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

[skinfan133]

Somebody killed Cayley Anthony. Who do you suggest did it?

Well considering the outcome of the trial, it would appear that Caylee drowned in the backyard pool, all concerned freaked out and decided trying to cover it up instead of report it would expose them to the least amount of trouble. When people started questioning where the kid was, that's when the lies started happening. Thus we get the guilty verdict on the counts of lying to the police. Lies tend to spiral out of control when you need to lump one on top of the other in order to keep the flimsy house of cards from falling. Since this narrative is plausible and there is no evidence proving otherwise, there is no way a conviction can be made and we still call the system "just"

I think the child was murdered, but I have no proof of that. There's no way to determine cause of death now thanks to police misconduct in the investigation. Therefore no one but God and those involved knows the truth. Unless you call God to the stand, you aren't proving anything. You and I are speculating that she was murdered. There is no proof to that effect.

- - -

This is the mob versus the civilized, people, y'all need to decide which camp you really want to belong to.

edit: The other thing too is that you are all analyzing this from the armchair. Y'all probably have no idea what it's like to be a part of a panel of people who hold a human being's fate in your hands. It really changes the way you approach the whole thing and how you analyze everything.

[Beans]

But, the prosecution couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did do it. t?

This is only partially correct. the prosecution couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt in the collective mind of 12 specific persons. Everyone saying that the prosecution didn't have enough are just voicing an opinion. Circumstantial is not enough in the "CSI smoking gun forensics" era. I am sure many others have been convicted on much less.

[Dan T.]

Well considering the outcome of the trial, it would appear that Caylee drowned in the backyard pool, all concerned freaked out and decided trying to cover it up instead of report it would expose them to the least amount of trouble. When people started questioning where the kid was, that's when the lies started happening. Thus we get the guilty verdict on the counts of lying to the police. Lies tend to spiral out of control when you need to lump one on top of the other in order to keep the flimsy house of cards from falling. Since this narrative is plausible and there is no evidence proving otherwise, there is no way a conviction can be made and we still call the system "just"

Anybody who really believes that bull**** is so sadly out of touch with any sense of reality that it is frightening.

[skinfan133]

This is only partially correct. the prosecution couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt in the collective mind of 12 specific persons. Everyone saying that the prosecution didn't have enough are just voicing an opinion. Circumstantial is not enough in the "CSI smoking gun forensics" era. I am sure many others have been convicted on much less.

forensics science is anything but absolute proof or exact. If you look at the actual track record and the real science behind a lot of forensics, it's often only adequate as part of a bigger picture and sometimes is actually wrong. The problem also is that forensics investigators are biased, they are hardly scientists. I've been told so myself by a crime scene forensics specialist: a more accurate term would be crime scene investigator who uses advanced technology. The problem is, the public vastly overestimates modern forensics.

---------- Post added July-5th-2011 at 10:39 PM ----------

Anybody who really believes that bull**** is so sadly out of touch with any sense of reality that it is frightening.

I don't believe it, but I can't prove it didn't happen, and neither can anyone else. The prosecution could not prove it was bull**** and were not able to prove their narrative as well.

I would appreciate it if you would try and more accurately quote me in the future, I do not appreciate being made out as an ass, thanks.

[McD5]

Since this narrative is plausible and there is no evidence proving otherwise, there is no way a conviction can be made and we still call the system "just"

There is a ton of evidence to prove otherwise:

1. For anyone to believe the pool bs, she drowned early in the morning. She wasn't wearing a bathing suit, nor was she wearing pajamas. In fact, she was wearing an outfit that wasn't even in the Anthony house. The outfit she was wearing was kept in Casey's car.

2. A floating baby? George, a former cop, would have called the cops immediately. Or she would have called the cops.

3. Since when is duct tape applied over the mouth and nose for swimming purposes?

Seriously, there cannot be a single person on earth stupid enough to believe this had anything to do with a pool. Maybe the OJ jurors. That's it.

[sportjunkie07]

This is the mob versus the civilized, people, y'all need to decide which camp you really want to belong to.

because most people feel differently than you, we are all labeled uncivilized? oh ok. gotcha.

[Dan T.]

I don't believe it, but I can't prove it didn't happen, and neither can anyone else. The prosecution could not prove it was bull**** and were not able to prove their narrative as well.

I would appreciate it if you would try and more accurately quote me in the future, I do not appreciate being made out as an ass, thanks.

I carefully worded my response to say that "Anybody who believes that..." I wasn't directing any comment toward you specifically.

Anybody who heard the jailhouse recordings of Anthony's distraught parents begging her to please help find their missing granddaughter would KNOW that they had nothing to do with her disappearance. The anguish was too real.

