Casey Anthony - not guilty

What are your thoughts on this? Can't say I'm surprised.

Pissed is all I can say

Nope. Although most people agree she is probably guilty, the prosocution has to prove it BEYOND a reasonable doubt. There case mostly circumstantial. Obviously not enough for those 12 people.

Sucks but sometimes you just can't prove it to the level our nation requires. She's definitely guilty, but not beyond a reasonable doubt. Hopefully she fixes herself so she can't kill anymore kids (well her own at least).

I am pisses myself but I think the jury acted as they were supposed to, all emotion aside. There were so many lies from so many people that the jury couldn't possibly make heads or tails out of what really happened. Even so she obviously had some part in it but how much was her part? I think the jury just didn't know and the justice system in this country kind of goes the way of not guilty when there is that much doubt. There is certainly no justice for kaylee here.

mlyday said:

Nope. Although most people agree she is probably guilty, the prosocution has to prove it BEYOND a reasonable doubt. There case mostly circumstantial. Obviously not enough for those 12 people.

Click to expand...

Exactly! I personally think that she is a POS however if she murdered that child, it cannot be proven. The problem arose when the coroner could not even establish an actual cause of death. Everything in this case is speculation which sucks because that little girl will not get any justice.

beerloaf

Airborneguy said:

She's definitely guilty, but not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Click to expand...

I think my definition of 'definitely' is different from yours! :cross:

beerloaf said:

Exactly! I personally think that she is a POS however if she murdered that child, it cannot be proven. The problem arose when the coroner could not even establish an actual cause of death. Everything in this case is speculation which sucks because that little girl will not get any justice.

beerloaf

Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. I thought the defense did a tremendous job throwing doubt in every single piece of evidence. Understand though I'm not condoning letting a child killer free. Interesting how the parents walked out moments later. I wonder when the Casey Anthony book will come out.

Hi, my name is Jose Baez, and today I just put a child killer back on the street. Who wants to buy me a coke?

Yea sucks that a 2 year old could have this done to her and no one has to pay for it!!!! Freaking animals

Couldn't there have been some additional charges brought up, not sure what they could have been, but even going with her story isn't knowing somebody dumped a body kind of a crime? Attempt to cover up a crime or something? Or would the prosecutors have to admit that her BS story was legit to go that route? I think every juror probably assumes she's guilty of something, maybe the prosecution should have tried to rack up more charges. She can't be re-tried for any of her acquitals but what about new lesser charges, any possibility?

Hophead75 said:

Couldn't there have been some additional charges brought up, not sure what they could have been, but even going with her story isn't knowing somebody dumped a body kind of a crime? Attempt to cover up a crime or something? Or would the prosecutors have to admit that her BS story was legit to go that route? I think every juror probably assumes she's guilty of something, maybe the prosecution should have tried to rack up more charges. She can't be re-tried for any of her acquitals but what about new lesser charges, any possibility?

Click to expand...

Manslaughter maybe?

LVBen said:

Manslaughter maybe?

Click to expand...

I think that was one she got off on, manslaughter, 1st degree murder, and child abuse, all not guilty.

I've sat as a juror in a murder trial. It is definitely an eye opener. When I saw that the jury makeup was seven women I knew that there would be no conviction for murder in the 1st degree against a woman when the jurors had a slight reasonable doubt. Baez threw spaghetti against the wall till something stuck. I wonder how a person could live with themselves when they know a client is guilty but will say or do anything to get a win.

so, wait, wtf?

defense says she died in a pool - that's child neglect/abuse, then? shouldn't she get rung up on that?

seriously, everyone's entitled to a defense, but Baez just used this to boost his career. what a pathetic man.

motobrewer said:

so, wait, wtf?

defense says she died in a pool - that's child neglect/abuse, then? shouldn't she get rung up on that?

seriously, everyone's entitled to a defense, but Baez just used this to boost his career. what a pathetic man.

Click to expand...

An accidental death as they claim it was usually is not prosecuted.

iaefebs said:

I've sat as a juror in a murder trial. It is definitely an eye opener. When I saw that the jury makeup was seven women I knew that there would be no conviction for murder in the 1st degree against a woman when the jurors had a slight reasonable doubt. Baez threw spaghetti against the wall till something stuck. I wonder how a person could live with themselves when they know a client is guilty but will say or do anything to get a win.

Click to expand...

I thought when they ended up with 7 women that it would work against the defense as most of them probably have children and would let their emotions control their decision.

