NBC: Jury has reached a verdict in Casey Anthony trial [NOT GUILTY]

[s0crates]

What's the flip side? She didn't do it? Does anyone arguing "Well, the law did it's job because reasonable doubt..." really think that she didn't do it?

I simply cannot imagine any person looking at the evidence and concluding she is not guilty.

I think people are confused as to the meaning of the word "reasonable" in "reasonable doubt." Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean beyond any doubt whatsoever. There will always be some doubt unless you saw the crime with your own eyes, but in this case whatever doubt there may be is decidedly unreasonable.

The legal system we have in this countrry is fantastic, unfortunately the education system is not, and many jurors are just stupid.

---------- Post added July-5th-2011 at 06:27 PM ----------

I think it's equally likely that 1) Caleey died in an accident because the mom was careless 2) is that she was killed by her mom accidentally 3) Casey murdered her

First off, I disagree. If Caylee's death was an accident, then Casey's behavior afterwards is completely inexplicable. Casey's deception only makes sense if she was guilty. Like the prosecution said, if it was an accident, why would you act like it was a murder? Why lie? Why dispose of the body in the woods? The accident theory defies reason.

Second off, even if I did agree that it could just as likely have been an accident as it could have been murder, then I would still think that is enough to return a guilty verdict on the charge child endangerment, which the jury failed to do.

[Darth Tater]

That is your opinion and you are entitled but the majority of this Nation does not agree.

You can not tell me that this woman was not legally guilty of the most basic child abuse/neglect charges. You can say that they didn't prove murder but there is no way you can say that she was not guilty of neglect at a minimum.

He did not state opinion but FACT.

[VetMinimum+Incentives]

Here's the video of the decision along with a laughably predictable diatribe by Nancy Grace (perhaps the most biased talking head on tv)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulO8rl7z5xQ

[War Paint]

It's possible that Casey didn't mean to kill Caylee, but the accident was the result of a terrible act; thus, the reason for the lies and disposal of the body. For example, maybe Casey used chloroform on Caylee to put her to sleep early so she could go out and party all night. She screwed up and killed Caylee in the process. If that is what happened, she should've had at least a man-slaughter charge.

[heyholetsgogrant]

I simply cannot imagine any person looking at the evidence and concluding she is not guilty.

I think people are confused as to the meaning of the word "reasonable" in "reasonable doubt." Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean beyond any doubt whatsoever. There will always be some doubt unless you saw the crime with your own eyes, but in this case whatever doubt there may be is decidedly unreasonable.

The legal system we have in this countrry is fantastic, unfortunately the education system is not, and many jurors are just stupid.

---------- Post added July-5th-2011 at 06:27 PM ----------

First off, I disagree. If Caylee's death was an accident, then Casey's behavior afterwards is completely inexplicable. Casey's deception only makes sense if she was guilty. Like the prosecution said, if it was an accident, why would you act like it was a murder? Why lie? Why dispose of the body in the woods? The accident theory defies reason.

Second off, even if I did agree that it could just as likely have been an accident as it could have been murder, then I would still think that is enough to return a guilty verdict on the charge child endangerment, which the jury failed to do.

Well put, this verdict defies reason. Seems like to me this jury started getting cold feet during closing when the defense attorney biaz poked holes in the testimony of the witnesses. Even with those holes, I still think there was enough for second degree murder and at least a guilty verdict child endangerment (drowning and partying) . This case reminds me a lot of Scott Peterson's (all circumstantial), except there was more evidence on Casey, especially after she lied through her teeth on tape.

[Prosperity]

First off, I disagree. If Caylee's death was an accident, then Casey's behavior afterwards is completely inexplicable. Casey's deception only makes sense if she was guilty. Like the prosecution said, if it was an accident, why would you act like it was a murder? Why lie? Why dispose of the body in the woods? The accident theory defies reason.

Second off, even if I did agree that it could just as likely have been an accident as it could have been murder, then I would still think that is enough to return a guilty verdict on the charge child endangerment, which the jury failed to do.

I think there was enough evidence that it could have reasonably gone either way, but I would have probably voted not guilty...

1) behavior afterwards is good for context, but by itself it doesn't do much for me, I've seen people react in ways that I surprise me ALL the time.

2) prosecutors can charge people for death of children due to negligence of parents (and have been increasingly doing that), that may be a motive to lie/hide body, but I can think of hundreds possible motives to lie, ranging from embarrassment to fear to attention whoring... though you are right that it does seem incriminating of SOMETHING... just not sure what. Either way, lying is too common of a human behavior for it to be that decisive as far as murder. I mean, she lied about working at universal studios too, I don't think that lie had anything to do w/ covering up murder.

