Casey Anthony is not guilty of first degree murder...

[Pioneer Hall]

"The jury" could very well have voted to convict her. There were enough people who took an interest in the case that had different individuals served on the jury, we could be talking about whether she would be getting the death penalty at sentencing instead of wondering whether she will go home at sentencing.

Laura's points are not popular given today's verdict and our desire to see a killer made to be responsible for that death, but they are not unreasonable. Obviously 12 jurors unanimously agreed with the ultimate point, which was a not guilty verdict.

Had I served on that jury, I believe I probably would have seen things a different way.

But the reality is, as mad as I am at the verdict, I know nothing of the day and circumstances by which the child died or at whose hand specifically. The defense does not have to tell us what Casey knows. The defense only has to show us reasonable doubt that Casey killed that child or abused that child (before her death). Different people see that evidence and come to different conclusions. :shrug:

This is why they try their hardest to find jury members who have no knowledge of the case, which was nearly impossible for this case since they have no choice but to stay local (I think that they should be able to look elsewhere in the country for these types of cases). Each of us has our opinions about the case, and we all formulated those opinions based upon the non-stop media coverage we were able to see. Remember that a juror's job is to look at the information that is provided to them during the trial and make their decision based off of that and nothing but that. The state had their chance to make their case and obviously were unable to prove without a reasonable doubt that she committed the murders according to the 12 people that were selected to look at this case without bias.

 

[ggauthier82]

By the way, we had similar news here in Canada today. A cardiologist admitted to stabbing both his children to death, but was found "not criminally responsible" because the supposedly tried to commit suicide by drinking windshield washer afterwards, therefore he wasn't in his right mind... :shrug:

Hmmm... next time I rob a bank, I'll just have a little windshield washer to celebrate and I'll get away with robbery??

 

[Laura]

This implies that jurors had to choose between two versions of events: either believe the prosecution, or believe the defense, looking at whose story is best supported by evidence.

The truth is that as long as any version of events outside of the prosecution's seems reasonably likely to a juror, then he is obligated to find for the defense...even if he thinks the actual story put out by the defense is a load of hooey. The prosecution is the only side with the burden of constructing an airtight narrative.

What wizards8507 said ("Evidence showed that duct tape was put around the child's jaw before the child died") is completely untrue. To my knowledge, there was no evidence about the duct tape at all, except that it existed. The duct tape didn't even have any of CAYLEE'S DNA on it, even after she supposedly decomposed all over it for 6 months. It could have just as easily floated over to her body during the time she was laying underwater after the area flooded.

The state really didn't have much evidence at all. They had a lot of good, believable theories which were backed by circumstantial evidence (and therefore convinced the media and general public of her guilt), but the defense was able to refute just about all of it (which the media and general public conveniently ignored). For example in the search history of the computer, the searches for chloroform came directly after Casey had clicked on her boyfriend's MySpace page when he had posted something about chloroform. That doesn't show premeditation...it only shows that she was curious about what her boyfriend was talking about. There was a bag of rotting food in the hot trunk for who knows how long, and some witnesses said the trunk smelled awful (well - what do you expect?).

The jurors didn't really have to believe EITHER version of the story. All they had to do was find holes in the state's version and the case was over. Holes existed (lots of them) so it's no surprise they deliberated for only a few hours.

I don't believe either side, personally. I don't think George Anthony was involved in a cover-up nor do I think the pool was involved. But Casey is obviously a huge liar and the defense has no choice but to argue the story she gives them, no matter how far-fetched. And I don't think Casey killed her daughter to go party either, or else there would have been a history of neglect. Based on the evidence, I believe it was as the defense stated many times, "an accident that snowballed out of control" and the jury must have seen the possibility of that.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

the jurors didn't really have to believe either version of the story. All they had to do was find holes in the state's version and the case was over.

TWiS.

 

[mkt]

I don't see how people who have no tie to the case can even give a damn... 22,000 kids die of hunger each year and not one gets one tenth of the outrage expressed in this thread.

People need to reevaluate their priority and leave the judgement to the judges and the higher powers.

 

[CaptainShortty]

I don't see how people who have no tie to the case can even give a damn... 22,000 kids die of hunger each year and not one gets one tenth of the outrage expressed in this thread.

