And then, Mel Ignatow..........

Not sure. It seemed to me the mom was trying to help her get off though. I still think since the defense said she for sure drowned you have to believe that to be fact. That on top of the jail recordings should have done it.

You don't have to believe it but find it reasonable. Along with the prosecution not providing any hard evidence to contradict it you have not guilty. If your going to put someone on trial for murder one and look for the death penalty you better come with more than internet searches and myspace accounts. For 12 jurors to all say not guilty to even the manslaughter tells me the prosecution should be looking for new jobs.

I'm like you RM. It would be hard for me to convict anyone if I had the least amount of doubt.

 

But, is it "reasonable doubt"? Sure, we'd all like it to be black and white...but in cases where there's predominately circumstantial evidence...it's nothing but a lot of gray. And in that instance, you (as a juror) have to decipher what is considered "reasonable". Is it reasonable for a mother who finds her child floating dead in a pool to put duct tape over her mouth, wrap her body in plastic and take it to a swamp to dispose of it? Is is reasonable for a mother to not report her child missing for a month? Is it reasonable to do the computer searches for chloroform? Is it reasonable for a mother who's "lost" a child to be out partying at a nightclub within two weeks?

 

If it was just one instance, you might be able to chalk it up to coincidence (and thus have reasonable doubt). But, when there is a pattern that is repeated, I'm sorry...

First of all the main injustice in this trial was done to a 2yr old little girl, she certainly didn't kill herself! I am still stunned by this decision.

They say they didn't have hard evidence. Maybe not but they did have alot but they did have evidence of the chloroform in the trunk and I believe a hair that matched was found in the trunk. Circumstantial evidence was evrywhere, not solid proof but still evidence.

They didn't have one bit of evidence \.proof of what the defense was claiming about her father. That was shotdown quick except for some bleeding heart jurors had it in their mind. The damage of that lie by the defense was done.

One big, common sense question....."If this woman was a good mother like claimed then when the child went missing as she claimed Why didn't she call 911 to report her child missing? Instead she goes on a drunken party spree for a month and then ..."oh yeah, my daughter has been missing for 31 days and my housekeeper that doesn't exist took her" Give me a beak:rolleyes:!!

This lady, no, she is no lady..... so this female was pretty much known as a pathalogical liar and was convicted on four counts of lying to police and investigators. Another question I have is this "If she was innocent then why did she lie to everyone about everything from the very start of all of this?"

.About the jury.......Should someone slice an elaphants throat, they could find the blood trail" JMO

 

I believe that this is another verdict lke the O.J. travesty. Another huge embarrassment for one of the greatest things about this country, The American Justice System. I could go on and on but am really still too mad about it to calm down enough to type out everything that I thought why she is guilty

She may have got out of jail by the judge and this jury but when it comes her time to go I can guarantee she will not get passed the judge and jury in heaven.

She may have got out of jail by the judge and this jury but when it comes her time to go I can guarantee she will not get passed the judge and jury in heaven.

 

Amen, great post. The Great judge needs bo jury.

I know that we are not to judge but there is one absolute judgement that all of us, including Ms. Anthony will have.

I will admit that I haven't followed this trial in great depth and took me a second to realize what everyone was talking about on social media yesterday when the verdict was read. But...

 

All over the place people are comparing this to the O.J. Simpson trial, which I can see an obvious initial connection, but in the vast scheme of things, is this even remotely close to having the same ramifications? I was only in fourth grade during OJ's trial but I feel like that was and should be a much bigger deal (not to take anything away from the little girl who died). Part of that is probably because of how much media has changed since then, particulary social media. I just don't really feel like there is a whole lot of comparsion besides a verdict of not guilty.

They were saying on the Today Show that Casey talked about in jail how she wants to have another child.

Ok so the jury found her not guilty on the three charges, but they found her guilty of lying to the police. Hmmmm. Something

ain't right here.:confused:

First of all the main injustice in this trial was done to a 2yr old little girl, she certainly didn't kill herself! I am still stunned by this decision.