3) they didn't charge her w/ child endangerment but instead w/ aggravated child abuse... that crime requires the abusive act to be intentionally abusive... that means accidental death/harm wouldn't cut it... I don't think they charged her w/ negligent child abuse (which would be a much stronger case, but would still be dubious) I could be wrong, I'm just going by this website: http://www.miami-criminal-lawyer.net/html/child-abuse.html

I think they may have not charged her w/ negligent child abuse because they wanted to convict her of murder under the "felony murder" theory. Felony Murder basically means that as long as some felonious act causes a death, then you can be charged w/ murder. So if you are robbing a bank and in the process of robbing the bank a security guard dies of a heart attack, you could be convicted of 1st degree murder under the felony murder theory. Felony murder is a legal theory that strongly favors the prosecution. They don't have to prove intent, all they have to prove is that there was a felony and as a result somebody died. Aggravated child abuse is a felony... I think, but negligent abuse may not be. The prosecution may have taken a gamble and gone for the felony so that they could go for the felony murder theory...

the prosecution couldn't prove that Casey intentionally hurt her daughter, and that heavily undercut their charges and pretty much ruled out the felonies they could charge her with... without those felonies the felony murder theory fails.

[skinfan133]

I simply cannot imagine any person looking at the evidence and concluding she is not guilty.

I think people are confused as to the meaning of the word "reasonable" in "reasonable doubt." Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean beyond any doubt whatsoever. There will always be some doubt unless you saw the crime with your own eyes, but in this case whatever doubt there may be is decidedly unreasonable.

The legal system we have in this countrry is fantastic, unfortunately the education system is not, and many jurors are just stupid.

---------- Post added July-5th-2011 at 06:27 PM ----------

First off, I disagree. If Caylee's death was an accident, then Casey's behavior afterwards is completely inexplicable. Casey's deception only makes sense if she was guilty. Like the prosecution said, if it was an accident, why would you act like it was a murder? Why lie? Why dispose of the body in the woods? The accident theory defies reason.

Second off, even if I did agree that it could just as likely have been an accident as it could have been murder, then I would still think that is enough to return a guilty verdict on the charge child endangerment, which the jury failed to do.

You're using the wrong words here. It was the prosecutions job to convince the jury she was guilty, not the jury's duty to believe the prosecution. The jury didn't "fail" to do anything. The prosecution is the one that failed if she even did something, which is doubtful thanks to the dip**** prosecution. I don't think you understand how the evidence was stacking up. There was no physical evidence. There was poor circumstantial evidence that she specifically committed the acts she was accused of.

Thank GOD we live in a country in which the gut feelings of the mob don't determine a man's fate.

edit:

Here's the video of the decision along with a laughably predictable diatribe by Nancy Grace (perhaps the most biased talking head on tv)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulO8rl7z5xQ

Yuck, I ****ing hate Nancy Grace. Enough of the goddam "tot" moniker, please. I'm not ****ing retarded.

[McD5]

It sounds like a few people here may have actually been in the stupidest jury in the history of this country.

Fess up. We won't be too harsh.

[CrabR]

more evidence in this case than Scott Peterson case

To find her innocent then you have to buy George Anthony put Caylee in trash bags and cast her in the woods

I never thought premeditated but at the very minimum it had to be aggravated manslaughter of a child [The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence]

[killerbee99]

What evidence.....seriously that shows that Casey killed her daughter come on guys......look at this case and the cold hard facts...not what you feel....can't determine cause of death, time of death, ..weak case, I wouldn't have given a guilty verdict if I was a juror either....McD5 ...you are full of it

Also the prosecutors saying Casey's car trunk smelled of death....WTF!!!...lol...total fail...shold have gone for manslaughter and maybe they get a guilty verdict....not aggravated becuase not enough evidence to tie her to it...

---------- Post added July-5th-2011 at 08:36 PM ----------

Also in the Scott Peterson's case ..there was blood spots from his wife in the trunk...that's what sunk him.

---------- Post added July-5th-2011 at 08:37 PM ----------

more evidence in this case than Scott Peterson case

To find her innocent then you have to buy George Anthony put Caylee in trash bags and cast her in the woods

I never thought premeditated but at the very minimum it had to be aggravated manslaughter of a child [The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence]

aggravated mansluaghter might have been a push as well....you can't prove how the child died

[skinfan133]

It sounds like a few people here may have actually been in the stupidest jury in the history of this country.

Fess up. We won't be too harsh.

Oh I think she did it, but unlike you apparently, I'm honest enough to admit that I don't know. You pronounced her guilty even before this went to trial.

Fess up. We won't be too harsh :old laugh smiley:

[ixcuincle]

Lol McD5 trolling

[Tulane Skins Fan]

In your opinion. In my opinion, this should be about Justice and not legal premise. The only one who really got screwed today was that little girl.

You're presuming she's guilty though. Assume for a second she actually was innocent (just assume for a second). Her daughter would not want her mother in jail for a crime she didn't commit.