People need to reevaluate their priority and leave the judgement to the judges and the higher powers.

I agree completely. I always wondered why some cases were treated with more media attention than another. You all have no investment in the matter. The justice system has run its course and what is done is done.

 

[tizzo]

I see a lot of anger from people here and it amazes me. So because some of you watched it on tv, you think you know all of the details? As someone who spent time in jail for something I didn't do, I can assure you that you don't know all of the details. From all that I've gathered of this case (which wasn't from watching it on TruTV or CNN), the case against her seemed weak. Again, her being a liar was so easy to prove, yet the actual murder was up in the air.

This is perhaps the most salient point here. Our justice system is supposed to set a very, very high bar for conviction for exactly the reason that our collective values are that we would much rather see a hundred guilty people go free than see one person convicted unjustly - all the more so for a capital case.

My own attitude about this was shaped by something that, even though it was only a TV show, has stuck with me. I watched a summer filler show on one of the cable channels where each week they summarized the evidence in a real court case, and then showed you the outcome. This particular case, a man was on trial for murdering his wife. He supposedly killed her on his boat and dumped her body at sea. Essentially the only evidence against him was that she was missing. There was no physical evidence on the boat, and no body. They couldn't even prove she was actually dead (in fact the defense produced several witnesses who claimed to have seen her after she was supposed to have been killed). Seemed like a no-brainer, until the jury came back with a guilty verdict.

Now this was a TV show, but it was a real case, and portrayed the real evidence. This guy was sent to jail for life - probably sitting there right now - for killing someone who probably isn't even dead.

This child's death is a tragedy. And I for one don't think it was an accident, and I think the mother probably did it, or at least had something to do with it. But the prosecution simply didn't prove it, and probably just ain't good enough.

 

[NemoRocks78]

She was not declared "innocent". There was a jury verdict of "not guilty".

Not the same thing.

Thank you.

The state had no solid evidence against her and it's a shame that most of you feel like judge and jury and had her convicted just on flimsy evidence.

There is a reason why our legal system is set up the way it is....to prevent Witch Hunts like the one going on in the media today.

What wizards8507 said ("Evidence showed that duct tape was put around the child's jaw before the child died") is completely untrue. To my knowledge, there was no evidence about the duct tape at all, except that it existed. The duct tape didn't even have any of CAYLEE'S DNA on it, even after she supposedly decomposed all over it for 6 months. It could have just as easily floated over to her body during the time she was laying underwater after the area flooded.

The state really didn't have much evidence at all. They had a lot of good, believable theories which were backed by circumstantial evidence (and therefore convinced the media and general public of her guilt), but the defense was able to refute just about all of it (which the media and general public conveniently ignored). For example in the search history of the computer, the searches for chloroform came directly after Casey had clicked on her boyfriend's MySpace page when he had posted something about chloroform. That doesn't show premeditation...it only shows that she was curious about what her boyfriend was talking about. There was a bag of rotting food in the hot trunk for who knows how long, and some witnesses said the trunk smelled awful (well - what do you expect?).

The jurors didn't really have to believe EITHER version of the story. All they had to do was find holes in the state's version and the case was over. Holes existed (lots of them) so it's no surprise they deliberated for only a few hours.

I don't believe either side, personally. I don't think George Anthony was involved in a cover-up nor do I think the pool was involved. But Casey is obviously a huge liar and the defense has no choice but to argue the story she gives them, no matter how far-fetched. And I don't think Casey killed her daughter to go party either, or else there would have been a history of neglect. Based on the evidence, I believe it was as the defense stated many times, "an accident that snowballed out of control" and the jury must have seen the possibility of that.

These are truths.

 

[Bender!]

I love how most of my friends (many of whom I just graduated High School with) didn't even care about the case at all as it was happening. Yet all of a sudden today, as soon as the verdict came out, they exploded with cries of THERE IS SUCH INJUSTICE IN THE WORLD and such.

It's great to have opinions, but not when you formulate them out of thin air so you don't look stupid...because in actuality it DOES make you look stupid.

That being said, I can understand the ruling on this case. Am I happy? No, I think there is a great chance that she actually did it. But did the Prosecution do a good job of proving such? Not at all.

