Official Discussion Thread: the Casey Anthony verdict (case, murder, attorney)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe George and Cindy will take matters into their own hands since the jury failed to do so.
My question is this, were George and Cindy in on the plan to say George was there and that George was a child molester to throw suspicion off of Casey and create doubt in the minds of the jurors?
They have both said they would do anything to save their daughter.
Was the whole thing staged and the Anthony family are now stronger than ever?
Their names will come out eventually, they were missing for almost 2 months.
People close will know who they are and start talking.
I would not want to be them.
I missed that. Did he say that Casey's defense was all about winning and was never about the truth? Did he say why he thought that?
Did he and Casey have an unpleasant breakup?
Jesse Grund said they broke up because Casey thought he loved Caylee more than he loved her.
I guess that says a lot about our poor little Casey, the jealous murderer who got away with it.
Actually I think Judge Perry was very disappointed in the verdict.
Most everyone is totally SHOCKED and deeply DISAPPOINTED in the verdict.
The charge against her may have been set too high. Maybe the police botched some things. Maybe the coroner/forensic pathologist botched some things. Maybe the state botched some things in trial. Maybe the defense botched some things in trial. But, in the end I believe the jury did not understand their responsibility with respect to their verdict when it came down to the word 'reasonable' in the phrase 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. This jury obviously wanted absolute and positive proof beyond any shadow of a doubt. That is not the level or standard which is necessary to convict under the law of our land. Any person that is reasonable or beyond reasonable believes Casey IS the person responsible for the death of little baby Caylee.
Their names will come out eventually, they were missing for almost 2 months.
People close will know who they are and start talking.
I would not want to be them.
I was under the impression that it was a legal issue as to them outing themselves. Therefore if someone else did it, they could be breaking a law. But I could be totally wrong. Just my impression from what HHJP said yesterday.
It is time to let the HAL 9000 decide these things, juries are totally unreliable/pliable.
In this case I think the jury acted as Hal would have--they brought in a verdict based on actual evidence, not theory or conjecture! Just because the media and the public had her found guilty (and would have burned her in the town square if such things were still done), doesnt mean that the jury had to follow based on emotion.
Without a body, there was no real way to find out how the child died, and find the necessary evidence to convict and sentence.
The Casey Anthony verdict is a bitter pill for many of us to swallow. I believed that she was guilty of first degree murder and the evidence showed that beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that the victim was a two year old child and was so vulnerable makes the murder particularly awful.
What must be accepted though is that it is not the legal system that failed. If there is failure that failure is with the twelve people who were selected to serve on the jury.
No system that is designed by humans (and run by humans) will ever be non-fallible. Sometimes I think a good way to describe our system of criminal justice is that it is the "worst system in the world", except for all the others. We can try to learn from our mistakes. Sometimes we may even form a consensus that some modest tinkering with the system (changing jury selection procedures) may be appropriate.
What is both wrong and ridiculous is to contend that the failure to convict Casey Anthony proves that our system is a failure. I would venture to say that 98% of the time juries make the right decision in criminal cases. So, on the whole our system works well. That doesn't mean we don't on occasion see a miscarriage of justice. I, for one, will continue to "soldier on" and support this system knowing in my heart that its core principles are the right principles. I will work for and support reasonable improvements in this system and I will continue to defend all honest and conscientious players in this system including the police, the prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges.
In this case I think the jury acted as Hal would have--they brought in a verdict based on actual evidence, not theory or conjecture! Just because the media and the public had her found guilty (and would have burned her in the town square if such things were still done), doesnt mean that the jury had to follow based on emotion.
Without a body, there was no real way to find out how the child died, and find the necessary evidence to convict and sentence.
And by the way OJ was not guilty.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
