She will pay one day. I am not 100% positive that she intentionally killed that child, but there is no doubt in my mind that she disposed of the body, and that she felt elated that she no longer had to be burdened by caring for her.

If there is a hell, she will be there.

 

If there is a hell, she will be there.

Oh don't worry about that! As sure as we live and breathe, there is a hell,
...and there is a special place there just for Ms. Anthony!!!

May God bless little Caylee.

J.

 

Kinda reminds me of the OJ case.....

 

absolute bs.
This is just another perfect example of High Profile = Not guilty

 

There is a big difference between what you know and what you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

There is a big difference between what you know and what you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yep, hence the reason I say it reminds me of the OJ trial.

 

I give her a year!

 

Can't wait to see what Nancey Grace has to say about it. May be a law suit coming her way.

 

I bet the babies Momma is going to sue.

 

I bet the babies Momma is going to sue.

too funny

 

May God bless little Caylee.

.

 

You had very limited forensic evidence and no established cause of death... Though I am told that there was plenty of physical evidence for conviction from people that know a whole lot more than what has been on the news...

But, you had 3 different people, the accused and her family members, that were all lying... And all it takes for an acquittal is to have reasonable doubt.

Really this is exactly how the court system is supposed to work, you don't get convicted unless there is a preponderance of evidence. In this case, the prosecution did not establish that and the accused was found not guilty exactly as the system is supposed to do.

 

I agree the jury found her not guilty so why is everyone so mad. The jury had to sit through all the evidence and heard more of the story than we did but the media and the public wants to hang her. What gives? I don't know if she is guilty or not but the system did its thing what more do people want.

You had very limited forensic evidence and no established cause of death... Though I am told that there was plenty of physical evidence for conviction from people that know a whole lot more than what has been on the news...

But, you had 3 different people, the accused and her family members, that were all lying... And all it takes for an acquittal is to have reasonable doubt.

Really this is exactly how the court system is supposed to work, you don't get convicted unless there is a preponderance of evidence. In this case, the prosecution did not establish that and the accused was found not guilty exactly as the system is supposed to do.

 

I agree the jury found her not guilty so why is everyone so mad. The jury had to sit through all the evidence and heard more of the story than we did but the media and the public wants to hang her. What gives? I don't know if she is guilty or not but the system did its thing what more do people want.

I agree that it was the system in motion. Working as it should is questionable. The problem that seems to be occurring over and over in both high profile and low profile cases is the misconception that beyond a "reasonable" doubt equates to no doubt at all.

When you look at the evidence they did have (and god help me I did keep up with this case) I think that a reasonable person can draw the conclusion that she was, at the very least, complicate in the death of her child.

All of the lies that she told were proven as lies, to the point that a reasonable person should doubt 100% of anything that she said.

Unless you have a video tape of the person committing the crime, you will never remove all doubt that the person committed the crime. But there was way more than enough evidence and character information about the defendant to have her convicted of child abuse and at least man slaughter.

 

NOT found Innocent

Kinda reminds me of the OJ case.....

Nah,

OJ was a celebrity, beloved by many (though not by me ... !). There were also racial overtones and suggestions of racial bias in the jury.

In Casey Anthony's case, I cannot think of a less sympathetic defendant, yet the jury still refused to convict.

Let's not forget, there is no jury finding of "Innocent," only "Not guilty." Big difference. Jury chose to not find her "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," they never said she was "innocent."

 

Where is the father of this child during all of this?

 

Where is the father of this child during all of this?

Remember he was imaginary!!!!!!:thumbup:

At the end of the day the system worked as it should. Our legal system has flaws but if it was your ass up there on the line you better believe you dont want people convicting you on a gut feeling, you want them convicting on a perponderance of evidence and no reasonable doubt.

The prosecution in this case actually forgot to do a test on the bone marrow of the young child which could have determined if she infact drowned.

 

Really? When the DEFENSE (that's HER side, remember?) was claiming that the child had drowned, and that Casey and her family disposed of the body? REALLY?

Now, I totally understand that the jury found her 'not guilty' of 1st Degree Murder! But they were also allowed to consider at least two lesser charges: 2nd Degree Murder and Manslaughter.

2nd Degree Murder? Okay, that's fine - BEYOND a reasonable doubt. I get it.

But Manslaughter? How do you find a PARENT who put duct tape on her own child who "accidentally drowned", then put her body in a trash bag and dumped it - how do you find that parent NOT GUILTY of at least Manslaughter?

The murder acquittals - I don't necessarily agree, but I wasn't there (in the courtroom) so I can accept that. But the manslaughter acquittal? THAT is a miscarriage of justice!

You had very limited forensic evidence and no established cause of death... Though I am told that there was plenty of physical evidence for conviction from people that know a whole lot more than what has been on the news...

But, you had 3 different people, the accused and her family members, that were all lying... And all it takes for an acquittal is to have reasonable doubt.