[s0crates]

I think there was enough evidence that it could have reasonably gone either way, but I would have probably voted not guilty.

1) behavior afterwards is good for context, but by itself it doesn't do much for me, I've seen people react in ways that I surprise me ALL the time.

2) prosecutors can charge people for death of children due to negligence of parents (and have been increasingly doing that), that may be a motive to lie/hide body, but I can think of hundreds probably... though you are right that it does seem incriminating of SOMETHING... just not sure what. Either way, lying is too common of a human behavior for it to be that decisive as far as murder. I mean, she lied about working at universal studios too, I don't think that lie had anything to do w/ covering up murder.

3) they didn't charge her w/ child endangerment but instead w/ aggravated child abuse... that crime requires the act to be intentional... that means accidental death wouldn't cut it... I don't think they charged her w/ negligent child abuse (which would be a much stronger case, but would still be dubious) I could be wrong, I'm just going by this website: http://www.miami-criminal-lawyer.net...ild-abuse.html

I think they may have not charged her w/ negligent child abuse because they wanted to convict her of murder under the "felony murder" theory. Felony Murder basically means that as long as some felonious act causes a death, then you can be charged w/ murder. So if you are robbing a bank and in the process of robbing the bank a security guard dies of a heart attack, you could be convicted of 1st degree murder under the felony murder theory. Felony murder is a legal theory that is strongly advantageous to the prosecution. They don't have to prove intent, all they have to prove is that there was a felony and as a result somebody died. Aggravated child abuse is a felony... I think, but negligent abuse may not be. The prosecution may have taken a gamble and gone for the felony so that they could go for the felony murder theory...

the prosecution couldn't prove that Casey intentionally hurt her daughter, and that heavily undercut their charges and pretty much ruled out the felonies they could charge her with... without those felonies the felony murder theory fails.

Nice post. I appreciate the reasoned response. I see and respect your position much more now.

I would agree with you that there were reasons to go either way on this case. There certainly are reasons for the not-guilty verdict, I just think most of them are flimsy reasons.

One reason for a not-guilty verdict is the evidence pointing to Casey's father. I will readily admit suspicion of Casey's father myself, I just do not think his possible guilt really absolves Casey of her guilt. Perhaps they are both somehow complicit.

Another possible reason for the not-guilty verdict is the lack of a motive. I too wonder what possibly could have been Casey's motive. It is admittedly hard for me to fathom any motive for killing a 2 year old child. Maybe I am not good at fathoming though, because I also find the narcissistic behavior of that child's mother just as unfathomable. Casey showed concern for Casey, she did not show concern for Caylee. To me, in a situation where whatever motive there was could not have been a good one, the selfishness of the mother is enough of a motive, in fact it is the only motive I can imagine. The only person who stood to benefit from this crime was Casey. It is too bad the state did not present the fact that she wanted to give the baby up for adoption, and that it was her mother who insisted she keep her.

Another possible reason for the not-guilty verdict is the lack of "hard" evidence like DNA. This one is undeniable. Although I would point out that there is no rule that says you need DNA evidence to convict.

Another possible reason for the not-gulty verdict is that the prosecution did not establish the cause of death. I must also admit that the cause of death presented by the prosecution is dubious. The forensic evidence was weak. Nonetheless, I just cannot get past the circumstantial evidence. Casey's daughter was missing for 31 days before she told anybody. During that 31 days she was engaged in a lot of self-indulgent behavior. When she finally revealed that her daughter was "missing," she purposely and repeatedly obstructed the search. As you said, "it does seem incriminating of SOMETHING." I think it is a shame that the state failed to gather better evidence to clear up exactly what that something was.

I am also "not sure" what exactly Casey is guilty of, although I think it is probably murder, and at the very least manslaughter. It seems obvious that she caused the death of her daughter somehow. She was the last person to see Caylee alive, her car smelled like death (unlike others, I see no good reason to doubt this testimony), and the body was found just blocks from her house. Caylee died well before she was even reported as missing, and Casey did everything she could to try and hide it.

------

I see that I was wrong on the child abuse charge. The charge was indeed aggravated and not negligent abuse, as you said. Negligent child abuse would have been a no-brainer though, and not "somewhat dubious," as you say. I suppose that would mean she could still face such lesser charges though, since it would not be a double-jeopardy situation, or would it still be because it is a related charge?

[Gridiron Grunt]

As it has been stated here before, the system worked. Everything we knew about the case was from the media, who convicted Casey Anthony LONG before the case went to trial. The jury actually had access to real evidence and facts about the case. Being a father I'm horrified at seeing a little girl lose her life buy jailing an innocent person as retribution is just as horrifying.

[Dan T.]

