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.
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.
The jury was given an instruction on reasonable doubt by the Court. They most likely had these written jury instructions in the deliberation room with them.
Check out page 16 of 26 for the specific jury charge on reasonable doubt:
Judge Perry Jury Instructions 26 Pages (http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2011-07/177483200-04090136.pdf - broken link)
Okay, lets say it was an accident.
Is it just fine to take the little girl and throw her in a garbage dump?
Or do you also believe that the grandfather who was at work at the time did it?
Or do you just believe the time frame was wrong and Caylee didn't die on the 16th, so you can then believe that the grandfather did it?
How about if we just put it all on Cindy?
Somebody that lived in that house put a baby in bags and threw her in the woods but it couldn't have been Casey because she is such an honorable person.
No, it couldn't have been Casey because she would never lie about anything.
Gee, I wonder who did such a horrible thing?
Maybe you could enlighten us, we don't have a clue.
I don't KNOW specifically what happened, and neither do you.
I will say that as horrible as it is that this little girl's body was disposed of in those bags in the woods, that is not a death penalty offense. And we DO NOT KNOW as a matter of fact who put her body there.
Obviously you are a person that has a lot of difficulty "not knowing" about something. I'm not. Life is full of things we just don't know as a matter of fact. We may make assumptions, but there is not enough evidence that we can be certain. Even George and Cindy acknowledged in their public statement that they (we) may never know what actually happened to Caylee
I am not the least bit surprised and actually pleased by the verdict. Not because I think Casey is totally innocent and deserves to go free, but because the state did not proove its case. This is what "innocent until proven guilty" means. It's tragic that we'll never know what happened, but you can't convict somebody based on the way you feel about it - remove the emotion and look objectively at the trial and it's easy to see why the 12 people whose opinions actually matter said "not guilty".
I'm sick of people saying this case is all about Caylee, the victim. It's a trial and it is very much about the person being accused of murder. Everyone sees that poor little girl's face and wants vengence, thirsty for blood, naturally. But thank God that in this country you have to be proven guilty of a crime before your life is taken away from you - figuratively or literally. Fortunately, all you people can do is post angry comments on C-D as opposed to taking to the streets to carry out lynch-mob justice.
I'm hearing legal analyst say the jury sympathized with Jose Baez and Casey Anthony? Baez is a sleeze-ball defense attorney who used to sell bikinis for a living, was denied by the Florida Bar for 8 years and never paid child support. Casey Anthony is an ex-criminal who went to night clubs after her daughter died, laughed during the trial and during jail conversations and sat stone-faced during almost the entire trial. These jurors probably sympathized with Hitler too during World History 101.
I'm hearing legal analyst say the jury sympathized with Jose Baez and Casey Anthony? Baez is a sleeze-ball defense attorney who used to sell bikinis for a living, was denied by the Florida Bar for 8 years and never paid child support. Casey Anthony is an ex-criminal who went to night clubs after her daughter died, laughed during the trial and during jail conversations and sat stone-faced during almost the entire trial. These jurors probably sympathized with Hitler too during World History 101...oh wait, I don't think hardly any of them went to college.
Great. So we're both in agreement that she was on trial for murder and not being evil.
Glad we cleared that one up.
We...get...it...she was on trial for murder. The defense didn't prove that she murdered the child. Therefore, she was found not guilty. We...get...it...
There are over 50 pages of replies to this thread. The overwhelming majority of people who have replied are expressing their surprise and disappointment in the verdict. You know, us "whiny" folks. We really don't need to be reminded anymore why she was found not guilty.
Reminds me of one legal experts quote after the OJ trail: "I have to accept the verdict, but I don't have to respect the jury that rendered it..."
I will say it once again - the jury pool of available jurists required for a sequestered trail will be, by nature, inadequate for this type of complex circumstantial evidence-based trial. They will be less intellegent, less varied, less adaptable, less developed skills in inference and logic, less able to put 2 and 2 together then the pool of citizens available from a non-sequestered jury pool. And that presents a flaw in the justice system.
Interesting that you are talking about the jurors being "less intelligent"..."less able to put 2 and 2 together" you use the word "jurist" to refer to jurors.
We...get...it...she was on trial for murder. The defense didn't prove that she murdered the child. Therefore, she was found not guilty. We...get...it...
There are over 50 pages of replies to this thread. The overwhelming majority of people who have replied are expressing their surprise and disappointment in the verdict. You know, us "whiny" folks. We really don't need to be reminded anymore why she was found not guilty.
Snarky/offensive reply coming in 3...2...1...
I'll make you a deal. You stop blaming the justice system and calling the jury "morons" because they didn't go against their legal duty to settle your emotional vendetta, and I'll stop reminding you why your side lost.
Well it's happening ... Juror #6 has retained a publicist, Rick French, and he is sending letters out to the media in the packet that was given to the jurors.
"Our client -- a married, college-educated, 33-year-old white male with two young children -- is willing to consider granting one or more media interviews so long as the opportunities are paid."
We're told the juror has already received multiple offers from big news operations, including at least one major network. Sources tell us ... the high offers are in the "mid 5-figures."
But French insists ... sticky or not, his client ain't budging -- "He will not entertain any offers that don't include compensation for a myriad of reasons."
don't be patronizing...........yes she kind of was on trial for being evil. Only someone so vile and evil could have killed the innocent child then drove around with the body in the trunk like garbage.
There was no concrete proof that she drove around with her child in the trunk. It is speculation, not FACT. No matter how many times people keep saying it, it doesn't make it FACT until there is evidence. It is speculation.
As I said before, "It smells like..." is NOT fact, it is an opinion. The "scientific" evidence presented is new science, it is not backed by anything or anybody, it was not worth the time to even present it...too many variables leaving doubt.
In other words, there was NO proof that Casey drove around with her daughter's dead body in the trunk of the car NOR was there any evidence that Casey dumped her dead child in the woods, "like garbage". You are speculating.
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.