 

[dave&di]

Absurd that a mother might get a tattoo that says "Beautiful Life" after her daughter's beautiful life ended, regardless of how it ended?

:shrug:

Even at the start of the case when I believed without a doubt Casey was a murderer, I always thought the tattoo was something done for Caylee.

From my understanding, Casey got that tattoo 2 days after Caylees death, when Caylee wasn't even reported 'missing' . The timing of the tattoo would imply Casey knew Caylee was dead at this time. If she got the tattoo after Caylees body was found than fair enough, but before? She knew!

 

[unkadug]

From my understanding, Casey got that tattoo 2 days after Caylees death, when Caylee wasn't even reported 'missing' . The timing of the tattoo would imply Casey knew Caylee was dead at this time. If she got the tattoo after Caylees body was found than fair enough, but before? She knew!

There you go playing "Judge and Jury".

 

[sweetpee_1993]

...and let us talk about how odd it is that Casey Anthony's parents walked out of the courtroom before the verdicts were even completely read. If their daughter was so innocent, and I believe they would know better than anyone else, why didn't they run to embrace their now-exhonerated daughter? Why wouldn't they be celebrating that their daughter was acquitted? Hhhmmm.... So Casey parties while her daughter is missing never reporting her missing, never mourns her untimely death, never tries to help find out what happened to her, and her own parents aren't willing to celebrate her acquittal with her. I dunno. All signs are pretty dang clear. I don't know how much more clear it could be. Heck, her mother even said it in plain English when she called 911 to report the baby missing. Nobody physically saw Casey's hands on that baby while she was dying but the writing on the wall says it all. An innocent person, a loving mother, a concerned parent does NOT act/react the way Casey did. It doesn't happen that way. Believe me. I've talked to parents whose children have just died (both accidentally and of natural causes). I've talked to them when their little ones are missing. I've heard their frantic cries more than once. I've heard their hysteric screams. I'm telling you, the voice of Casey's mother on 911 speaks volumes. Her choice of words says so much. Reactions are not manufactured. That's the stuff that says it all.

 

[WDWmazprty]

Nice! :lol:

 

[Master Yoda]

This verdict came about the way it did for one reason and one reason only. Lack of "conclusive" evidence. The prosecution had multiple lines of evidence that had the potential to convict Casey. The problem was none of them could conclusively tie Casey to the murder. Had there been one finger print, one skin cell or hair in the right place the verdict would have been different. The simple fact was there wasn't. You can not convict someone for murder 1 based on the tone of their voice, a tattoo or their lack of emotion. You need solid, quality evidence. The state simply did not prove their case.

 

[WDWmazprty]

Two Interesting articles:


http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2081590,00.html

The Casey Anthony Verdict: The Jury Did the Right Thing
By John Cloud Wednesday, July 06, 2011

ENLARGE PHOTO+
Casey Anthony, center, flanked by her attorneys Jose Baez, left, and Dorothy Clay Sims, reacts upon hearing the jury's not-guilty verdict at the Orange County Courthouse in Orlando, Fla., on July 5, 2011

Red Huber / Reuters
CommentPrintEmailReprintsshareLinkedInStumbleUponRedditDiggMixxDel.i.cious

Casey Anthony is guilty of many things. She is an enthusiastic liar. She was an indifferent mother. She mooched off her overindulgent parents for years. Even after her daughter went missing, Anthony partied and got a tattoo. But the state of Florida did not make a good case that Anthony murdered her daughter. In acquitting Anthony, the jury made the right call.

In his closing argument on July 3, one of the prosecutors, Jeff Ashton, said that a combination of chloroform and duct tape killed Caylee Anthony. But he couldn't say which came first, the chloroform or the duct tape; his team was never even able to prove that chloroform had been used. Caylee's corpse was found with duct tape on her face, but the tape had no fingerprints or DNA. And so Ashton, in his closing, had to resort to a passive accusation: "That tape," he said, "was placed there for one singular purpose. This murder was premeditated." But who, exactly, placed the tape? And who premeditated it?
(See photos from the Casey Anthony trial.)

