Casey Anthony Found Not Guilty On Main Murder Charges!

Bingo!

The burden of the law is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And the prosecution simply couldn't hold it's case to that standard.

There are some things we just don't know -- and never will. We STILL don't know exactly how Caylee died, who put her in the trunk or dumped her in the woods. Did Casey act alone? Did she kill Caylee deliberately? Was it premeditated? Or was it just a horrible accident she tried to cover up?

Even after the investigation and trial, we STILL don't know these things. There's NO hard evidence tying Casey to Caylee's murder.

I, too, think she's guilty. I think she either DELIBERATELY killed Caylee or simply got fed up with the child and tried to keep her quiet for an extended period (putting duct tape on her mouth, etc.) which resulted in her death. To me, covering up an accidental death after causing it is just as bad as deliberately killing her.

But there is NO PROOF. And regardless of my personal feelings, I too, would have to acquit her if I were on that jury. Moral guilt is different than LEGAL guilt. Legally, there's no proof, and certainly no proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Much as I hate it, I think the jury made the right decision. We MUST preserve the integrity of the judicial system, regardless of our personal feelings.

I have to wonder, though, why the jury couldn't convict on aggravated child abuse. Not reporting your child missing for 31 days, making up a nanny that didn't exist... etc. which all ended in the child's death certainly seems to be child abuse. Heck, children can be removed from their parents' home on charges of neglect, nevermind abuse! Parents ARE responsible for their children's well being. It seems to me that she could at least be found guilty of THAT. But then, I don't know the legal definition of aggravated child abuse and if it would apply to this case.

Personally, I think Casey Anthony is a horrible person. She's a slut and a horrible mother. I think Caylee got in the way of her partying and boyfriends. I think she DID kill Caylee. And I hope society metes out some of the justice that the justice system couldn't. (I keep wondering if anyone (other than family or close friends) will ever give her a job.)

But legally, I think they made the right decision. It galls me, but I think they did.

Michelle

Absolutely true but here in New Zealand 1:10 rapes is reported and of those 9:10 do not end in conviction which means theres a 99% chance you can commit rape here and get away with it.

So there have to be limits and precedents that protect the public in both respects.

Some people argue that not a single innocent should be wrongfully imprisoned and this should be upheld at the cost of not punishing criminals.

I on the other hand say that as the system is imperfect, some innocent people must be sacrificed to uphold the greater justice and deter crime. As science and technology improve the justice system less wrongful convictions will occur.

The problem here is we had a murder case decades ago that the media fed on like wolves - Aurthur Allen Thomas - a guy wrongfully convicted of murder.

But so many serious crimes have gone unpunished since its an atrocity.

The sad fact is that if you want social justice - some innocent people will be mistakenly imprisoned. If you cant stomach that then instead of preaching leniency why not put your energy into finding a technical forensic solution ?

Because its easier to mouth off and blame the system is why.

That's what I am wondering - why couldn't a 'class action' suit of 'concerned/outraged citizens' file it? There is such a thing as a 'citizen's arrest', right? Same concept sort of?

Not sure but I don't think you have to be a relative - just to say that she shouldn't be allowed to make money on this situation on top of everything else she did - perhaps a group that would give any money she makes to an abused children's organization or something like that?

... and make no mistake - the lies she told and all the 'evasive action' she took led directly to the fact that there was no evidence due to the length of time it took, etc - this creep is dumb like a fox.

I am also praying the judge will slap her with something like she needs to pay back the government for all the money spent searching for Caylee when she and her parents knew all the time where she was.

(what really gets me is I can just see the little narcissist sociopath GLOATING that she got away with this. 'how cool am I'.)

I really still don't want to believe she killed her on purpose - but she is definitely responsible no matter how you look at it...

Well, you CAN'T really tell what the person was reading even WITH a security camera, unless you have one aligned on her face, another on the screen, and aligned with some fancy software. It would be VERY difficult. But 3 months in advance? MULTIPLE searches? That sounds odd on EITHER side.