I just wish at least one juror would have held out for a hung jury. That way if there was any new evidence/testimony that came to light, then they could have retried her. Honestly, this girl is probably going to slip one day and admit to something. She was an irresponsible wreck already. I wouldn't put it past her at all to get blitzed on alcohol and drugs and break down and admit to the murder. Only now there's nothing that could be done about it.

motobrewer said:

Hi, my name is Jose Baez, and today I just put a child killer back on the street. Who wants to buy me a coke?

Click to expand...

Just doing his job, as nasty as it was. Jurors are the ones to blame. Your/my peers.

DregAddict said:

I just wish at least one juror would have held out for a hung jury. That way if there was any new evidence/testimony that came to light, then they could have retried her.

Click to expand...

Agreed! I didnt follow the trial proceedings very closely, but it would have taken a lot longer than 10 hours of deliberation for the rest of the jury members to convince me that she wasnt guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yeah, watching CNN and one of the legal analysts said she can go out tomorrow and sit on the court steps and declare she did it and laugh her ass off at the jury. I get the double jeopardy thing, but something seems just so wrong about that.

Any chance for a civil suit? That's what happened to OJ right?

mlyday said:

Nope. Although most people agree she is probably guilty, the prosocution has to prove it BEYOND a reasonable doubt.

Click to expand...

This is the biggest thing people can't understand when being a juror.

passedpawn said:

Just doing his job, as nasty as it was. Jurors are the ones to blame. Your/my peers.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that. he was clearly using this case as a springboard for his firm.

Casey Anthony who?

Hophead75 said:

Yeah, watching CNN and one of the legal analysts said she can go out tomorrow and sit on the court steps and declare she did it and laugh her ass off at the jury. I get the double jeopardy thing, but something seems just so wrong about that.

Any chance for a civil suit? That's what happened to OJ right?

Click to expand...

There was a similar thing that happened here where I live years ago. Dude killed a girl, brutally torturing her, raping her and killing her. He was found not guilty. Years later the person that lived in his former house found pictures in the floor board of the entire killing that the dude took while he was in the act. They convicted him of purgery and put him away for a few years. Point is I'm sure they could get her with some kind of charge if she laughed and confessed to the world.

motobrewer said:

I don't believe that. he was clearly using this case as a springboard for his firm.

Click to expand...

I didn't follow the trial, but he's a lawyer. He was hired to do a job. That job was to use the legal system to prove his client not guilty without reasonable doubt. That's what he did. I don't think that makes him a bad man, I think it makes him good at his job.

I still think it's horrible the girl died, that isn't changed by anything.

Scooby_Brew said:

Casey Anthony who?

Click to expand...

Thank you.

I just heard about the situation over the weekend at a BBQ -- a silly conversation overheard between people who still watch television.

IrregularPulse said:

I didn't follow the trial, but he's a lawyer. He was hired to do a job. That job was to use the legal system to prove his client not guilty without reasonable doubt. That's what he did. I don't think that makes him a bad man, I think it makes him good at his job.

I still think it's horrible the girl died, that isn't changed by anything.

Click to expand...

I completely agree. He took a lot of bad publicity as evident already on this thread for defending her but everyone deserves representation and if not him than it would have been someone else. Someones got to do it.

IrregularPulse said:

I didn't follow the trial, but he's a lawyer. He was hired to do a job. That job was to use the legal system to prove his client not guilty without reasonable doubt. That's what he did. I don't think that makes him a bad man, I think it makes him good at his job.

I still think it's horrible the girl died, that isn't changed by anything.

Click to expand...

you don't think the guy who got a child killer (yeah yeah....at the very least, child abuser) off the hook is a bad man?

what's your definition of "bad man"?

passedpawn said:

Just doing his job, as nasty as it was. Jurors are the ones to blame. Your/my peers.

Click to expand...

This.

The role of a criminal defense attorney is to poke as many holes in the prosecution's case as possible. Any sort of emotion towards the innocence or lack thereof on the part of his client is irrelevant.

If you're going to be angry, you need to be angry at nearly everyone EXCEPT the defense attorney, as he is one of the few who actually did a good job in this case.

Be angry at Casey for being a murderer.
Be angry at the investigators for not turning up enough palpable evidence tying Casey to the scene.
Be angry at the Prosecution for waging a poor trial.
Be angry at the jury for not finding a guilty verdict.
But to be angry at Baez is just foolish.

Would you get angry at Brad Marchand for scoring the first two goals on Luongo to put the nail in the coffin of game 7 of the Stanley Cup, or are you going to be angry at Luongo for sucking ass in net and letting up so many goals?

motobrewer said:

you don't think the guy who got a child killer (yeah yeah....at the very least, child abuser) off the hook is a bad man?

what's your definition of "bad man"?