Anthony got off because the prosecution couldn't answer such questions. Because the prosecutors had so little physical evidence, they built their case on Anthony's (nearly imperceptible) moral character. The prosecutors seemed to think that if jurors saw what a fantastic liar Anthony was, they would understand that she could also be a murderer.



And yet, why would Anthony kill her daughter? When Caylee died in 2008, her mother was young and blithe, 22-going-on-16. Anthony lived with her parents, dated lots of guys and wasn't thrilled about having to care every day for a two-year-old. And so, she chloroformed the girl? Or duct-taped her face? And then, after Caylee died, Anthony stuffed the body in her trunk, let it rot and dumped it in the woods? And the mother did all this just so she could party? Jurors were stuck in the position of convicting Anthony only if they diagnosed her as a psychopath first.
(See why the media trial for Casey Anthony is now beginning.)

Anthony's attorney, Jose Baez, presented another theory. His was also implausible. He said Caylee had accidentally drowned in her grandparents' pool — and that Anthony didn't tell authorities because she feared her father and Caylee's grandfather, George Anthony, 59. Baez said George had molested his daughter when she was a girl. He said the family panicked after Caylee's body was found in the pool and decided to stage her death as a murder. Baez said that Anthony's various lies were meant as a cover-up.

Virtually no evidence exists to support this account — one that George denied in court. But Baez understood that he didn't have to provide evidence for his theory. As in any other case, the prosecution had the burden of proof: it had to show that Anthony killed Caylee. Baez didn't have to show how she might have died otherwise. But his ornate pool-drowning-molestation-cover-up theory could help provide doubt for a jury bewildered by all the evidence.
(See "How the Casey Anthony Murder Case Became the Social-Media Trial of the Century.")

Ashton and his colleagues were never able to show how Caylee died. Much of the prosecution's evidence came from examining remnants of Caylee's little corpse. Her bones had been gnawed by animals, and the remaining bits of unwanted flesh and clothing were scattered by storms and vermin.

So how did Caylee die? Baez has said because authorities settled too quickly on the theory that Caylee was murdered, they may have missed evidence of how she might have died otherwise. A family quarrel that turns into a beating? Maybe Anthony left Caylee in the car too long and then panicked? The Casey Anthony trial offered few answers. It provided neither justice nor clarity.

Murder cases occupy a unique place in the American judicial arena: they require inflexible scientific evidence even as they elicit primal emotions. In the unsolved death of Caylee, the dearth of evidence means that all that unresolved emotions will continue to haunt an audience that had grown obsessed with the trial of her mother since jury selection began on May 9, almost two months ago.



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2081590,00.html#ixzz1RKKxf1f3

_____________________________________________________
Check it out:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43651613/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/


Juror: Casey Anthony verdict was the right one
Prosecution failed to prove murder beyond reasonable doubt, alternate juror says, but admits questions remain unanswered
Below:

x
Jump to text
An alternate juror in the Casey Anthony trial on Wednesday defended the... text

x Jump to timeline Verdict reached in Casey Anthony murder trial
timeline

x Jump to discussion comments below
.discussion

x Next story in Crime & courts Anthony cleared of murdering Caylee
related

.Advertise | AdChoices.Video: Alternate juror defends not guilty verdict
Open in new window
NBC, msnbc.com and news services NBC, msnbc.com and news services
updated 2 hours 17 minutes ago 2011-07-06T12:03:55
Share Print Font: +-An alternate juror in the Casey Anthony trial on Wednesday defended the not guilty verdict over the death of her 2-year-old daughter Caylee.

Only on msnbc.com AFP - Getty Images, file
Sadat’s assassination plotter remains unrepentant .
Member of terrorist group brought to US for trial
NASA / Roberto Beltramini / Space 3D
See the ultimate space shot in 3-D .
Is Ohio closing the door on the public?
Getty Images stock
Wash the loneliness away with a long, hot bath .
Americans take center stage in Japan tsunami cleanup
Warner Bros
Your Career: Dealing with a bad boss .
..Russell Huekler, who did not play a part in deciding the case but who sat through all the evidence, told NBC's TODAY that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

"I definitely agree that they did get it right. I support that decision whole-heartedly," he said, speaking from St. Pete Beach, Florida.

