Casey Anthony: Innocent. Comments

I absolutely think she's responsible for Caylee's death.

Whether or not it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt from a legal perspective, I'm not sure. (Didn't follow all the details of all the testimony.)

Guess the only solace is that she's so notorious that this will haunt her for the rest of her life wherever she goes.

OJ Part II

OJ Part II

She may get some additional time for the lying to police charges. Time served pretty likely, however, Judge must measure pressure from both sides on such a large case. Could get 1 year each count, consecutive for all 4, so she might owe a little time left, based on Fla. rules for good time in county jail.

TAHL

P.S. I'm sure one of the local legal eagles will point out that she wasn't found innocent. (A not guilty verdict isn't the same thing as being declared innocent.)

She wished to return to "her life", friends and partying without the responsibility of being a parent and "likely" killed her child. For this with deem her evil and she makes front page and tabloid news. Many get hysterical and have an emotional response to the verdict.

I can see how some in the Pro Life circle could scratch their heads at why there is so much hysteria when they believe this occurs over a million times per year in the US alone. They might argue that Casey Anthony just waited a little longer then the norm.

I am not endorsing that sentiment but it did give me pause for reflection, especially when each decision has the same roots. I made a mistake, I don't want to be a parent...

Gives me pause for reflection.

thats one hella insane pause

I have to admit I was surprised, as I thought they would find her guilty on at least manslaughter, but the lack of direct evidence worked in her favor. Still, I thought the 31-day gap in notifying the police about the child being missing would be too much for a jury to get past, but I suppose being a lying and neglectful mother is not equivalent to murder. Agreed with TAHL that time served will likely be the sentencing on the four misdemeanor false information charges.

And now: the Casey Anthony book tour awaits. There ought to be a cool two million dollars in advance fees for the newly exonerated Casey Anthony. You can buy a lot of coke for that kind of cash.

and anybody who buys any of this chicks books or watches movies or whatever is basically handing her money. nice.

I guess from a local perspective, perhaps we should be glad that they haven't moved too quickly to prosecute the person responsible for Nevaeh's death.

Yes, in some ways, progress on that case has been painfully slow. But I suppose its better to make sure there's enough admissible proof vs. jumping the gun and having the person be acquitted.

(I'm of the belief that law enforcement has a pretty good idea of who did it, but they don't have enough proof to make it stick.)

"P.S. I'm sure one of the local legal eagles will point out that she wasn't found innocent. (A not guilty verdict isn't the same thing as being declared innocent.)"

Considering that you're innocent until proven guilty...

I have not followed the case all that closely, and like HistoryMike I was surprised by the verdict. I kind of assumed it was a slam dunk and didn't see the cause for all the media coverage.

The difference between what the media reports and what takes place at the trial is obviously pretty extreme. Unless you're actually in the courtroom and watch the case, you have no real idea about how the jury reaches a verdict, yet the majority of the people I've heard from convicted and sentenced Casey to death by slow torture on day 1 of the trial.

...watch Nancy Grace's head explode...

Ha! Ha! Yeah, Grace needs a muzzle. Actually, Grace needs to file for unemployment so the rest of normal America doesn't have to listen to her anymore. Hell, Nancy Grace makes Ryan sound positively rational and likeable. By comparison, you understand.

A lawyer could probably explain it better than I can, but its not same thing. There's a reason why the jury returns either a "guilty" or "not guilty" verdict, instead of declaring the person "guilty" or "innocent."

Can't wait for the Playboy pictorial.

Madjack says, "Grace needs to file for unemployment so the rest of normal America doesn't have to listen to her anymore"

Yes Madjack, If only unemployed people could no longer give their opinions…

perhaps we should be glad that they haven't moved too quickly to prosecute the person responsible for Nevaeh's death

Especially since they haven't found the person responsible for Neveah's death.

This case and verdict make me sick.

I lost my child for a 1/2 hour once at the Fulton County Fair, and was nearly hysterical until he was found. I can't imagine partying, wanting to know if I was on TV, or carrying on with a boyfriend while my child was missing.

Casey Anthony is a monster with no conscience. I can't wait to see what karma does to her.

I think that law enforcement has a strong idea of who did it, but doesn't have enough to make an arrest. I think they either need someone to start talking and/or to find more physical evidence.

I don't believe they are completely in the dark about who did it.

My point is that they cannot prosecute anyone until they have someone in custody.

