that tells us that obama is the messiah and gw was an idiot, cause everything on tv is real!!!

so go get your wooden stakes and holy water, but excuse me for a moment as i update the death toll on my abortion counter to 53 million deaths, just a little chore i have to do daily, not that those babies killed are important or anything they weren't born yet

BamaGrits84
07-06-2011, 01:12 PM
I don't know whether she was guilty or not, but...

Can those that think she was guilty explain the evidence that they heard that proves she murdered the child? Maybe I missed that part.

The link in the OP is an intolerable rant of a lunatic I think.

To me the evidence showed at the least that she was neglegent in protecting her child. There is no logical reason to think a mother would fail to report her child, party after words like it was going out of style, lie repeatedly about where the child was, lie about where she was working, and lie about a dozen other things. If it was an accident that she failed to report, she clearly knew what happened and knew her part in it enough to lie about it. To me that is enough proof of neglect, and I believe it was the 3rd option that included death caused to a minor by neglect.

BamaGrits84
07-06-2011, 01:17 PM
e'erbody grab yer torches and pitchforks and follow me! We is gonna go on a witchhunt!!!!

I'm gonna burn me a witch, cause I seen stuff on tv and everything on tv is true and unbiased, so that #itch needs to burn!!!

So let's pass a judgement having never met her and based only on the same journalism that tells us that obama is the messiah and gw was an idiot, cause everything on tv is real!!!

so go get your wooden stakes and holy water, but excuse me for a moment as i update the death toll on my abortion counter to 53 million deaths, just a little chore i have to do daily, not that those babies killed are important or anything they weren't born yet

Pass judgement? I'm so sorry but if I see a mom who is sitting in jail with her child missing and her parents are beggin her to give them any bit of information to find her child and all she wants is a number for her boyfriend I'm calling her a POS mom.

I'm very pro life, so I think any woman who aborts her child is wrong. The only difference I find between what those women do and what Casey did is those women are fooled into think their baby has no life until birth. Casey knew damn good and well her child was alive and well when she either did or allowed something to happened to her that lead to death.

BamaGrits84
07-06-2011, 01:27 PM
My opinion on the verdict - not suprised. The prosecution failed to do a huge thing with the evidence they had. They didn't connect it. I do however thing this jury failed to use common sense and ignored the evidence that showed neglect. Failing to provide a safe enviroment for your child is neglect. Failing to report possible injury to your child is neglect. Failing to report a child missing is neglect. Failing to seek medical attention for your child is neglect. Putting partying above the well being of your child is neglect. Regardless of how that baby was killed, her mother's lack of action shows neglect. There was plenty of evidence to show lack of action on Casey's part. The 3rd charge allowed for accidently death cause by neglect I believe. Honestly I think that is the only charge the prosecution should have went after other than the lying.

When your own mother doesn't even crack a smile when you get found not guilty of murder you know something is up.

I think she'll walk out Thursday with time served, but I hope Judge Perry will give her 4 consecutive years considering the lying hindered a search for a missing child. Not likely but that would be a total of about 6 years behind bars for her.

F34R
07-06-2011, 03:17 PM
Fox news CNN, Headline new courttv. happy watching there is your evidence. You are insane if you think I Waste that many hours of my life explaining the case on a forum to a 4-5 day jury trial. :laugh: I rather have a root canal or sit through another debate with Buzzard. You want the evidence it is there for your own research and that way you can draw your own conclusions instead of the filter of my views.


BTW spare the name calling if all you got is petty insults than go join buzzard in the welfare line If I am a lunatic than prove it till than shut your trap.
I have drawn my own conclusions, and I think the jury did the only thing they could. I'm just trying to figure out where people are coming from that are saying that the jury was dumb, and an injustice was done, etc., when the State didn't even provide a single piece of evidence of a killing, much less linking it to the the mother.

That was you ranting on that blog? LOL! Goodness.
Agree with Buzzard and NateR here. I THINK she's guilty but there wasn't enough proof to convict her. The jury returned the only verdict that they could. If the prosecution had a better case, maybe it would have gone the other way.

People compare this to the OJ trial but that's not accurate. The prosecution DID have plenty of evidence against OJ. There was blood from both victims in his car. DNA matches, etc. That was a case of the jury being fooled and giving a bad verdict. All the prosecution had for Casey was people talking about a smell from her trunk. No DNA or anything to really link it together. Yes, she lied to the police and she was found guilty of that. That's all they've really got.