Huekler laid out three reasons:

•The prosecution "didn't present the evidence that would have sustained either a murder charge or a manslaughter charge."
•They also failed to show a motive. "We and I kept waiting to see what was the motive — "just being a party girl" did not show why she might have killed Caylee, he said.
•And the prosecution was also unable to say "how did Caylee actually pass away."
Asked whether Huekler thought Anthony, 25, was innocent or if he had reasonable doubt she was guilty, he said: "Definitely reasonable doubt for myself."

Video: Last days in jail for Casey Anthony? (on this page)
Huekler said the "$64,000 question" was why did Anthony fail to report her daughter's disappearance and tell lies to police.

Advertise | AdChoicesAdvertise | AdChoices
Advertise | AdChoices
.But he said it was important to remember that "the lies just didn't start with the death of Caylee" but several years before that. "I personally think this family was dysfunctional," he said.

Speaking to TODAY, Jeff Ashton, one of the lead prosecutors in the case, said the verdict was "not easy to hear" and he thought he had "mouthed the word 'wow' about five times."

"We were all that shocked," he said.

Video: Prosecutor: I was ‘shocked’ by verdict (on this page)
Ashton said he did not think the defense's account of Caylee's death — that she died accidentally in a swimming pool — was true.

"I cannot believe that's what happened ... but again, beyond reasonable doubt is a high standard," he told TODAY.

'A rather important deception'
Ashton said that Casey Anthony's mother Cindy might face prosecution for perjury in the case for what he described as a "rather important deception that obviously was proven to be so by the other evidence."

He said he did not think the truth would ever be known "even if Casey got out of jail and wrote a book" about it because he would not be able to believe what she said.

It remains unclear where Casey Anthony will go if she is released from jail, but her former fiance Jesse Grund told TODAY there was "no way" she would return to live with her parents.

"She's going to have money ... she's going to have that partying lifestyle she so craved," he said.

During the case, the defense accused the defendant's father, George, of molesting her.

Anthony has been in jail since her October 2008 arrest on first-degree murder charges. She avoided a possible death sentence thanks to her acquittal on the murder count. The case began in July 2008 when Caylee was reported missing.

She is waiting to learn if she could spend her first night out of jail in almost three years since she was first accused in the case.

Advertise | AdChoicesAdvertise | AdChoices
Advertise | AdChoices
.Anthony was only convicted of four misdemeanor counts of lying to investigators Tuesday, and it's possible that Judge Belvin Perry could sentence her to time already served for those crimes at a hearing Thursday.

The four counts of lying to sheriff's deputies each carry a maximum sentence of one year. Since she has been in jail for nearly three years already, she could walk free.

The trial became a national sensation on cable TV, with its CSI-style testimony about duct-tape marks on the child's face and the smell of death inside a car trunk.

After a trial of a month and a half, the jury took less than 11 hours to find Anthony not guilty Tuesday of first-degree murder, aggravated manslaughter and aggravated child abuse.

'Ecstatic'
Tears welled in Anthony's eyes, her face reddened, her lips trembled, and she began breathing heavily as she listened to the verdict.

"I'm very happy for Casey, ecstatic for her and I want her to be able to grieve and grow and somehow get her life back together," defense attorney Jose Baez said Tuesday. "I think this case is a perfect example of why the death penalty does not work ... Murder is not right, no matter who does it."

Many in the crowd of about 500 people outside the courthouse reacted with anger after the verdict was read, chanting, "Justice for Caylee!" One man yelled, "Baby killer!"

Given the relative speed with which the jury came back with a verdict, many court-watchers were expecting Anthony to be convicted in the killing, and they were stunned by the outcome.
Prosecutors contended that Anthony — a single mother living with her parents — suffocated Caylee with duct tape because she wanted to be free to hit the nightclubs and spend time with her boyfriend.

Defense attorneys argued that the little girl accidentally drowned in the family swimming pool and that Anthony panicked and hid the body because of the traumatic effects of being sexually abused by her father.

Anthony's attorney Cheney Mason blasted the media after the verdict.

Video: Defense team criticizes pundits (on this page)
"Well, I hope that this is a lesson to those of you having indulged in media assassination for three years, bias, prejudice and incompetent talking heads saying what would be and how to be," Mason said.

