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

[10fttall]

But what COULD the State have produced that would have eliminated doubt?

That's easy. There are dozens of things they could have presented that, while still circumstantial, would have eliminated doubt. That is not to say that these things exist, but if they don't then that just shows the prosecution was stuck with an unprovable case.

They could have put up witnesses to state that Casey talked about and longed to be rid of her daughter, perhaps a guy she wanted who hated children. But no, everything we see shows that she dealt lovingly with Caylee and had a readily available babysitter whenever she wanted.

They could have shown that there were computer searches for untracable poisons or ways to hide a body, or how much OTC medicine would kill a 2 year old. They could have produced IM conversations or anonymous message board posts that she wanted to get rid of her daughter or was looking for someone to help her get rid of her daughter.

They could have produced witnesses, neighbors or best friends that saw her EVER be mean to her daughter.

They could have had Casey's fingerprints, or anything else on the bags and tape to show that she was involved rather than like 4 other people (that we know of) that could have easily accessed that tape.

They could have produced receipts, records, testimony, or leftovers that showed Casey ever actually bought components or made chloroform. I mean, she didn't get rid of the duct tape, right? So why not find even a hint that chloroform was actually present?

And there are many more circumstantial evidences that COULD be present and tie things together. The problem was that the evidence for Casey to be the culprit of intentional murder or neglect was merely suggestive, not even circumstantially solid. There are cases where circumstantial evidence is enough to preclude reasonable doubt, but not this one.

[Popeman38]

Again, by itself, not enough.

But all of those things together should be.

And if they arent, please tell me what would have been enough.

Casey killed her kid. There is no doubt in my mind about that. So I want to know what the state SHOULD have done to make the Jury convict,

You can not say that Casey killed her kid. You can say YOU THINK Casey killed her kid. She was tried, and found not guilty for 1st degree murder (premeditated or felony; to include all lesser charges such as 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder, manslaughter...).

[ABQCOWBOY]

Prosecutors like what they can prove. The defense is allowed to provide an alternative theory of the case (within some limits). This is explained to the jury and most juries will allow some speculation from that side. Juries are a lot smarter than people give them credit for.

But if the prosecutor has a hole in their case' date=' the jury will typically annihilate them if they draw attention to it. If the prosecution has no idea what happened during a missing thirty day time period, it would be a disaster to start offering up random theories.

I hate referencing it, because I think it's such a unique example that it has no relationship to any other case, but one of the problems in the OJ trial was how the evidence was presented. The prosecution kept going down these cul-de-sacs and it eventually became clear that it didn't really know how to tie everything together. If you can't tie evidence to your theory of the case, you are better off not presenting it. Because all you will do is create confusion.[/quote']

I understand this but, we all know that Caylee was last seen with her mother and then, was never seen again, according to testimony. If it was accidental, then what happened between the time the child was seen for the last time in Casey Anthony's custody, when the child died and when Casey Anthony was caught?

[aREDSKIN]

No, you think/assume/presume a mother killed her 2 year old daughter and got away with it. She was found not guilty by a jury of her peers, therefore she is not guilty. You can not say that Casey Anthony killed her daughter with any conviction and know you are right. You can have a gut/emotional feeling that she did, BUT YOU CAN NOT PROVE IT. Prosecutors with 20+ and 30+ years experience couldn't prove it, you certainly can't.

And IMO you cannot with any degree of confidence, conviction & certainty claim that she did not kill her. Yes, in the eyes of the LEGAL SYSTEM she is not guilty but how many examples do we need of this legal system being totally and absolutely wrong?? IMO a killer went free. That's my opinion given all the info I have surrounding this case.

[Kilmer17]

You can not say that Casey killed her kid. You can say YOU THINK Casey killed her kid. She was tried, and found not guilty for 1st degree murder (premeditated or felony; to include all lesser charges such as 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder, manslaughter...).

I can say it with certainty. You can say she was found not guilty, but that's not the same thing as innocent.

[Popeman38]

And IMO you cannot with any degree of confidence, conviction & certainty claim that she did not kill her. Yes, in the eyes of the LEGAL SYSTEM she is not guilty but how many examples do we need of this legal system being totally and absolutely wrong?? IMO a killer went free. That's my opinion given all the info I have surrounding this case.

If you can't say she did and can't say she didn't, that equals NOT GUILTY. The burden must lie on the prosecution, not the defense.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I understand this but, we all know that Caylee was last seen with her mother and then, was never seen again, according to testimony. If it was accidental, then what happened between the time the child was seen for the last time in Casey Anthony's custody, when the child died and when Casey Anthony was caught?

That sounds like something the prosecution should have figured out, no?

By the way, I know absolutely nothing about this case, but if everyone is so worked up, it seems likely that she did it.

Is she some kind of super genius? How did she get away with it?

There is all this talk of chloroform. I don't know the science but shouldn't there be traces of that in or on the body? Were there traces?

I'm pretending I'm Fred Thompson. I'm going to start saying things like "That dog don't hunt."

[RichmondRedskin88]

Shes guilty in my mind. No court of law is gonna change that until there's serious proof she didn't.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Shes guilty in my mind. No court of law is gonna change that until there's serious proof she didn't.

I'll write the press release.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Knowing that I have to be biased because all I have is the media reporting....

Why cant Chloroform+ duct tape+ the lies about the baby sitter+ the proximity to the home+ smell in the car+ the tapes of her with her family+ her other internet searches====== guilt?

I would agree that Chlorofom search by itself isnt enough.

But what COULD the State have produced that would have eliminated doubt?

I think it could. I'm not saying it can't. But, there are a lot of holes in what you just wrote. How does anyone link the chloroform to the child. In any way? How does anyone link the duct tape to Casey Anthony? Also, the "smell of the car" was ridiculous. "It smelled like death." That is not particularly powerful. Internet searches? I don't know what I've searched for on google lately, but I'd hate to go back and see what I could "dream up" I was doing with google searches.

Personally, I'm not sure she didn't do it. But I think its completely reasonable to be not sure she did.

[RichmondRedskin88]

We may have very well seen the "CSI effect" at work. If you don't know what I'm talking about here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect

Its a topic we talked about a lot a few semesters ago in one of my classes.

[Dan T.]

If you can't say she did and can't say she didn't, that equals NOT GUILTY. The burden must lie on the prosecution, not the defense.

Somebody killed Caylee Anthony. Who do you think did it? And please, please, please do not mention the court case or the trial again. For the 654th time, I understand that Casey Anthony was found "not guilty" in a court of law.

A very simple question. A 2-year old girl is dead. Who did it?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

We may have very well seen the "CSI effect" at work. If you don't know what I'm talking about here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect

Its a topic we talked about a lot a few semesters ago in one of my classes.

FWIW, this is talked about during jury selection of every trial I've ever been involved in. I have yet to hear a juror say he expects proof to live up to CSI standards. Although, that doesn't mean they aren't looking for it, at least subconciously.

[10fttall]

We may have very well seen the "CSI effect" at work.

I love this one. This is becoming the side topic du jour. And it's baloney.

What we are seeing is a "judicial system effect." The judicial system that requires actual evidence, of any kind, not just CSI stuff. That's the problem. They actually HAD a type of "CSI" evidence with the odor in the trunk. The problem is, it wasn't a certainty, and even if it was it wouldn't have proved anything beyond mishandling remains.

[Kilmer17]

I think it could. I'm not saying it can't. But, there are a lot of holes in what you just wrote. How does anyone link the chloroform to the child. In any way? How does anyone link the duct tape to Casey Anthony? Also, the "smell of the car" was ridiculous. "It smelled like death." That is not particularly powerful. Internet searches? I don't know what I've searched for on google lately, but I'd hate to go back and see what I could "dream up" I was doing with google searches.

Personally, I'm not sure she didn't do it. But I think its completely reasonable to be not sure she did.

I know this isnt required by the defense, but who else do you think COULD have done it? And why?

She was last seen with Casey, then Casey lied about who she left her with and where she was for a month. Why?

[ABQCOWBOY]

That sounds like something the prosecution should have figured out' date=' no?

By the way, I know absolutely nothing about this case, but if everyone is so worked up, it seems likely that she did it.

Is she some kind of super genius? How did she get away with it?

There is all this talk of chloroform. I don't know the science but shouldn't there be traces of that in or on the body? Were there traces?

I'm pretending I'm Fred Thompson. I'm going to start saying things like "That dog don't hunt."[/quote']

Yes, which is exactly why I made the statement I did earlier. In an earlier post, I said that I didn't think this Jury would convict on 1st degree murder. This is not to say that I don't think she's guilty. I do believe this women did it but getting that proven is another thing. I never thought they would get the death penalty because there simply was not enough physical evidence. However, there was more then enough evidence, IMO, to get her on abuse or neglect and those options were on the table for this Jury and they didn't carry a death sentence.

I just feel like there were pieces of this thing that could have been touched on harder and with better effect. What could have been the downside of getting the defense to explain what happened between the time that child was last seen and when she, supposedly, meet with an accidental death?

I think they fell down there. That's JMO.

[RichmondRedskin88]

FWIW, this is talked about during jury selection of every trial I've ever been involved in. I have yet to hear a juror say he expects proof to live up to CSI standards. Although, that doesn't mean they aren't looking for it, at least subconciously.

I think this jury was. They wanted the whole " She was drugged by this, dragged into a car here, duct taped here, driven to this spot here, and buried here."

Basically they wanted it simple like "Professor Spakle did in the kitchen with a can opener."

Well its not like that. Evidence slowly gets destroyed by wear,weather, animals,etc. Things arent' cut and dry. Theres cases in which certain charges are dropped basically on "well if the police didn't guilt me into it they would have never found the body or semen." People can claim whatever they want but that don't mean crap when they sit there in court and determine whether a murderer walks free or not.

[Popeman38]

Somebody killed Caylee Anthony. Who do you think did it? And please, please, please do not mention the court case or the trial again. For the 654th time, I understand that Casey Anthony was found "not guilty" in a court of law.

A very simple question. A 2-year old girl is dead. Who did it?

I'm sorry, I thought the thread title read: Re: NBC: Jury has reached a verdict in Casey Anthony trial [NOT GUILTY]

[10fttall]

I think this jury was. They wanted the whole " She was drugged by this, dragged into a car here, duct taped here, driven to this spot here, and buried here."

What a bunch of pop-culture, neophyte idiots, right? The nerve of them to actually want some proof that Casey actually committed murder! Ha!

[Kilmer17]

What a bunch of pop-culture, neophyte idiots, right? The nerve of them to actually want some proof that Casey actually committed murder! Ha!

Yeah. The State didnt provide anything.

[Popeman38]

I think this jury was. They wanted the whole " She was drugged by this, dragged into a car here, duct taped here, driven to this spot here, and buried here."

You don't even know who is on the jury! How can you presume to know what they wanted? This is getting ****ing ridiculous. If you have to assume/presume the guilt of the suspect, then NOT GUILTY is the only verdict you can come to.

[10fttall]

Yeah. The State didnt provide anything.

Wrong. They proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey lied to the police. Otherwise, you are correct.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I know this isnt required by the defense, but who else do you think COULD have done it? And why?

She was last seen with Casey, then Casey lied about who she left her with and where she was for a month. Why?

I think the Dad COULD have done it. I think the child could have gotten lost and injured by herself. I think the death could have been an accident caused by the mom (which wouldn't be murder one or two). I think there are a lot of possibliities. I think a pervert could have abducted her. I don't know. I'm just not convinced beyond a reasonably doubt, based on the info I have as someone who did not watch much of any of it, that she murdered or even was responsible for Caylee's death.

[Kilmer17]

Wrong. They proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey lied to the police. Otherwise, you are correct.

And that's the problem. The ridiculous level we set for burden of proof.

The State provided tons of evidence, not none at all. The jury didnt think it was enough to eliminate doubt. I think they set unreasonable standards for that, and as a result a woman got away with killing her child.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I understand that the system was set up to defend the rights of the citizens. I understand all of that but, at the end of the day, the victim here was a 2 year old girl. I don't view this from the perspective of the Mother or the Grandparents or the Prosecution or the Jury or Heraldo Rivera or whoever else. I view it from the perspective of that 2 year old citizen who's rights were in no way protected.

You can say I am biased and that's OK. It's probably even true but, I'm still not wrong about that single point. Our system failed to protect the rights of that child and because of that, she is dead and the person or person's responsible for that will never receive Justice. That's just how I see it.