Yes, I probably should have used the word "arrest" or something else. Was typing fast in between running reports at work. :)

From the Casey Anthony defense team:

"Well, I hope that this is a lesson to those of you who have indulged in media assassination for three years. Bias, prejudice and incompetent talking heads saying what would be and how to be. I'm disgusted by some of the lawyers that have done this, and I can tell you that my colleagues from coast to coast and border to border have condemned this whole process of lawyers getting on television and talking about cases that they don't know a damn thing about. And don't have the experience to back up their words or the law to do it. Now you learned a lesson, and we appreciate the jury and those of you that have been objective and professional. We like it. Others, we're going to be talking to again. Thank you very much," --Cheney Mason, one of Casey Anthony's defense attorneys said at a press conference after the verdict was announced.

And here's a link to Nancy Grace's reaction. What a f@#king hack. I guess it's only a great system of justice if what she want's happens. If it doesn't, then "the devil dances".

Who the f@#k appointed her judge, jury, and executioner?

I hate Nancy Grace, but that Cheney Mason is a smug piece of shit.

I wasn't surprised at all to hear the verdicts. I didn't watch any of the trial but I read the summaries of each day's court proceedings: The state failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Based on the facts presented to the jury, the verdicts were -- unfortunately, in my opinion -- the only ones they could hand down.

It's very, very sad. It's obvious that Casey Anthony herself holds the missing pieces of information that probably would've convicted her. Unfortunately, the state did not uncover that information.

Perfect example of one problem with the trial by jury system. Juries are sometime a group of idiots. What did they do, import the O.J. jury?
She doesn't even report her small child missing for like a month?? She was convicted of lying to the police. Why would she lie to them if not to cover up for her guilt?

I guess we can only hope that karma is really a bitch and she doesn't wait too long to come back on Ms. Anthony.

The problem with the current jury selection is that it is made into a statistical science. Defense teams hire expensive jury experts who can give profiles of people to select as jurors to get the verdict you want.
Trial by a jury of your peers is a joke. Usually every semi-intelligent person knows how to get out of jury duty not only because it's a pain, but you lose so much money by not working. So who is left? Unemployed, uneducated people who cannot understand simple crime scene investigation and get caught up with worthless details.
The O.J. Trial was a perfect example. The glove thing was such a joke. Has anyone tried to put a glove on over a rubber glove? It is next to impossible. Yet, that was a key point of the defense.
Not to mention, many people have a problem with sentencing some stranger to death. People are too forgiving.

Jurys need to be more intelligent and educated about evidence and the facts.
It is a sad day for the legal system. The prosecution has failed miserably.

Certainly the prosecution failed miserably. It seems the whole justice system is dysfunctional. It makes me sick to think about it. According to The Innocence Project there have been 272 post conviction DNA exonerations (17 were on death row), OJ and now this piece of garbage mother gets off free.

I am ok with the verdict. The State of Flordia failed to convice the jury that she was guilty of murder. Hence, a not guilty verdict. Doesn't mean that she didn't kill her daughter or that she was not involved in some way.

It simply means that the prosecution failed to present enough evidence to convice the jury that she did. I don't want her on death row if the state didn't prove anything. American justice system worked in this case.

It must of been a jury of her peers. They are all idiots.

Amen to that. Have you read the profiles of these jurors? Hockey's right; this jury was made up of people too dumb to get out of jury duty.

The problem is the "Law & Order effect" on American jurors. They expect every single little detail to be traced back, DNA evidence on everyone involved, 6 cameras of all the action, and for everything to be wrapped up in 60 mins so they can go home. Crime is not always that easy.

We convicted people on circumstantial evidence and witness testimony for hundreds of years! We are too hinged on DNA result and internet searches, you think Ms. Anthony walks 50 years ago? She is guilty as sin, and the Prosecution did no favors to the case. They should have never pressed for the death penalty if they didn't think it would stick.

She killed her daughter, no matter how you feel about it. The mountain of evidence is just too high to climb over, but because her finger print was not on the duct tape she is not found guilty.

I know the saying is "It's better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted" but sometimes I feel like we have moved to "50 guilty men", when does commonsense come back into common law. If Ms. Anthony can get free after lying to EVERYONE before after and during the process (innocent people don't have make believe friends), how is there ever chance for victims to see justice?

This is another loss for the court spin media. They were wrong about OJ and the Duke lacrosse Team, and now this case.

