Anthony verdict is in -Not Guilty!!!

[ladiesbballcoach]

Not shocked someone would find her not guilty.

I am shocked that they had 13 jurors (alternate juror spoke and agreed with the verdict) who agreed to not guilty.

 

There is enough holes in the prosecution case to warrant a not guilty.

Again, just surprised that there were 12 that agreed with not guilty.

Because there is enough in the prosecution case to warrant a guilty plea too.

[sportsfan41]

I just don't understand everyone's fascination with these trials, it's sad that the young girl died way too soon. I don't like to continue to remind myself that these type of things happen just about every day. I try to not think about how horrible the world can be I suppose, while it seems like some are flat out entrigued by it.

[UKMustangFan]

Not shocked someone would find her not guilty.

I am shocked that they had 13 jurors (alternate juror spoke and agreed with the verdict) who agreed to not guilty.

 

There is enough holes in the prosecution case to warrant a not guilty.

Again, just surprised that there were 12 that agreed with not guilty.

Because there is enough in the prosecution case to warrant a guilty plea too.

 

Can't agree with the bolded. They proved nothing, but that Casey COULD have murdered Caylee. "Could've" is not worthy of a guilty verdict.

 

Those that are upset with this verdict need direct their anger at the prosecution, not the defense or the jury. They both did their jobs correctly, the prosecution is the ones that completely dropped the ball.

[woodsrider]

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.

I agree with what you are saying but at the same time the prosecution failed to prove any of the this. What evidence did they have that she killed Kaylee?

[woodsrider]

Can't agree with the bolded. They proved nothing, but that Casey COULD have murdered Caylee. "Could've" is not worthy of a guilty verdict.

 

Those that are upset with this verdict need direct their anger at the prosecution, not the defense or the jury. They both did their jobs correctly, the prosecution is the ones that completely dropped the ball.

Perfect. Exactly what I told my wife last night. Do I think she did it...without a doubt. Could I have voted guilty to murder 1 on the evidence they had, not a chance.

[dolamite]

If Casey Anthony really did this then she will pay eventually, whether in this life or the next. It all catches up with us eventually.

 

 

Heres my take on the issue. I can understand how there wasn't enough solid evidence to stick a murder conviction on her, that was tough to prove with what the prosecution had available. However, I see no reason what so ever they couldn't have stuck a manslaughter charger or wreckless endangerment or something like that. The way I see it, you are this girls mother, she is your child. You are responsible for taking care of her and you are responsible for her well being. No matter if she killed her with her bare hands or if she accidently drowned in a swimming pool, or whatever it may have been, the little girl died. The little girl died and it was her mothers responsibility to take care of her. Not only did she not live up to those responsibilities, she went a month without even reporting her missing, as well as commiting a multitude of other non remourseful actions. That alone to me signals one thing and that is that Casey Anthony did not look out for the well being of her child and in turn I think should have sealed her fate on a manslaughter charge, wanted endangerment, something. I mean it was her responsibility to take care of the little girl, she did not live up to that responsibility and because of her actions (whether intentional or unintentional) the innocent child is now dead. That in itself should be enough to spend at least 10-15 years on some sort of charge IMO.

[bugatti]

I just don't understand everyone's fascination with these trials, it's sad that the young girl died way too soon. I don't like to continue to remind myself that these type of things happen just about every day. I try to not think about how horrible the world can be I suppose, while it seems like some are flat out entrigued by it.

For some it was some kind of a celebrity trial type thing. To me it was about a young girl receiving justice. I never kept up with the case too closely.

[sportsfan41]

For some it was some kind of a celebrity trial type thing. To me it was about a young girl receiving justice. I never kept up with the case too closely.

 

Ya I guess I just don't understand that aspect of it. All seems kind of shallow and petty to me when you consider what the trial is really for.

[CatsCatsCats]

So let me make sure I follow. Bad guy is the guy who made the state prove their case? No proof that she committed murder? Still should have been guilty anyway?

 

You pretty much nailed it. No way in the world she didn't do it. No way in the world her lawyer doesn't think she did it. I do not know how anyone could defend someone who killed their kid. Maybe the state didn't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt in court, but come on.

[5wide]

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...

 

Speaking in a general sense, I'm just telling you how I feel personally. In something as significant as convicting someone of murder, a smaller amount of doubt would seem reasonable to me vs. convicting someone of a DUI. So, I need to feel convinced. I'm not saying this case wouldn't have done it...I didn't keep up with it enough to say one way or the other.

 

From what I have heard and what my wife has told me, I think she did it and it seems quite possible that there would have been enough for me to vote her guilty.

 

The pattern of behavior and lying after the death speaks volumes to me. That, combined with a few other nuggets, would be hard to ignore, IMO.

[5wide]

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 will if she repents and turns her life over to Christ before she dies. Then, whatever she's done, including murdering her own 2-year old daughter, will be forgiven.

[Getslow]

I agree with what you are saying but at the same time the prosecution failed to prove any of the this. What evidence did they have that she killed Kaylee?

 

On that I would have no idea. Like I said, I haven't followed the case. I just thought it was notable that a juror didn't seem to understand what the prosecution had to prove in order to get a conviction, which I would have to place squarely at the feet of the prosecutor.

[RomanEmpire]

I think the fact that the cause of death was unknown was a key factor in the jury's decision.

[UKMustangFan]

You pretty much nailed it. No way in the world she didn't do it. No way in the world her lawyer doesn't think she did it. I do not know how anyone could defend someone who killed their kid. Maybe the state didn't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt in court, but come on.

 

So you're pretty much saying, "the heck with our justice system", "heck with everyone gets a fair trial"....?

[woodsrider]

On that I would have no idea. Like I said, I haven't followed the case. I just thought it was notable that a juror didn't seem to understand what the prosecution had to prove in order to get a conviction, which I would have to place squarely at the feet of the prosecutor.

I don't think he thought you had to prove motive but when your case is as weak with direct evidence as this one you probably should prove motive. Also, to believe a mother would kill her child I would think most people would need a reason.