And for the 455th time, I'm not talking about the courtroom, I'm talking about what really happened.

[s0crates]

She did it, but they couldn't prove it.

This sounds right to me, but it bothers me.

There is something very odd here. We can say with such certainty that "she did it" (and I certainly agree that we can), and yet cannot say that it is proven (which is apparently the case today). If we can confidently say she is guilty, should we not concede that it is proven? This gets to the whole question of what "reasonable doubt" actually means. Does it mean beyond all doubt? Beyond a shadow of a doubt? Beyond any doubt reasonable people could possibly have? In short, does "beyond a reasonable doubt" mean beyond any doubt whatsoever?

It cannot possibly mean beyond any doubt whatsoever, although people seem to believe it does sometimes. There is always a reason to doubt. Famous philosophers have been skeptical, and with good reasons, about such basic things as the law of cause and effect. We cannot even be certain of the evidence of our own senses (and there are a lot of good reasons to doubt what you see too). I do not even know what a shadow of a doubt is. Can you imagine the trials? "Is it possible, sir, that you were dreaming when you claim to have witnessed the crime?"

So "beyond a reasonable doubt" must mean something less than beyond all doubt. There is widespread disagreement on what it means beyond that, but I think that much should be obvious.

It seems to me that if we, as reasonable people, have no problem concluding she did it, then it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If common sense says someone is guilty, then that should be enough.

I am a strong believer in the Bill of Rights. I do not mean to argue against due process, or the jury system, or to say anything to weaken them. I simply think that the jury got this one wrong. This case was proven.

[Stadium-Armory]

I don't think we can confidently say she did it. Sure, behind our computers or watching on TV we can. But when you own the responsibility of deciding the case, it might not be so easy.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

So basically, it seems to me, that all there is, is theories and the jury felt they couldn't convict someone just on theories.

Btw, Nancy Grace is an in unAmerican **** for decrying our double jeopardy laws.

[Switchgear]

I would appreciate it if you would try and more accurately quote me in the future, I do not appreciate being made out as an ass, thanks.

He did quote you accurately. He wasn't the one making you look like an ass. You didn't need any help there.

[s0crates]

I don't think we can confidently say she did it. Sure, behind our computers or watching on TV we can. But when you own the responsibility of deciding the case, it might not be so easy.

I agree with this. If I had to decide a case where the defendant could get the death penalty, I would be more hesitant to declare her guilty.

I think there might be an implicit argument against the death penalty in there somewhere, but I do not want to go there.

[skinfan133]

I carefully worded my response to say that "Anybody who believes that..." I wasn't directing any comment toward you specifically.

Anybody who heard the jailhouse recordings of Anthony's distraught parents begging her to please help find their missing granddaughter would KNOW that they had nothing to do with her disappearance. The anguish was too real.

And for the 455th time, I'm not talking about the courtroom, I'm talking about what really happened.

That's fine, I was more talking about the part where you left off how I think the defense's narrative is probably false. The way you quoted me made it look like I agreed with the narrative.

He did quote you accurately. He wasn't the one making you look like an ass. You didn't need any help there.

Yeah, ok. That's why the part where I said the theory was probably wrong was left out.

[CrabR]

I don't think the majority of the nation could say they watched the entire trial, and if they did, could say there was enough evidence to convict her of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

I did. and to me it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I thought the prosecution laid out a good case. Most all defense witness ended up backing the prosecution

Seems most people want to convict :beyond all doubt" i. "It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented."

key word REASON

[skinfan133]

So basically, it seems to me, that all there is, is theories and the jury felt they couldn't convict someone just on theories.

Btw, Nancy Grace is an in unAmerican **** for decrying our double jeopardy laws.

Agreed on all counts. And did she seriously make the argument that double jeopardy is wrong? What the flying **** is her problem? People like Nancy Grace are a menace to society and to the Republic.

Keep in mind everyone that the State wanted to end Ms. Anthony's life. You all are making a judgment (that you probably had, whether you admit it or not, prior to the trial even beginning) based on your slim snapshot. And you're all criticizing the jury? When you've probably never been a juror in a criminal case before yourself and have no idea what its like to hold a human's fate in your hands based on your logic and judgment?

edit: The prosecution proved Anthony is a ****ty human being, but they certainly did not prove she is a murderer.

[RichmondRedskin88]

She won't be seen in public for years, if i were her, I would dye my hair blonde and move to europe.

They have tv in Europe. Trust me most of the world will find out soon enough. The only place she might be safe with at this point is Al Qaeda. Think the mob would even kill her.

[ixcuincle]

This case really incites passion and anger in a lot of people online. Holy crap.