Click to expand...

Nothing like black and white, eh?

motobrewer said:

you don't think the guy who got a child killer (yeah yeah....at the very least, child abuser) off the hook is a bad man?

what's your definition of "bad man"?

Click to expand...

So, what's the alternative? He chooses not to represent the defendant? Noone defends her? The courts just hang her? What are you proposing as an alternative to the way our justice system works now?

The jurors did exactly what they were supposed to do. They took an oath to discard their emotions, beliefs, judgments, etc and apply only the evidence given during the trial. Judges are very clear when giving instructions to the jury that there can not be any doubt at all. If there is reasonable doubt, they must make the verdict not guilty. The reason she got off the hook is because of the poor job the prosecution did. All of the burden in convicting her falls on the prosecution and they only offered circumstantial evidence (smells in a trunk, partying it up, getting tattoos, internet searches, etc). The prosecution couldn't deliver a murder weapon and couldn't deliver a cause of death. This is where the doubt rested in the jurors minds. Heck, everyone knows she is guilty, but the prosecution could not prove murder. Again, the jurors did what was instructed of them, and they did it right. Unfortunately, someone walks free who deserves death.

Judicial system needs fixing. That's the problem here.

The prosecution should have never tried for the full monty on a case that lacks the definitive evidence needed to sentence someone to death.

if I were on the jury, I would have probably had a hard time convicting her on the full count also but I thought I had heard something about there being a lesser manslaughter charge in there that would not have met the requirements for the death penalty. I am surprised (if I am correct about the manslaughter charge) that the jury couldn't find enough evidence in what was presented not to find her guilty of that.

mrduna01 said:

There was a similar thing that happened here where I live years ago. Dude killed a girl, brutally torturing her, raping her and killing her. He was found not guilty. Years later the person that lived in his former house found pictures in the floor board of the entire killing that the dude took while he was in the act. They convicted him of purgery and put him away for a few years. Point is I'm sure they could get her with some kind of charge if she laughed and confessed to the world.

Click to expand...

Gotta call BS on this one. NO ONE can be convicted of perjury for defending themselves, its the essence of the 5th Amendment. Plus, that would clearly fall under double jeopardy anyway, even with the new evidence unless the original trial was a mistrial or a hung jury.

i followed the whole trial.. not every second, but most of it. if i was on the jury I would have gone not guilty as well.

why do so many people think this chick is guilty. i know? its the media who portrayed her as a cold hearted b*itch. who knows she might be... but my gut tells (even before the trial) that the death was accidental and she did not know what to do. she f*cked up big time in going about the death. so people branded her as a bad mom, who likes to party/wants her freedom, and thats why she killed her child. LMAO... such a poor prosecution because they had nothing to go on. you need intent and premeditation to convict on murder 1, and they had neither.

she may get some time for lying, but who knows. all we can really tell, her family and future life are probably going suck for forever.

Airborneguy said:

Gotta call BS on this one. NO ONE can be convicted of perjury for defending themselves, its the essence of the 5th Amendment. Plus, that would clearly fall under double jeopardy anyway, even with the new evidence unless the original trial was a mistrial or a hung jury.

Click to expand...

BS? If you lie and say you didn't kill someone and then it is found otherwise you can be charged with purgury. It's two different crimes, not double jeapordy. Look up the Mel ignatow case on google and you will see it's no BS.

1 year for each count of lying to investigators. There were 4 counts. She has already served just about 3 years. she will walk on thursday. Sentencing guidelines will call for less than 4 years.

mcwilcr said:

The prosecution should have never tried for the full monty on a case that lacks the definitive evidence needed to sentence someone to death.

if I were on the jury, I would have probably had a hard time convicting her on the full count also but I thought I had heard something about there being a lesser manslaughter charge in there that would not have met the requirements for the death penalty. I am surprised (if I am correct about the manslaughter charge) that the jury couldn't find enough evidence in what was presented not to find her guilty of that.

Click to expand...

Apparently most states, except for Florida, have a certain standard where if the jury does not feel comfortable convicting a suspect at a certain level of charges, those charges can be dropped to a lower level in order to convict. For example...dropping a Murder 2 to a Manslaughter charge.

BucksPA said:

1 year for each count of lying to investigators. There were 4 counts. She has already served just about 3 years. she will walk on thursday. Sentencing guidelines will call for less than 4 years.

Click to expand...

yup. i think thats what will happen too.