As for the chloroform, I guess she COULD say that caylee was in great pan from some mishap or something and that she was trying to put her out of her misery. Still, do we have any proof SHE did it?

Steve

Her mother testified that she, not Casey, did the internet searches, with one of the reasons being that she was worried her dog was poisoned or something like that. This adds some doubt to the mix.

Bleach and other items that might end up in garbage can release chloroform. Decomposing bodies also release chloroform. Remember, the defense said that the baby accidentally drowned in a swimming pool. Technically speaking, a baby can die by accident and then have their body placed in a trunk.

That might not be the most likely scenario, but the legal system isn't based on handing out punishments just going by what most likely occurred.

Some people are comparing Casey's acquittal to O.J.'s, but I don't think it's the same thing.

There was circumstantial AND forensic evidence in O.J.'s case. His case turned from a case of murder to racial discrimination. Thousands of people felt that if he were convicted, it would be because he's black. I think it was a case of the defense muddying the waters and reverse discrimination. ("If you convict me, it's because I'm black. Prove you're not prejudiced by acquitting me.") Reverse discrimination incenses me because the very people crying "Prejudice!" are using prejudice to get their way. Grrrr!

As for the defense muddying the waters, I can't really blame them. Their job is to create reasonable doubt by whatever legal means possible.

His case was a travesty of justice because 1) it became a case of racial discrimination and not the case of murder that it was and 2) there was clear-cut forensic evidence that he was guilty. (I will forever despise that jury for their stupidity.)

While I firmly believe Casey Anthony is guilty, I don't think her case is the same as O.J.'s. There was NO EVIDENCE, and certainly no proof beyond a reasonable doubt. No DNA, no fingerprints, no witnesses, etc. They could never even define the cause of death. They could only speculate. So the jury couldn't convict her of murder. (But I still think she should have been convicted of child abuse or neglect.)

I don't know enough about the investigation to say whether there was any bungling there. Could they have handled it differently so that the prosecution could have presented a stronger case? I dunno. The only thing I can see is that the police didn't follow up when Caylee's body was first found in August. That IS a travesty and I think the police should be held accountable for that. It could have made all the difference in the world.

But then, maybe not.

(Could citizens possibly bring a lawsuit against the police department for that? It seems to me that if they failed to follow up on the report of a body found out in the woods, they were derelict in their duties to protect and ensure the safety of the public. Their failure to follow up could also be construed as obstruction of justice since the body was later found to be a murder victim and the accused was acquitted due to lack of evidence -- evidence that might very well have been forthcoming if they'd responded in a timely manner. I know a woman who was attacked by her estranged husband who successfully sued the local police department for failing to respond in a timely manner to her call for help. The woman was partially and permanently paralyzed after the attack.)

In any case, I think Casey and her family know more than they are telling. I believe Casey is completely responsible for her daughter's death and that she caused it (either solely or in concert with someone else), deliberately or accidentally. I don't believe we'll ever know what really happened to Caylee.

All that this verdict has done is send a message to Casey that you can get away with murder, that you can lie to police and everybody else and it's OK. Yes, I know she was convicted of lying to police, but since she got away with murder, that's incidental.

Forgiveness and mercy are virtues, but I'm not feeling very forgiving right now. I hope she pays the price for killing her daughter, either in this life or the next. Killing your own child is despicable.

Michelle

Vivid has made Casey a porn offer.

Casey was served with papers last evening for a defamation lawsuit by the woman with the same name as Casey's supposed Nanny.

Yeah, that. They can collaborate over the phone I guess.

True, and I agree with you, but this poor lady lost her job and her housing (she has young children, too) due to the outright lies that Casey told about a fake person with her name. That is real defamation that can be proven in court. Networks profiting from the story didn't exactly defame anyone so I don't think they'll be forced to forfeit their money. However, if Casey Anthony has to answer for at least ONE of her unethical and illegal actions, then a small measure of justice might be done.