One of the alternates is now claiming that the prosecution didn't prove that a murder occurred.

What, that poor baby committed suicide, put herself into a laundry bag in a swamp and left a note telling her mom to go out and party on in her memory?

This case is a perfect example of why, in rare cases, circumstantial evidence should be enough to convict.
Because the victim was a small child, all Casey Anthony had to do after killing her was keep anyone from finding the body for enough time to destroy the evidence. Once the body was just bones, there was no way to determine a cause of death. I think that was the single biggest thing that caused the not guilty vote.

I caught the interview with juro #3 this morning on GMA. Her answers alone were enough for me to not only lose even more faith in the justice system, but also in humanity.

This is truly a shame.

Jeep:

Circumstantial evidence IS enough to convict - given the right circumstantial evidence and proper presentation by the proponent. Every jury is given instructions that circumstantial evidence is evidence just like DNA or video surveillance. It is up to them to determine what weight it should carry in a given case.

In the Anthony case, the jury did not believe that the State proved its case - whether by circumstantial or direct evidence.

Annie -

Just because the State didn't prove murder doesn't mean that suicide was the only remaining theory. It is plausible, although unlikely given the behavior of the Defendant throughout the pendency of this matter, that the baby died as a result of some accident. No one could testify to any cause of death; whether purposeful or accidental. That was key to the jurors decision.

Anyone who complains that this or any other jury is full of idiots should remember that sentiment when they get their summons for jury duty. Take the time to serve and pray that smart people do the same for you if you are ever unfortunate enough to be at the defendant's table. People are often wrongfully accused of a crime, so don't be so quick to scoff off the possibility.

Incidentally, I think she was guilty as sin. Still, I'm not sure how I would have voted in the jury since I didn't hear every piece of evidence as it was presented.

The prosecution would have had a better chance at conviction had they taken the death penalty off the table.

DBW is correct; jurors want to be wowed and entertained when they get called for jury duty nowadays. The CSI and legal drama shows have really made an impact. In reality, the process is really boring for those unfamiliar with it.

Add to the problem that almost all admissible evidence is based on older technology (courts are real slow in changing their procedures); which is why the body sniffer evidence didn't make it in. Jurors also don't know that not all police departments can afford the latest and greatest investigatory gadgets and trained personnel.

In related news, I think the proposed Caylee's law (making it a felony for a parent to fail to report their missing or dead child within a certain time frame) is a proper response to this issue. However, I think the states should be adopting their own versions instead of a Federal law. We all know how hard it is to get a federal prosecutor to bring charges against anyone; for example, the financial crisis of '08.

""Perfect example of one problem with the trial by jury system. Juries are sometime a group of idiots. What did they do, import the O.J. jury?
She doesn't even report her small child missing for like a month?? She was convicted of lying to the police. Why would she lie to them if not to cover up for her guilt?""

The whole trial by jury process is too easy to manipulate. In this case, there was much less evidence than in Simpsons' trial--the verdict didn't surprise me.

I say go back to old, common law English medival trials, like Trial by Ordeal, Trial by Fire, or even Trial by Combat. That takes the mind-numbed CSI watching, Law&Order addicts and other celebrity seeking cretins out of the picture.

Personally I would of convicted her and not went for death penalty myself. If she can come up with some reason for going on a party spree for a month after her daughter disappeared / drowned / murdered her then maybe acquit her. If she innocent she's still alive to appeal. Pretty sad when the one juror that talked even admitted he thought she was guilty. If you thought she was guilty you should of convicted.

thats not how it works, i am sure they all "thought" she was guilty. and actually that is the way it has to be.

She'll be dead within a year.

The jurors were complete and absolute morons. The standard is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Not 'beyond ALL doubt', which in effect is how this jury and Simpson trial jury reached their verdicts. No criminal case is beyond all doubt. The verdict is a miscarrage of justice.

they couldnt even prove cause of death, blame the prosecution, not the jurors doing their jobs

It was a circus. Too much media attention and Nancy Grace running her mouth like a faucet.

McCaskey, consider what you might have done had you sat with these other 11 people. You're one guilty vote out of 11 who won't move. Now then, while you, personally, may be stubborn and willful enough to hold out indefinitely not everyone has your strength of will. People fold, they go along with the crowd, they take the path of least resistance. Most of us learn to conform and obey authority from a very early age.