People are just getting trolled like crazy off "offensive" facebook sites and leaving these long rants demanding the person who made the site be "arrested", and other outrageous comments. This was truly an overblown media-fueled trial, but what we'll remember the most were the angry housewives on twitter and Facebook who vociferously insisted she was guilty.

Again, I thought she was guilty, but I never took the internet that seriously to rant vehemently about her guilt.

[ABQCOWBOY]

With all due respect, I don't think you've thought it through all the way. Of course everyone wants justice - which to me means that the guilty are punished and the innocent go free. But how do we get there in a way that protects persons from the state? This, what you saw in that court room today, is the best we've come up with so far. If you can think of something better, I'd love to hear it.

---------- Post added July-5th-2011 at 05:55 PM ----------

[/color]

.

You don't think I've thought it through? I think you don't understand. This women is guilty. The fact that she was not found guilty is what it is but she was at least negligent and abusive. I would also say that this, by far, is not the best we've come up with. My mind will not be changed on this.

[Prosperity]

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?

I think you're probably right about the efficacy of a charge like that, and I don't think it would constitute double jeopardy because it's a different crime (and presumably a less serious one)

I don't think the reverse is true (if she was acquitted of negligent abuse then she couldn't be retried on intentional abuse)

[gimpy007]

It's been a long time since I have posted on ES... So here I go giving it my best shot.

While I was not in the court room, I like a lot of Americans have been following this case. I was telling my wife the other day not to be shocked if Casey is found innocent based on the fact that there is no evidence of murder or history of child abuse. All I know is from what I have seen and heard, is that I personally feel she knows what happened. Could that be murder..? Sure can... But it could also mean an accidental death.

The bottom line is that the prosecutors were unable to show any evidence of murder and unfortunately Caylee Anthony's life was cut short.

[Destino]

I did. and to me it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I thought the prosecution laid out a good case. Most all defense witness ended up backing the prosecution

Seems most people want to convict :beyond all doubt" i. "It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented."

key word REASON

I disagree there was plenty of reasonable doubt. I don't see how there could be anything but doubt when you stop filling in gaps with assumptions.

If you want to charge premeditated murder: A) prove a person was murdered. prove which individual murdered them. C) prove they planned to murder them.

A) They had no cause of death or physical evidence of any kind that proved a murder took place at all. People die via negligence or accidents that look like negligence all the time. A body in the woods proves the girl died and that it wasn't natural causes. Without a cause of death you can't definitively say "murder". You have to assume it must have been murder based on your gut.... this is unreasonable and leaves more doubt than anything else.

They had almost no real evidence that Casey Anthony murdered the child (even if you assume the child was murdered). They had a smelly trunk but no physical evidence. They went with character assassination here to make up for the fact that they had no actual evidence.

C) Other than someone googling Chloroform what was the evidence of premeditation? Her mom claimed she had googled that term.

The case was weak and I don't blame the prosecution. You have the evidence you have and sometimes you have to run with it. I think they should have aimed lower though because the evidence they had was severely lacking. Something bad happened that the state couldn't prove. That's a shame. Having said that a jury that feels that way should come back with not guilty every single time. SOME FACTS often lead to poor conclusions. Either you have the evidence or you don't. In this case it wasn't there.

[Kosher Ham]

It's sad that people do not understand reasonable doubt.

Remove your emotions and look at the presented facts.

In this case there was no chance that she would be found guilty of those alleged crimes.

The facts presented do not support it.

[Westbrook36]

I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I was a little excited because this now confirms that we will either see her naked in Playboy or in porn within 36 months.

[ixcuincle]

She's not that hot.

[CrabR]

I disagree there was plenty of reasonable doubt. I don't see how there could be anything but doubt when you stop filling in gaps with assumptions.

If you want to charge premeditated murder: A) prove a person was murdered. prove which individual murdered them.

I never said premeditated. Aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter.Your idea of reasonable differs from mine. Its proof having been met if there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise.

no plausible reason to put duct tape on a child and throw the body away in a trash bag after leaving it to decompose in the trunk or your car. If that is not true then she would have called the police and she never did, even when her mother did you can hear her in the background telling her mother she did not want to talk to them.To many people smelled death in the trunk of the car. I smelled decomp human twice and it is a smell you never forget. It does not smell like trash. Then there are the 31 days

Scot Peterson and the WM3 had far far less evidence yet they were convicted. I would not be opposed to a professional jury system in some form. Far to many guilty walk and to many innocent go to jail due to lack of knowledge of the legal aspects or due to jurors dislike of the attorneys and or client. They let reason go out the window

Only reason I watched the entire trial is because of my knee so I was laid up for 2 months, other wise i would not have given it a second thought