"I'm disgusted by some of the lawyers that have done this, and I can tell you that my colleagues from coast to coast and border to border have condemned this whole process of lawyers getting on television and talking about cases that they don't know a damn thing about."

The jurors — seven women and five men — would not talk to the media, and their identities were kept secret by the court.

NBC News and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

[xdan0920]

To everyone defending the jury's verdict, we get it. The prosecution's case was not water tight. And looking at it objectively, most people would agree.

However, most people have common sense and can form their own opinions. Well maybe not most, perhaps I am giving too much credit. But speaking for myself at least, I believe she did it. And I find it hard to see how anyone can think she did not. I can see how you might not be completely and totally sure, but to think she is innocent, that just seems impossible. The evidence is fairly strong, and since I do not need to prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, I form my own opinion, like many others have.

If you think she is innocent, good for you. I don't. Simple as that.

 

[WDWmazprty]

To everyone defending the jury's verdict, we get it. The prosecution's case was not water tight. And looking at it objectively, most people would agree.

However, most people have common sense and can form their own opinions. Well maybe not most, perhaps I am giving too much credit. But speaking for myself at least, I believe she did it. And I find it hard to see how anyone can think she did not. I can see how you might not be completely and totally sure, but to think she is innocent, that just seems impossible. The evidence is fairly strong, and since I do not need to prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, I form my own opinion, like many others have.

If you think she is innocent, good for you. I don't. Simple as that.

This.

 

[Master Yoda]

To everyone defending the jury's verdict, we get it. The prosecution's case was not water tight. And looking at it objectively, most people would agree.

However, most people have common sense and can form their own opinions. Well maybe not most, perhaps I am giving too much credit. But speaking for myself at least, I believe she did it. And I find it hard to see how anyone can think she did not. I can see how you might not be completely and totally sure, but to think she is innocent, that just seems impossible. The evidence is fairly strong, and since I do not need to prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, I form my own opinion, like many others have.

If you think she is innocent, good for you. I don't. Simple as that.

I don't think for one second that she is innocent but what I or anyone else "thinks" is irrelevant. In a court of law it is about what you can prove. All the state did was prove that Casey was a spoiled, lying piece of crap. They failed to prove she was a murderer.

 

[The Mom]

As so many have stated, she was NOT declared innocent, but was found not guilty. Two completely different things.

Am I happy that such a morally reprehensible person will be allowed to get on with her life, such as it may be, while that poor little girl is gone forever? Not at all. But our criminal court system is set up in such a way that people should not be punished for being horrible people, unless it can be proven that they have committed a crime. In a civil court, the burden is only more likely than not, and she would have been found guilty. But in a civil court you are only losing property, not your life, so a criminal court - especially in a capital case - has a much higher burden of proof.

We don't want to go back to the days of mob rule in this country, which resulted in executing people because they held a different belief or led a lifestyle which the mob finds repugnant. We see it all of the time - an unpopular person or group accused of a crime - from the Duke lacrosse players, to the head of the IMF, to the poor kid with a rap sheet who, if he isn't guilty of this particular crime, probably got away with something else, so it all evens out. Or the woman who is raped, but she's lying or even deserved it because she's promiscuous. We must have a rule of law, even if it fails us from time to time - the alternate is much worse.

The only verdict I don't understand (whether or not I agree with all of them) is "not guilty of child endangerment." If a mother doesn't report a missing child for 30 days, how could it not be child endangerment? IMO that charge was proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

I agree with mkt. If this outrages you, there isn't a lot you can do about this particular case. But there are numerous ways to volunteer to help children in your own community who are the victims of crappy families, from being a foster parent, to just spending a couple of hours a week interacting with a child from a dysfunctional home.

Take your outrage and turn it into something positive.

 

[xdan0920]

I don't think for one second that she is innocent but what I or anyone else "thinks" is irrelevant. In a court of law it is about what you can prove. All the state did was prove that Casey was a spoiled, lying piece of crap. They failed to prove she was a murderer.

Agreed.

The outrage being shown at this verdict, is not being directed at the Jury for the most part. The outrage is being directed, rightly IMO, at Casey.

What we think is irrelevant when it comes to getting a conviction for her. What we think is relevant when discussing this case amongst ourselves.