So true. The court of public opinion gets swayed easily by the media as we only see the "good stuff". It's fun and titillating to discuss guilt and innocence - to a point. When we start arguing that we know better than a jury that sat 6-8 hrs a day for a month hearing every sentence and seeing every reaction - we're wrong.

Sal mentioned the Goldman family (OJ trial) earlier and I think that is such a crazy part of our system. I'll never understand how someone can be found legally not guilty and then be judged guilty when money is at stake.

I think that civil outcome was sad because the result is an entire family (the Goldmans) who have made bitter hatred their life's cause and follow that pied piper to this day. The damage done to OJ is probably far less than what they've done to themselves.

kay

Of course,the opposite of your thought is the justice system DID fail.
Which a lot of people agree with.


But you do have people that follow your line of thought too.The only person that really knows the truth was just convicted of 4 counts of lying to the police.

Please read:
-noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
================================================== =======

No offense, but if you think you could provide 300 pieces of REAL evidence to your theory,then you don't understand the meaning of the word.

Of course,this thread is filled with armchair lawyers and as I said earlier,the only person that knows the truth is a convicted liar,and to me personally,that speaks volumes.

But that was the court of public opinion. In that case you could argue guilt or innocence based on the facts you chose to believe.

Can you imagine a place where juries listened to Judge Jeanette and Nancy Grace and make their decisions based on "public" opinion? I wouldn't want to live there.

I agree civil actions are necessary - just don't agree they should be used to circumvent a jury's decision. Talking heads love to point out that "not guilty" and "innocent" are not the same - but so what? If you are not guilty under the law, it's stupid to me to be able to get a guilty verdict in another court and I think it's a flaw in the system.

On the other hand - I hope the woman Casey named in her lies gets a great judgment...but I'm not sure she can collect anything. That's a different aspect of this case - not a re-trying of the case as happened with OJ.

mojojuju,yes my definition came from dictionary dot com. Does that make it invalid?

As far as evidence not equalling proof,you are repeating what I said earlier, I agree that evidence does not equal proof.

You also said:
"I didn't say I could produce proof, and the fact that you don't seem to make a distinction between evidence and proof indicates to me that you don't understand the meaning of the word evidence."

See above, I very clearly said evidence and proof are not the same.

The one thing I could be wrong on is where I said:
"Originally Posted by KimW
and as I said earlier,the only person that knows the truth is a convicted liar,and to me personally,that speaks volumes."

You said: Maybe so. And you are right,Because there may be more people that know for sure.I stand corrected.




Steve, I believe what you are looking for is motive, opportunity and means.

Yes, but when asked on the stand why she ruled it a homicide, she gave non-medical reasons such as Casey not reporting it and the body being found in the woods. This is completely different than in the OJ trial where the examiner had plenty of medical information about knife wounds to the bodies.

No doubt this woman is a scumbag. Focusing on this case in the name of "justice" all while collecting a fat paycheck from increases in advertising revenue from her covering the trial.

And then on top of that she takes things a step further to claim that Casey shouldn't be allowed to profit from her story--which is exactly what Grace (and others) are doing.

I don't really care if this woman was guilty or not. The courts decide that. I don't. I feel that the court rooms should not allow television camera's present. Furthermore I feel the media should have to clearly LABEL their programs and NEWS or OPINION.

Opinion doesn't belong on a 24 hours NEWS channel and we can thank Rupert Murdoch for the sensationalized media we deal with today. I feel very strongly that half of this country wouldn't feel the way they do about this outcome if they weren't told how to feel by the likes of Grace and the media.

Oh well, someone earlier said, the media is a business. Well so is profiting from you story. Doesn't make it right in either situation.

This has not been legally proven in a court of law. Just because a doctor says there was no dna and it wasn't ever attached to skin doesn't necessarily make it true.

I'm not the type of guy that regularly gets approached by porn producers.

