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

[10fttall]

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.

I don't agree that it's unreasonable, but I agree with the rest of your thought. I just think that once in a while it really sucks while making sure we protect the truely innocent.

[Kilmer17]

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.

When you hear hoofprints, think horses, not zebras.

I think it's POSSIBLE that OJs oldest son killed Nicole. I just think that's its so unlikely, it's not worth considering as part of a trial.

I think it's POSSIBLE that the child drowned, but I think it's ridiculous to think that a person would respond to an accident by making it appear like a murder. So while POSSIBLE, I dont think it's enough to doubt the overwhleming likely scenario. Casey killed her.

[RichmondRedskin88]

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.

So if your daughter gets abducted you will just ignore the fact shes gone for a month? Good to know.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

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.

Are you actually arguing for a lowering of the burden of proof in criminal cases? Again, 80 percent of cases result in conviction.

You seem to have this general "The system is broken" vibe. But it all seems based on this one case. Basically, you are mad because this one particular jury did not accept the evidence in this one particular case as sufficient. That's the risk you take when you go to trial.

[Destino]

The murder weapon in this case was the chloroform. Which the state proved was researched on the computer in Caseys house.

There is no evidence chloroform was used on the child or ever existed in the possession of the accused. The only evidence you have is a google search. If my wife went missing today you'd find searches for hand gun prices and camping sites on my PC. By your logic this would prove that I shot her and buried her in the woods.

In addition, they PROVED that the duct tape found over Cayleys mouth was from a roll of duct tape also in Caseys house.

Not sure if you did that intentionally or not but where the duct tape came from wasn't the major point of debate. It being on her mouth and used to suffocate her was very much debated. The prosecution claims the tape was over her mouth but the corpse was "skeletal" and the tape had no skin on it. It did have hair however which doesn't fit with it being used to suffocate as the prosecution claimed.

The jury was looking for something more than circumstantial evidence. THere was no DNA or video of the crime.

That has become the burden of proof (thanks to TV and movies).

You don't need DNA or a video but you need something. Cause of death showing a murder took place would have been helpful in a murder trial. More evidence of a murder weapon than a google search. More evidence of murder than "partying".

There was nothing here but questions. Circumstantial evidence is fine but it has to be more than "she seems guilty". That's what got Cynthia Sommer thrown in prison.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

So if your daughter gets abducted you will just ignore the fact shes gone for a month? Good to know.

Hey, your comments have pretty much been out of line and offensive for all 29 pages of this thread. So, just stop responding, at least to me.

---------- Post added July-6th-2011 at 11:46 AM ----------

When you hear hoofprints, think horses, not zebras.

I think it's POSSIBLE that OJs oldest son killed Nicole. I just think that's its so unlikely, it's not worth considering as part of a trial.

I think it's POSSIBLE that the child drowned, but I think it's ridiculous to think that a person would respond to an accident by making it appear like a murder. So while POSSIBLE, I dont think it's enough to doubt the overwhleming likely scenario. Casey killed her.

In some ways youre right, but you asked me who could have done it. So, I was just answering the question. If you asked me who do I think did it. I'm not sure. My first suspect is Casey Anthony. But I can't say beyond a reasonable doubt that she did it.

[Kilmer17]

Are you actually arguing for a lowering of the burden of proof in criminal cases? Again' date=' 80 percent of cases result in conviction.

You seem to have this general "The system is broken" vibe. But it all seems based on this one case. Basically, you are mad because this one particular jury did not accept the evidence in this one particular case as sufficient. That's the risk you take when you go to trial.[/quote']

Limit it to this case.

I dont think the system overall is broken. I think in this case, the system failed.

I'd like to figure out why and prevent it from happening again. I DO believe that our society has crept towards a higher burden of proof, and think this case is evidence of that. So I dont think we need to lower it unreasonably, I think it needs to be brought back to a realistic standard.

IF we require DNA evidence to prove murder, we're going to allow alot of guily to walk free.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Are you actually arguing for a lowering of the burden of proof in criminal cases? Again' date=' 80 percent of cases result in conviction.

You seem to have this general "The system is broken" vibe. But it all seems based on this one case. Basically, you are mad because this one particular jury did not accept the evidence in this one particular case as sufficient. That's the risk you take when you go to trial.[/quote']

I can not speak for Kilmer LKB but I would say that it's reasonable to ask that Jury to consider lessor charges. They had the ability to do that. That, to me is very disappointing. I just feel very badly for that poor girl. I can't imagine how afraid she might have been. I feel like we let her down on this. Perhaps that is not reasonable but it's how I view this thing.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

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.

That's a much bigger issue than just this one case. There are estimates that 1 in 4 woman in this country are sexually abused as children. About 90,000 children a year are a victime of neglect in this country. So...yea....the system is a failure here. The outcome of this case would not have changed that.

I guess my question is, why is everyone so enthralled with this one particular case? More importantly, why is everyone making these grand pronouncments off it?