It was the prosecutions job to convince the jury she was guilty, not the jury's duty to believe the prosecution. The jury didn't "fail" to do anything. The prosecution is the one that failed if she even did something, which is doubtful thanks to the dip**** prosecution. I don't think you understand how the evidence was stacking up. There was no physical evidence. There was poor circumstantial evidence that she specifically committed the acts she was accused of.

Do you not see the contradiction in your paragraph? You skewer the prosecution, and in the same breath you note that there was no physical evidence and poor circumstantial evidence. I didn't watch the trial, but I'm not sure what you expect the prosecutors to do with little physical evidence and weak circumstantial evidence, other than to secretly hypnotize the jury.

---------- Post added July-5th-2011 at 09:10 PM ----------

.

.

.

.

.

As it has been stated here before, the system worked. Everything we knew about the case was from the media, who convicted Casey Anthony LONG before the case went to trial. The jury actually had access to real evidence and facts about the case. Being a father I'm horrified at seeing a little girl lose her life buy jailing an innocent person as retribution is just as horrifying.

:secret: She's not innocent. There is no way she is innocent. "Not guilty" is NOT the same thing as "innocent."

As to access to facts and evidence, you have that exactly backwards. We get to see way more that the jury does regarding a criminal case.

[killerbee99]

Do you not see the contradiction in your paragraph? You skewer the prosecution, and in the same breath you note that there was no physical evidence and poor circumstantial evidence. I didn't watch the trial, but I'm not sure what you expect the prosecutors to do with little physical evidence and weak circumstantial evidence, other than to secretly hypnotize the jury.

---------- Post added July-5th-2011 at 09:10 PM ----------

.

.

.

.

.

:secret: She's not innocent. There is no way she is innocent. "Not guilty" is NOT the same thing as "innocent."

As to access to facts and evidence, you have that exactly backwards. We get to see way more that the jury does regarding a criminal case.

Like what?

[Gridiron Grunt]

Dan T.

What are you basing your "There is no way she is innocent" on? And are you really trying to convince me here that the general public "gets to see more that the jury does regarding a criminal case"? Now that's funny.

[killerbee99]

I was thinking that too...Dan T might be high or something

[McD5]

:secret: She's not innocent. There is no way she is innocent. "Not guilty" is NOT the same thing as "innocent."

As to access to facts and evidence, you have that exactly backwards. We get to see way more that the jury does regarding a criminal case.

What are you basing your "There is no way she is innocent" on? And are you really trying to convince me here that the general public "gets to see more that the jury does regarding a criminal case"? Now that's funny.

Of course we get to see much more than the jury. Did anyone even watch this case?

How many times was the jury asked to leave, then the rest of the country got to see many things the jury didn't? Whether if was the judge going off on the lawyers, or the lawyers arguing with one another. Or the judge making rulings like they couldn't continue with the bs about George sexually abusing Casey.

The jury sees none of that.

[Popeman38]

When it comes to this case, Dan T is absolutely correct. How many hours of legal meandering did we get to watch while the jury was out of the courtroom? How many frye hearings were held regarding the admissibility of scientific evidence? We probably had access to 24 hours of the defense and prosecution than the jury did. The only evidence not presented on TV were the pics of the skeleton. But we heard the prosecutors, defense and expert witnesses graphically describe the photos.

[Gridiron Grunt]

What are you basing your "There is no way she is innocent" on? And are you really trying to convince me here that the general public "gets to see more that the jury does regarding a criminal case"? Now that's funny.

Of course we get to see much more than the jury. Did anyone even watch this case?

How many times was the jury asked to leave, then the rest of the country got to see many things the jury didn't. Whether if was the judge going off on the lawyers, or tthe lawyers arguing with one another. Or the judge making rulings like they couldn't continue with the bs about George sexually abusing Casey.

The jury sees none of that.

And non of that was relevant to the jury in regards to this case when making a verdict.

[Dan T.]

Dan T.

What are you basing your "There is no way she is innocent" on? And are you really trying to convince me here that the general public "gets to see more that the jury does regarding a criminal case"? Now that's funny.

I was thinking that too...Dan T might be high or something

You don't know much about criminal trial procedure, do you?

--

I don't necessarily fault the jury for the verdict. But every bit of common sense tells you that Casey Anthony is responsible for the death of her daughter. There is simply no other reasonable explanation.

[killerbee99]

You don't know much about criminal trial procedure, do you?

--

I don't necessarily fault the jury for the verdict. But every bit of common sense tells you that Casey Anthony is responsible for the death of her daughter. There is simply no other reasonable explanation.

Thank God the Law determines that to convict anyone on a charge there must be more than reasonable doubt...not some guy thinking his "common sense" gives a guilty verdict. Don't like it, change the law to convictions on "common sense".....like seriously

[Stadium-Armory]

The court just released evidence that nobody outside of the court has seen yet, like the duct tape and the garbage bag - and the DNA evidence (or lack there of) that accompanied both.