Like I said, I don't really watch the show. But that does seem pretty slimy to me as well. My point was just that the show is known to be an opinion and commentary show, not a "real" news show.

Back when I wrote a blog that actually meant something I remember this post. It happened in my town. To this man.

And while we can bitch and whine about Casey and OJ et al......here's a case of the worst kind of injustice...and this is now the second time this has happened in my backwards ass county in Florida.

This should be required reading for the simple fact injustice comes in all forms.....in this case....Southern Justice. Thank YOU Project Innocence for the great work you do. Amazing how quick we love to convict on DNA evidence...and how slow we are to use it to EXONERATE THE INNOCENT...AND THIS CASE WENT FAR BEYOND DNA.

It was a glorified frame up from day one....and made me literally sick to my stomach after hearing all the details. A word to the wise.....there remains a very small number of people in prisons that are innocent...very small indeed. But even one is to many. Had this been Texas.....George W would have had a needle in this mans arm long ago...that's not political...it's based on cases.

Welcome to sunny Florida.



VEGAS VINCE....Southern Justice Shame.


Perhaps the greatest injustice of all.... is the incarceration of an innocent human being.....locked away for the crimes and sins of another...who "got away."

The State Of Florida....and the "good ol' boys" associated with the James Bain frame up....should be prosecuted and imprisoned themselves for crimes against humanity.

This was a "lynch mob" PROSECUTION FROM THE JUMP STREET....led by crooked, lazy, law enforcement stooges...... who literally hand picked a random suspect based on skin color ..and made it stick...cuz they were too damn lazy to look for the real perpetrator.

How sad. How shameful. And your tax dollars flipped the bill for it.

Vegas Vince applauds the efforts of the Innocence Project...and
can only hope that Polk County Florida's current, head law enforcement officer Grady Judd is as equally disturbed...and outraged....over one of the worst miscarriages of justice in the history of Polk County, Florida.

What's really frightening is the fact that had this been a murder case.....an innocent man would have most likely been executed by the very same state of Florida who took 35 years to figure out they had the "wrong guy."

I found it ironic that after 35 years of wrongful incarceration...the acting judge couldn't even offer up an apology to this man. What a sham. What a shame.

I find strength.... in the strength of Mr. James Bain.

I find peace....in the fact he is at peace with himself.

I have said many times in the past few days...live life one day at a time.

Cuz it can end tomorrow......and not always the way you might expect.

Don't believe me? Ask James Bain......a victim of a corrupt system.....but living proof that you can never imprison the soul of one who refuses to give up his faith.




James Bain...who could have walked out a bitter man like I would have....but who chose to relish in the simple things in life...a home cooked meal with his family.

File this one under I for injustice.....and perhaps....inspiration.


xxx Vegas Vince

Well she is a pathological liar, we know that and when you look into her eyes you see that stone cold sociopath look in there. It is creepy. Now yes, it is absolutely impossible to say how Caylee died. Perhaps it WAS an accident due to being chloroformed too much... but what would explain the duct tape? That is what makes you wonder about it. It is a real mystery that is for sure. So obviously say if it was an accident with overdosing on chloroform, of course she would still lie her way through the whole thing. Disgusting. Again, she is a pathological liar and pathological liars just cannot help themselves.

This is what I'm thinking too. But then, I'm the type of person who thinks that if you cause a child's death through this kind of accident, then you're just as guilty as if you'd deliberately murdered her.

I'm just sick over the fact that she got away with it. But I think the verdict was correct. There's just no proof and certainly no proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So the jury HAD to acquit.

And I'm not entirely sure she acted alone. It's possible someone else contributed to Caylee's death. There's just no way to know.

But a "not guilty" verdict doesn't mean she's innocent. Apparently, a couple of the jurors came forward and said they were sick over the not guilty verdict but couldn't do anything differently. That made me feel a bit better about them.

I think Casey and her family know a lot more than they're telling. And we'll never know the whole story.