I think it's likely that's what happened here. The prosecutor has a long walk to prove murder one, and he failed. I'm okay with that. As for the rest of it, unless you sat in the courtroom and heard the arguments you can't say for sure what went on. I would guess that a few jurors were convinced, but most were not. Then when the vote comes up it's just easier to go along with the crowd.

Yes, the jury system is flawed, but if I ever go to trial and can get a jury of my peers I know I'll get a fair trial.

1.) Casey Anthony Verdict Gives Nancy Grace Her Best Ratings Ever

2.) ...consider what you might have done had you sat with these other 11 people. You're one guilty vote out of 11 who won't move. Now then, while you, personally, may be stubborn and willful enough to hold out indefinitely not everyone has your strength of will. People fold, they go along with the crowd, they take the path of least resistance. Most of us learn to conform and obey authority from a very early age.

Essentially the plot of 12 Angry Men. From the statements on this board, seems like 95% of posters are the Lee J. Cobb character...you just know she did it. I mean, look at the circumstantial evidence...of course she did it...what's wrong with you?

The state did not convince the jury. Their votes are the only votes that count. Not yours. Not media talking heads. Not online opinion polls. The jury. As someone said earlier, if you are certain juries are full of idiots, don't try to get out of jury duty the next time you are called. Your perspective may change when you are in those seats.

'Then when the vote comes up it's just easier to go along with the crowd'

That's a 'fair' trial by a jury of your peers? Jack, that reads to me like a mighty fine indictment of the jury system.

We have the absolute worst judicial system in the world, except for all the others.

Are we done yet? Can we move on to something that actually affects the people in the area?

That's a 'fair' trial by a jury of your peers?

Put the emphasis on 'peers'. In my case, my peers are 12 WASPs over 50, over weight and strong supporters of the right to bear arms along with castle doctrine. It would help if they were members of Gun Owners of America, but it isn't necessary. These are the kind of men who, if you could get them to stop arguing long enough, would completely ignore the law in favor of the evidence and render their verdict from that.

Of course, I'm not likely to get that kind of jury. What I'm likely to get are 12 copies of Purnhrt who will listen sagely to the evidence, then spend 15 minutes in the jury room before returning a verdict of guilty on all counts and recommending life without parole - no matter what the evidence is.

And that's what is wrong with the jury system.

The alternative is having the judge decide, which can be worse than a jury. With a jury you may luck out and get a (mostly) decent jury. With a judge you could end up with someone like Judge Robert G. Christiansen of the municipal court, who lives for the cases where he can belittle people and hand out 99 year sentences for spitting on the sidewalk.

'Are we done yet? Can we move on to something that actually affects the people in the area?'

You can always not click on the thread. Problem solved.

It's too tough for him, Mac. He loses sleep over stuff like this.

"they couldnt even prove cause of death, blame the prosecution, not the jurors doing their jobs."

I agree. I served on a jury in a murder trial. It's shocking how many people got off serving in that jury, giving every excuse in the book. I wished I did not have to serve because it was a major interference in my job, etc. But I still did it. It's not about a jury being "stupid" because the verdict isn't what you think it should be. The jury listens to the case throughout the trial and weighs everything carefully. If the prosecution doesn't prove the case, then don't blame the jury. And in the Casey Anthony case, the prosecution simply didn't prove she murdered her daughter. Be mad at the prosecution.

How much does a typical jury member get paid?

I believe that any company has to "hold" your job while you serve on jury duty, it doesn't mean you can collect pay while serving.

I guess calling the jury "stupid" isn't fair, but I don't believe there ever was a real jury of true "peers".

"How much does a typical jury member get paid??

If I remember correctly, it was around $12 per day. It's pretty much a wash after you pay for parking and lunch/dinner.

"I believe that any company has to "hold" your job while you serve on jury duty, it doesn't mean you can collect pay while serving."

True. And if you have a decent boss, you are covered. But they don't have to pay you while you're gone. In this economy, that's tough.

"We have the absolute worst judicial system in the world, except for all the others."

One of the best posts I've read in a while.

The Miserable Postscript for a Casey Anthony Juror

A red-haired woman in her 60s who moved to Florida from Michigan, she told the court she worked at a Publix Grocery when she was questioned as a potential juror.

Now, she’s in hiding.

Juror number 12 left Florida. Her husband, fighting back tears, tells NBC News he’s not sure when she’ll return to her home in Florida.

