Casey Anothy Verdict my take

Originally Posted by F34R

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. 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.

Originally Posted by ufcfan2

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.

Originally Posted by F34R

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.

Originally Posted by Chris F

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.

Originally Posted by Chris F

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. 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.

http://news.yahoo.com/anthony-trial-...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.]

Originally Posted by Buzzard

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

Are you cool with that, brother?

Originally Posted by J.B.

Are you cool with that, brother?

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]

Originally Posted by Buzzard

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]

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". I think it would be great if people didn't leave their common sense (if they have any to begin with ) 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.