I'm a firm believer in our justice system and no fan of vigilante justice. But this is one case where I'd LOVE to see Casey get a good dose of vigilante justice (including torture before death), as much as I disagree with it.

I play "devils advocate" a lot, and sometimes SEEM to be defending people like this, but you will notice a pattern in how I think. HERE, it is that the prosecution should try harder, and be made up of better people ****AND**** the punishment should be WORSE! Besides the criminal system should NOT have the purpose of convicting the guilty! It's purpose should be to DISSUADE people from committing a crime AND to PUNISH those that do. When the former has been the purpose, there has often been anarchy. When the latter has not been the purpose, crime tends to keep going up. Imagine if YOU were in her position! OK, maybe YOU would have reported SOONER.

One idiot caller on a talk show said SHE would call the police in 30 minutes. That is CRAZY! If my mother did that, the police probably would have blocked her number! And MANY times ****SHE**** was late! One of the reasons why I didn't want her free with alzheimers was because she was calling the police, on MY phone, to ask them what the weather was like, and the time, AND she was calling 911 to report that I was dead in some mishap, or locked in a room. It would do more harm than good. I have to tell you, it is SURREAL when a police officer calls you t report that they just received a report that you and your father were reported as being unconscious in a car you would never be in hundreds or thousands of miles away, and they are calling yu because they couldn't find you in the car!

And OK, maybe you wouldn't lie, like she did, but the prosecution would pull every little misstatement out and try to make you look like a BAD liar! I still remember a time when I don't think I had EVER told a lie, and my mother accused me of taking cookies I hadn't. THAT was bad enough. I once called a lawyer that planned t sue me because a guy owed me money. I WISH I recorded the call, so I could show how his strategy changed in contradictory ways based on the facts of the case. Or the police man that almost shot me, and tried to confuse me and call me a liar. He never had a reason for stopping me.

I wouldn't like such people to have the ability to get me thrown in jail. I have thought about this stuff for MONTHS, I certainly didn't just determine this in a few minutes, or even DAYS. Too many here just see this ONE example and figure they have the WHILE thing thought out. And THAT is why I often play "devil's advocate".


Steve

I wish people would stop introducing so much emotion and this witch-hunt mentality into the situation.

The prosecution did not prove their case. Thats its. She is walking FREE because the system did what it was supposed to do. You just can't put someone to death on a hunch, or on circumstantial evidence.

Did she really do it? I don't know. I didn't watch her with my own two damn eyes kill her daughter. If you did then you have every right to say that she got away with it.

The media turned this into a circus. It could even be said that she wouldn't have had the lawyers she had if it wasn't for the media paying so much attention.

Again the system didn't fail here, the prosecution did. Everyone wants to blame everything on the jury and the system. It's the prosecution's fault for not successfully proving their case.

I would NOT be surprised if a juror in almost EVERY case believes the defendant GUILTY! OHIWLTSM!

I don't see how popular demand could trample her rights.

Well, although I am against the death penalty, as I told problogger, it is possible to find someone guilty and sentence them to death on circumstancial evidence. Under the law circumstantial evidence and direct evidence hold equal weight.

Not assuming. I just read what their lawyer said. Although he backtracked on the statement he initially said when asked if the Anthonys believed Casey was not guilty "they don't think that...they do not believe she is innocent." From their reaction after the decision it seems they were not all that happy themselves when she was found not guilty.

I don't like the death penalty for even the worst killers. Actually, this case is a good example why the death penalty should be done away with, since it is a main reason you didn't want to see her found guilty it appears. It probably was on the minds of the jurors also. From what I understand about the charge is she wouldn't necessarily be sentenced to death though.

Right, but we both have our opinions. You said you think she didn't and I think she probably did. We both base our opinions on what we read and saw about the case.

"Tot" is another word for a young child, and it's just some commentators attempt at coming up with a catchy name for her.

If she DID do it, then I also have a problem with the use of the word "Mom".

~Michael

Wait... What are the other 86? lol