Exactly.

flo
07-06-2011, 05:57 PM
As much as I dislike it sometimes, in America we are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I've only read a little bit about this case, but from what I understand, they never even determined a cause of death for Caylee Anthony and the mother's lies after her daughter's disappearance definitely helped confuse matters.

According to our justice system, she is innocent and has always been innocent. I'm not going to pronounce her guilty based on a few magazine and internet articles.

Either way, if she really is guilty she might have gotten away with murder; but unless some new evidence pops up, there is really nothing we can do but leave it in GOD's hands and trust that He will see justice done for Caylee Anthony's murder. Maybe not in this lifetime, but the killer WILL answer for their crimes.



Well said, Nate.

kevint13
07-06-2011, 06:04 PM
I have drawn my own conclusions, and I think the jury did the only thing they could. I'm just trying to figure out where people are coming from that are saying that the jury was dumb, and an injustice was done, etc., when the State didn't even provide a single piece of evidence of a killing, much less linking it to the the mother.


I agree with you. The jury did their job and they provided her with a fair trial, which is all you can ask for.

I understand why people are mad, but it is not the jury's fault. It is an unfortunate situation that there just wasn't enough evidence to link Casey, or anyone, to a crime.

ufcfan2
07-06-2011, 06:08 PM
As much as I dislike it sometimes, in America we are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I've only read a little bit about this case, but from what I understand, they never even determined a cause of death for Caylee Anthony and the mother's lies after her daughter's disappearance definitely helped confuse matters.

According to our justice system, she is innocent and has always been innocent. I'm not going to pronounce her guilty based on a few magazine and internet articles.

Either way, if she really is guilty she might have gotten away with murder; but unless some new evidence pops up, there is really nothing we can do but leave it in GOD's hands and trust that He will see justice done for Caylee Anthony's murder. Maybe not in this lifetime, but the killer WILL answer for their crimes.
Agreed.
I think with so many lies and the Prosecution not being able to say how she died, the jury couldn't come to a favorable conclusion. I know there is one of the alternate jurors coming out and saying why they got the Innocent verdict.
I can't say whether she is Innocent or guilty and I try not to listen to media who already had in their minds she was guilty(talking to you Nancy Grace;just something about her I don't like,even when she was with Court TV)..
There was just so many finger pointing in this case and I think in this world of CSI the jury was expecting more CSI type evidence and it just don't work this way. The jury was confused on who to believe and I don't think they wanted to convict on what they had I guess.
I actually thought she would get at least something besides he last 4 counts of lieing, though I didnt think she would get Murder 1 neither.

BamaGrits84
07-06-2011, 09:52 PM
I agree with you. The jury did their job and they provided her with a fair trial, which is all you can ask for.

I understand why people are mad, but it is not the jury's fault. It is an unfortunate situation that there just wasn't enough evidence to link Casey, or anyone, to a crime.

There was enough evidence to prove she neglected her child and when neglect leads to death that is a crime. Neglect is failing to provide reasonable care for a minor. She clearly neglected the child at the time of her death and while the exact means may not have physical evidence to prove that doesn't mean the jury had to ignore common sense. So what there was no proof that it wasn't an accident? Just because it may have been one doesn't mean she isn't responsible. 6 weeks worth of evidence and 12 people who had no legal knowledge makes me think they failed to fully examine the charges seperately and the evidence.

Miss Foxy
07-06-2011, 09:55 PM
There was enough evidence to prove she neglected her child and when neglect leads to death that is a crime. Neglect is failing to provide reasonable care for a minor. She clearly neglected the child at the time of her death and while the exact means may not have physical evidence to prove that doesn't mean the jury had to ignore common sense. So what there was no proof that it wasn't an accident? Just because it may have been one doesn't mean she isn't responsible. 6 weeks worth of evidence and 12 people who had no legal knowledge makes me think they failed to fully examine the charges seperately and the evidence.

Yup.. She is guilty of lying to the police, but innocent of the charges of murder. Sorry your a POS if your child is missing and you waited that long and meanwhile killed time whoring around.. Sad thing is she's going to be capitalizing off her daughters death. She now has freedom to breathe and live Caylee doesnt :sad:.This is all emotionally based opinions as a mother and human being. She don't fool most people and I hope she gets hers somehow.

kevint13
07-06-2011, 10:30 PM
There was enough evidence to prove she neglected her child and when neglect leads to death that is a crime. Neglect is failing to provide reasonable care for a minor. She clearly neglected the child at the time of her death and while the exact means may not have physical evidence to prove that doesn't mean the jury had to ignore common sense. So what there was no proof that it wasn't an accident? Just because it may have been one doesn't mean she isn't responsible. 6 weeks worth of evidence and 12 people who had no legal knowledge makes me think they failed to fully examine the charges seperately and the evidence.