Why? He says she fears half of her co-workers want her head on a platter.

This God-fearing family describes the after-effects of the Anthony verdict as traumatic.

First, for 44-days, he was separated from his wife.

And she was separated from the quiet life they once shared. And now he remains concerned about her health.

And now, they both face vitriol from those who are unwilling to accept a jury of peers reached a fair verdict based on the evidence presented.

------

Still wanna be on a jury? Wanna face the "mob" who watched the trial on the tube and just know the defendant is guilty? Wanna have your life turned upside down when you make a decision that goes against the mob? Against the media, who now are desperate for interviews with the jurors to lambaste them further?

Twisted. Really twisted.

OHT shouldn't we be held personally responsible for our job as a juror? Isn't that part of the whole "jury of peers", it's not a blind or faceless jury for a reason. Making a jury decision is just like signing a contract, you are representing yourself and your choice in the matter. Look that doesn't mean we can assault them or stalk them, but when I make a mistake on the job people usually get pretty MAD! Don't drop the ball on 3rd down and you don't have to worry about people bitching about punting on 4th.

I'm guess the prosecution would have loved to be able to use this video. You know weeping and sobbing when they found the body, before it was identified!

http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey-anthony-video-unsealed-court/story?id=14047655

I'm guess the prosecution would have loved to be able to use this video. You know weeping and sobbing when they found the body, before it was identified!

Thank you for backing into proving my point, dbw.

Without getting into all the specs all over again, you--as fed by the media--were force fed much more "information" than the jury was given (for legal reasons, admissibility concerns, etc.). It is part of the assurances we have to give people a fair trial. The judge makes decisions on whether certain information/evidence/etc. can be provided to the jury. Why are things excluded? I'll let the legally trained minds (JJFad, brainswell, etc.) tackle that. I believe having this safeguards us from mob violence ("let's just burn her at the stake in front of the courthouse...we know she did it.)

The prosecution did not use your video example. They couldn't. Therefore, the jury couldn't consider it. There are no such restrictions on the media...they can tell you all kinds of things the jury either doesn't hear about or cannot consider when making its decision. But you not only got the video, you got "experts" (HA!) blabbing non stop on 6 different channels about how she sucks, she's a bad mother, she's callous, this doesn't fit, that doesn't fit, "the devil dances", blah blah blah. The jury can only consider the legally relevant facts presented to it.

Now, people are turning around and blaming jurors for their verdict? I look at this the other way around, my friend. The public should give more respect to jurors who had to deal with this mess and I believe did their best with it. A whole crazed mob of media-stirred ingrates telling a selection of 12 people--who probably aren't all stupid, ignorant, and foolish--that they got it wrong fail to realize the constraints being on a jury entails.

The prosecution (government) has every advantage. Investigative resources on multiple levels. Scientific resources. They speak first at trial (first impression of the case) and speak last at trial (given one more chance to refute the defense claims). Yet with all this advantage, they did not prove their case in this matter. And because the prosecution didn't prove the case, jury members need to be hounded out of town/state? And we wonder why only "stupid" people are on juries?

There are no such restrictions on the media...they can tell you all kinds of things

And the truth and accuracy of the things media tells us is suspect. Real suspect, at best. Out and out lies and improbable fabrication at worst.

From the article: And now, they both face vitriol from those who are unwilling to accept a jury of peers reached a fair verdict based on the evidence presented.

This should have been expected right after they found out which trial she was sitting on. No matter which way things go, someone is going to be angry about the verdict. Okay, she's scared. Florida is a 'shall issue' State, and I know for a fact that in the State of Florida you can buy a handgun and complete the qualifications for your CCW license in one day. Given the circumstances the government would very likely give both people a temporary license until the official version arrived. At the same time, get hold of an agent to handle the press and get a lucrative book and film deal going. The family will have to move and the money will come in handy.

Finally, remember that time heals a lot of this. In six weeks no one will remember who sat on the jury; in six months all memory of the trial will be erased by the staggering amount of commercial media that screams at all of us, day and night.

Yes, I'll sit on a jury, and if the persecution fails to prove its case the accused will walk out of the courtroom free. Even if I think it's a clear cut case of self-defense, the accused is getting a pass from me. And domestic violence? Forget it.

"He was hitting her so she dinged him."

Not guilty, your honor! Give her a medal and let's all go down to the local watering hole and celebrate.