Really this is exactly how the court system is supposed to work, you don't get convicted unless there is a preponderance of evidence. In this case, the prosecution did not establish that and the accused was found not guilty exactly as the system is supposed to do.

 

Really? When the DEFENSE (that's HER side, remember?) was claiming that the child had drowned, and that Casey and her family disposed of the body? REALLY?

Now, I totally understand that the jury found her 'not guilty' of 1st Degree Murder! But they were also allowed to consider at least two lesser charges: 2nd Degree Murder and Manslaughter.

2nd Degree Murder? Okay, that's fine - BEYOND a reasonable doubt. I get it.

But Manslaughter? How do you find a PARENT who put duct tape on her own child who "accidentally drowned", then put her body in a trash bag and dumped it - how do you find that parent NOT GUILTY of at least Manslaughter?

The murder acquittals - I don't necessarily agree, but I wasn't there (in the courtroom) so I can accept that. But the manslaughter acquittal? THAT is a miscarriage of justice!

I don't see how they could convict without any significant amount of evidence. We don't know how she died, if it was murder, manslaughter, or an accident and if was one of the grandparents, mother, or a combination of them were involved. I don't see a path to a conviction here. In another country she would have been convicted though. Some similarlity to the Amanda Knox trail in Italy, charactor issues, but weak motivies and no evidence, they have semen from a known criminial in the victom and still convicted her, would not have made it to trial here.

 

But Manslaughter? How do you find a PARENT who put duct tape on her own child who "accidentally drowned", then put her body in a trash bag and dumped it - how do you find that parent NOT GUILTY of at least Manslaughter?

There was no evidence presented that conclusively showed that the death was not a complete accident.

There was no proof as to who put duct tape on the kid, where it was placed or if it was placed while she was alive.

There was no proof as to who put her in the bag or if it was done before she died.

Could you in good conscience as a juror, sentence a 22 year old to a maximum of 15 years in prison and a maximum of $10,000 fine based on the lack of proof I cited above? At least 12 people in FL couldn't...

 

^^^I could. The lack of these proofs, in light of the other evidence does not equate to a "reasonable" doubt IMO. It is reasonable, based on the other evidence, that she was involved in all of the above actions.
They proved that she lied, they proved she was researching chloroform 35 times, they proved that her mother lied to cover that up, they proved that the babysitter was fictional, they proved that she went out partying after the baby was "missing" and they proved that the body was dumped after being duct taped and place in a bag. They proved that the car smelled like decomp, they proved that it was parked next to a dumpster (not proven that it was to cover the smell but one could draw the reasonable conclusion) and so on.

While I could easily draw the reasonable conclusion of a manslaughter conviction, I agree that murder 1 is a bit much based on the evidence presented.

All I can say is that I hope, if I ever kill someone and then pretend that they are still alive for 3 months so that the evidence is all washed away, that I have some of you on the jury.

 

^^^I could. The lack of these proofs, in light of the other evidence does not equate to a "reasonable" doubt IMO. It is reasonable, based on the other evidence, that she was involved in all of the above actions.
They proved that she lied, they proved she was researching chloroform 35 times, they proved that her mother lied to cover that up, they proved that the babysitter was fictional, they proved that she went out partying after the baby was "missing" and they proved that the body was dumped after being duct taped and place in a bag. They proved that the car smelled like decomp, they proved that it was parked next to a dumpster (not proven that it was to cover the smell but one could draw the reasonable conclusion) and so on.

While I could easily draw the reasonable conclusion of a manslaughter conviction, I agree that murder 1 is a bit much based on the evidence presented.

All I can say is that I hope, if I ever kill someone and then pretend that they are still alive for 3 months so that the evidence is all washed away, that I have some of you on the jury.

You are confusing reasonable proof with reasonable doubt.

 

...

But Manslaughter? How do you find a PARENT who put duct tape on her own child who "accidentally drowned", then put her body in a trash bag and dumped it - how do you find that parent NOT GUILTY of at least Manslaughter?

The murder acquittals - I don't necessarily agree, but I wasn't there (in the courtroom) so I can accept that. But the manslaughter acquittal? THAT is a miscarriage of justice!

Even if it was proven that she was the one that taped, bagged, and dumped the child, that seems to be after the fact that she "drowned." If the child was already dead, how is that manslaughter?

 

My heart goes out to those innocents killed, maimed, harmed, and scared by those who supposed to protect them. Just so very awful that the wee ones have to suffer like this. I have absolutely no pity on those who do these things and would support public hangings for them----after a good flogging.

 

Remember everyone...this is the same legal system that wants to attack former baseball players that perjured themselves about taking steroids (which were not illegal in baseball at that time) yet has no problem with the then President of the United States perjuring himself to the Supreme Court.

IF the pres can get away with it..how can we expect anyone to get convicted.