I am not trying to start an argument, but please explain what evidence there was of neglect because I must be missing something.

Bonnie
07-07-2011, 11:41 AM
There was enough evidence to prove she neglected her child and when neglect leads to death that is a crime. Neglect is failing to provide reasonable care for a minor. She clearly neglected the child at the time of her death and while the exact means may not have physical evidence to prove that doesn't mean the jury had to ignore common sense. So what there was no proof that it wasn't an accident? Just because it may have been one doesn't mean she isn't responsible. 6 weeks worth of evidence and 12 people who had no legal knowledge makes me think they failed to fully examine the charges seperately and the evidence.

I agree with you, Bama. They deliberated less than 11 hours; I'd think appointing a jury foreman and going over the multi-pages of jury instructions they were given on the charges and all the meanings/definitions that were included would have taken up at least that amount of time or most of it before even starting to review transcripts, photographs, etc... and then weigh arguments of both sides that had been presented to them.

Juror #2 has started speaking and said just because she found her "not guilty" does not mean she thought she was innocent; and that they were all just sick at the verdict they had to give. She also commented that what they were given by the prosecution just wasn't enough to be able to decide on her punishment. When this came out, a lawyer said it seems like they didn't understand what their job was which was not to decide punishment, but rather if there was enough evidence (in this case circumstantial...as it is in most cases) to prove guilt.

The alternate juror who has been speaking out stated he felt there had been a horrific accident and that things snowballed out of control from there. Jose Baez used those exact same words "horrific accident...snowballed out of control". I agree with what prosecutor Ashton said to the jury, "You don't make an accident look like murder."

My husband told me they were reporting a distant relative of Cindy Anthony's who lives in Houston might offer for Casey to come live with them. My immediate reaction was "No way, we don't want her here!", but then I thought about it, and now my feelings are, "Welcome to Texas, Casey!" :biggrin-1: :ninja:

rearnakedchoke
07-07-2011, 05:23 PM
Agree with Buzzard and NateR here. I THINK she's guilty but there wasn't enough proof to convict her. The jury returned the only verdict that they could. If the prosecution had a better case, maybe it would have gone the other way.

People compare this to the OJ trial but that's not accurate. The prosecution DID have plenty of evidence against OJ. There was blood from both victims in his car. DNA matches, etc. That was a case of the jury being fooled and giving a bad verdict. All the prosecution had for Casey was people talking about a smell from her trunk. No DNA or anything to really link it together. Yes, she lied to the police and she was found guilty of that. That's all they've really got.

i think there was reasonable doubt in both cases and in a criminal trial, the burden of proof is on the prosecution ... so although both of these people are probably guilty, there wasn't enough proof, or doubt as to the authenticity of the proof that didn't make the cases open and shut .. but both are in prison now so maybe justice is served .. even if it is only temporary ..

Maldonado136
07-07-2011, 07:10 PM
Murderers go free and people get locked up for having a plant. Gotta love this place.

BamaGrits84
07-07-2011, 07:58 PM
I am not trying to start an argument, but please explain what evidence there was of neglect because I must be missing something.

If I were a juror, based soley on the evidence they were given I would have found her guilty on the third charge of aggreviated manslaughter.

Florida law defines aggreviated manslaughter as the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence. Culpable negligence is when a person fails to reasonable prevent risk of injury or death.

Evidence: The medical examiner said in 100% of cases where an accident was involved in the death of a child someone reported the accident immediately. Logical view for a jury: It is not reasonable for a mother whose child is involved in an accident to fail to report it. Clearly the failure to report the child missing or report that there had been an accident as the defense claims would indicate at the minimum the mother attempted to hide what happened to her child. Additional evidence to support the fact that the mother was hiding something would be the lies told to police and her family about the child's where abouts. So based on the testimony of the medical examiner and police detective it is NOT reasonable to doubt that the mother had reason to hide the death of the child either due to direct involvement or at the least neglect. There is no reasonable reason for the mother to lie unless she feared backlash due to her part in the child's death.

So accidentals death ALWAYS get reported and Casey LIED about what happened to Caylee. So the next logical question in determining if neglect was involved - why lie? Common sense would tell the jury Casey lied for the same reason anyone else does, selfish gain. So what did Casey have to gain by lying about what happened to her child? Nothing unless she had involvement in it or knew she caused it. And that is enough to prove neglect. There is plenty of other evidence to support neglect but I'll add that when I get off work.