They say they didn't have hard evidence. Maybe not but they did have alot but they did have evidence of the chloroform in the trunk and I believe a hair that matched was found in the trunk. Circumstantial evidence was evrywhere, not solid proof but still evidence.

Do not leave out the stench of a dead body coming from her trunk.

 

The 2 things which helped Casey in this trial were 1) The fact it took so long to locate the dead body and as people have discussed, in an age of CSI television, a lot of the forensic evidence was lost with the decomposition; and 2) The prosecution going for a Murder 1 conviction. You could tell she was shocked that she was acquitted on the murder/manslaughter charges.

But, is it "reasonable doubt"? Sure, we'd all like it to be black and white...but in cases where there's predominately circumstantial evidence...it's nothing but a lot of gray. And in that instance, you (as a juror) have to decipher what is considered "reasonable". Is it reasonable for a mother who finds her child floating dead in a pool to put duct tape over her mouth, wrap her body in plastic and take it to a swamp to dispose of it? Is is reasonable for a mother to not report her child missing for a month? Is it reasonable to do the computer searches for chloroform? Is it reasonable for a mother who's "lost" a child to be out partying at a nightclub within two weeks?

 

If it was just one instance, you might be able to chalk it up to coincidence (and thus have reasonable doubt). But, when there is a pattern that is repeated, I'm sorry...

 

I totally agree. I guess for some people the only way there isn't a "reasonable" doubt is firm DNA evidence or video tape of the murder. Here's a good article I read today saying basically the same stuff you did.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/05/casey-anthony-trial-marcia-clark-says-the-verdict-was-worse-than-the-o-j-simpson-case.html

Do not leave out the stench of a dead body coming from her trunk.

 

The 2 things which helped Casey in this trial were 1) The fact it took so long to locate the dead body and as people have discussed, in an age of CSI television, a lot of the forensic evidence was lost with the decomposition; and 2) The prosecution going for a Murder 1 conviction. You could tell she was shocked that she was acquitted on the murder/manslaughter charges.

 

It blows my mind that if you can hide a body long enough and there is enough decomposition a jury will acquit you. This defense attorney won the case with his opening statement and never ever hinted at those reasons again, because they were so far from the truth he couldn't even attempt to use them when the prosecutors could question her. It's absurd.

It blows my mind that if you can hide a body long enough and there is enough decomposition a jury will acquit you. This defense attorney won the case with his opening statement and never ever hinted at those reasons again, because they were so far from the truth he couldn't even attempt to use them when the prosecutors could question her. It's absurd.

Not the most ethical form of defending a client, but it apparently worked.

I was hoping that I would feel better when I woke up this morning ... but I did not.

A couple things stand out with this case ... especially when I hear the words "reasonable doubt".

1. 31 Days of doing nothing while your daughter was not around is what I consider "reasonable doubt" about the innocence of Casey Anthony.

2. The prosecution should have looked up the prosecutors of Vincent Doane (Carrie Culbertson murder). There was significantly less evidence there .. and they still got the conviction.

Let me preface this by saying that I did not follow any part of this trial or the buildup to the trial. But since my Twitter and Facebook feeds went absolutely bonkers after this verdict was handed down yesterday, I decided I should do some reading about it. This morning I stumbled into this in an article:

 

"They also failed to show a motive. We … kept waiting to see what was the motive — just because Casey was a party girl did not show why she would possibly, you know, kill Caylee.”

 

Those are the words of a juror who spoke to MSNBC last night. I haven't looked up Florida's statute on the matter, but most states have something very similar to the traditional common law definition of murder which requires 1) an unlawful killing 2) of a human being 3) with malice aforethought. Motive is not among the elements required to prove murder; it certainly isn't a requirement in Kentucky and I seriously doubt it's required in Florida. If the prosecutor couldn't accomplish the basic job of demonstrating to the jury that he didn't even have to show motive, then he failed at his job.

 

A further note on this juror... that's some crazy justification there. If you're waiting to find a logical reason why a parent would kill his/her child, you're never going to find one. That's exactly why motive doesn't matter.