[10fttall]

I think it's POSSIBLE that the child drowned, but I think it's ridiculous to think that a person would respond to an accident by making it appear like a murder. So while POSSIBLE, I dont think it's enough to doubt the overwhleming likely scenario. Casey killed her.

The problem with all of this type of thinking is that we were shown that the family is seriously dysfunctional at best and at worst, all just plain out of their gourds. What you and I would do is not at all a good measure of what they should have, could have, or definitely did.

[Bombers]

Its just one of those incompetent juries. Sometimes they let guilty people go sometimes they imprisoned the innocent.

The manslaughter charge there was clear guilt.

Claiming a accidental drowning but had the dead baby in her trunk. While she was banging her boyfriend for two days.

She is one sick puppy. I guarantee 5-10 years or less from now she will get payback just like O.J has

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Limit it to this case.

I dont think the system overall is broken. I think in this case, the system failed.

I'd like to figure out why and prevent it from happening again. I DO believe that our society has crept towards a higher burden of proof, and think this case is evidence of that. So I dont think we need to lower it unreasonably, I think it needs to be brought back to a realistic standard.

IF we require DNA evidence to prove murder, we're going to allow alot of guily to walk free.

Do you have any proof that this is happening - outside of this one case?

[Dan T.]

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

That's okay. There really isn't a logical alternative explanation, so I understand why you are reluctant to offer an opinion.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The problem with all of this type of thinking is that we were shown that the family is seriously dysfunctional at best and at worst, all just plain out of their gourds. What you and I would do is not at all a good measure of what they should have, could have, or definitely did.

I think the rest of the family makes it really difficult to convict as well. The mom is a liar herself, who's about to be charged with perjury it sounds like. The dad also seemed like a maniac to me. The fiance appearntly told Today this morning that the family was a dysfunctional circus. So many different ways this thing could have gone. Its confusing and there is just a lot of evidence pointing at different people.

[aREDSKIN]

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.

Were you on the jury?? Such a vivid imagination. You must have really enjoyed the defense's BS. In the beginning they claimed Caylee drowned and in closing I think (need to verify again) I heard the Defense say we'll never know what happened to Caylee. Well which is it??

[DCsportsfan53]

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.

That's fine and we all understand that feeling but, jurors can't think about it that way. Regardless of anything else the state has to prove it's case. It's that way for a reason and personally, I beleive 110% in the concept that it's better for ten guilty people to go free than 1 innocent person go to jail. The system worked like it was supposed to, unfortunately in some cases you simply don't have the evidence to prove what happened and a guilty person goes free. It's a very necessary evil that comes with freedom, the presumption of innoncence and our way of life.

[RichmondRedskin88]

I can not speak for Kilmer LKB but I would say that it's reasonable to ask that Jury to consider lessor charges. They had the ability to do that. That, to me is very disappointing. I just feel very badly for that poor girl. I can't imagine how afraid she might have been. I feel like we let her down on this. Perhaps that is not reasonable but it's how I view this thing.

Yeah we let down this girl

[Kilmer17]

Do you have any proof that this is happening - outside of this one case?

Just circumstantial and anectdotal examples.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Were you on the jury?? Such a vivid imagination. You must have really enjoyed the defense's BS

Why are so many of you so mad about this? Are you related to Caylee Anthony? Did you have money on the verdict? Do you have some missing piece of information that didn't come out? Are you, in fact, a time traveler who went back and watched the whole event play out.

Personally, I think some of the mob mentality with this thing is as bad as anything that's gone on. I don't think I need to be ridiculed for saying I don't know what happened but a lot of things could have happened. Especially, when I responded to the question "who do you think COULD have done it."

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The problem with all of this type of thinking is that we were shown that the family is seriously dysfunctional at best and at worst, all just plain out of their gourds. What you and I would do is not at all a good measure of what they should have, could have, or definitely did.

I've now started reading about this case.

So, she basically accused her father of committing the crime, called her brother a sex abuser and then got her mother to possibly perjure herself.

Christmas is going to be fun at that house.

That's actually a pretty damn good defense if you don't care about destroying your family. The jury is left with this dilemma. "One of Four people could have committed this crime. But we don't know which one and we don't know what crime."

[Dan T.]

Its confusing and there is just a lot of evidence pointing at different people.

Really? Other than the unsubtaniated claims of the defense, what evidence points at other people?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Really? Other than the unsubtaniated claims of the defense, what evidence points at other people?

Oh, other than the evidence?

The mom appears to be a pathological liar herself.

Just so I'm clear, you believe that all of the evidence, everything testified to at trial, points directly at Casey Anthony?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Just circumstantial and anectdotal examples.

Provide one or two please. (Without using Los Angeles. Los Angeles has been a mess for thirty years).

[Kilmer17]

Were you on the jury?? Such a vivid imagination. You must have really enjoyed the defense's BS. In the beginning they claimed Caylee drowned and in closing I think (need to verify again) I heard the Defense say we'll never know what happened to Caylee. Well which is it??

I asked him for this. I dont think he was actually offering this as his own idea of what DID happen.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Yeah we let down this girl

What you mean "we," white man?