Dethbob
07-07-2011, 08:15 PM
Murderers go free and people get locked up for having a plant. Gotta love this place.

If you can prove she’s a murderer, perhaps you should have spoken up sooner. And people don’t get locked up for having a plant; they get locked up for having drugs, the fact that it comes from a plant doesn’t make it legal.

And yes, I do love this place.

Miss Foxy
07-07-2011, 08:49 PM
If I were a juror, based soley on the evidence they were given I would have found her guilty on the third charge of aggreviated manslaughter.

Florida law defines aggreviated manslaughter as the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence. Culpable negligence is when a person fails to reasonable prevent risk of injury or death.

Evidence: The medical examiner said in 100% of cases where an accident was involved in the death of a child someone reported the accident immediately. Logical view for a jury: It is not reasonable for a mother whose child is involved in an accident to fail to report it. Clearly the failure to report the child missing or report that there had been an accident as the defense claims would indicate at the minimum the mother attempted to hide what happened to her child. Additional evidence to support the fact that the mother was hiding something would be the lies told to police and her family about the child's where abouts. So based on the testimony of the medical examiner and police detective it is NOT reasonable to doubt that the mother had reason to hide the death of the child either due to direct involvement or at the least neglect. There is no reasonable reason for the mother to lie unless she feared backlash due to her part in the child's death.

So accidentals death ALWAYS get reported and Casey LIED about what happened to Caylee. So the next logical question in determining if neglect was involved - why lie? Common sense would tell the jury Casey lied for the same reason anyone else does, selfish gain. So what did Casey have to gain by lying about what happened to her child? Nothing unless she had involvement in it or knew she caused it. And that is enough to prove neglect. There is plenty of other evidence to support neglect but I'll add that when I get off work.

I co-sign this Bama...Did you see her face in court she is all smiles now. Of course she has freedom..

rearnakedchoke
07-07-2011, 09:14 PM
I co-sign this Bama...Did you see her face in court she is all smiles now. Of course she has freedom..

well after her four year sentence is up .. in probably 18 months .. i found it even awful that after the verdict, one of her defense lawyers flipped the bird to one of the cameras ...

Bonnie
07-07-2011, 09:19 PM
well after her four year sentence is up .. in probably 18 months .. i found it even awful that after the verdict, one of her defense lawyers flipped the bird to one of the cameras ...

She's getting out next Wednesday, July 13, RNC--time served and time for good behavior. :wink:

Miss Foxy
07-07-2011, 09:19 PM
well after her four year sentence is up .. in probably 18 months .. i found it even awful that after the verdict, one of her defense lawyers flipped the bird to one of the cameras ...

We all know how extreme I am.. With that being said I hope they all get theirs her and her team of lawyers.. One by one...

timmyja
07-08-2011, 01:10 AM
Dexter lives in Florida... ... ...

kevint13
07-08-2011, 01:25 AM
If I were a juror, based soley on the evidence they were given I would have found her guilty on the third charge of aggreviated manslaughter.

Florida law defines aggreviated manslaughter as the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence. Culpable negligence is when a person fails to reasonable prevent risk of injury or death.

Evidence: The medical examiner said in 100% of cases where an accident was involved in the death of a child someone reported the accident immediately. Logical view for a jury: It is not reasonable for a mother whose child is involved in an accident to fail to report it. Clearly the failure to report the child missing or report that there had been an accident as the defense claims would indicate at the minimum the mother attempted to hide what happened to her child. Additional evidence to support the fact that the mother was hiding something would be the lies told to police and her family about the child's where abouts. So based on the testimony of the medical examiner and police detective it is NOT reasonable to doubt that the mother had reason to hide the death of the child either due to direct involvement or at the least neglect. There is no reasonable reason for the mother to lie unless she feared backlash due to her part in the child's death.

So accidentals death ALWAYS get reported and Casey LIED about what happened to Caylee. So the next logical question in determining if neglect was involved - why lie? Common sense would tell the jury Casey lied for the same reason anyone else does, selfish gain. So what did Casey have to gain by lying about what happened to her child? Nothing unless she had involvement in it or knew she caused it. And that is enough to prove neglect. There is plenty of other evidence to support neglect but I'll add that when I get off work.

You don't need to add more evidence....what you showed here is very good.

Here is a thought though about the whole thing....is it not possible, and unfortunate, that the jurors focused on the murder charge more than anything else? What I mean is that each time they were presented with a piece of evidence they compared it strictly to murder and not to anything else, like negligence?

Neezar
07-08-2011, 01:36 PM
Dexter lives in Florida... ... ...

:laugh: