Casey Anthony Trail

[Buy American]

If you were there and know first hand that Casey Anthony killed her child, then why haven't you brought that evidence to the authorities?

Give me a friggin' break! After hearing and seeing the evidence that those jurors saw [[the trial was televised), how could anyone come up with anything but GUILTY on ALL counts?

[East Detroit]

Please, you animals, let Casey have her time to grieve. Her own parents probably won't even let her sleep over anymore.

[Buy American]

Makes me want to vomit!

[rjk]

So what are the top three pieces of evidence against her?

The only thing I know is that this is one of the cases that Nancy Grace covers ad nausem.

[Dr. Emil]

Give me a friggin' break! After hearing and seeing the evidence that those jurors saw [[the trial was televised), how could anyone come up with anything but GUILTY on ALL counts?

Apparently the jury of her peers, who have been informed of all the presented facts and properly processed the information in regards to what is necessary to convict someone of first degree murder with a consequence of capital punishment, could come up with something besides guilty on all counts. I'll trust their judgement over your wildly speculative OPINION any day of the week.

[Dr. Emil]

See, I can post pictures of this chick, too. Of course, using snapshots in time as an indicator of guilt or innocence is pretty lame, but what the hell.

[Maof]

http://kreuzer33.files.wordpress.com...pg?w=166&h=250

me too... this is days after her daughter went missing

[HistoryNotHisStory]

No proof was given to prove that she was guilty.

Partying during the month of your daughter's death does not prove that she is guilty or innocence.

The prosecution should have never brought the case to trial against her. The prosecution must listen to the defense agrument on what the father did to his daughter and his granddaughter.

The justice system works. She had less evidence than oj!

[HistoryNotHisStory]

http://kreuzer33.files.wordpress.com...pg?w=166&h=250

me too... This is days after her daughter went missing

psychologists have note that people with bipolar experiences mania highs during trauma. This is how some people reacts to grief, uncommon as it is, but this does not provide guilt and an unreasonable doubt that she is guilt.

The prosecution should have never brought this case to trial.

[HistoryNotHisStory]

Give me a friggin' break! After hearing and seeing the evidence that those jurors saw [[the trial was televised), how could anyone come up with anything but GUILTY on ALL counts?

I did not see any evidence that provided unreasonable doubt that she committed the crime.

[Dr. Emil]

I did not see any evidence that provided unreasonable doubt that she committed the crime.

Evidence doesn't matter. Buy American thinks she killed her kid and that's all the evidence anyone should need.

[Ray1936]

"If the evidence doesn't fit, you must acquit."

Gee, where have I heard that line before????

[Maof]

ok, so the juror's followed the rules of law when deciding her fate, but i can bet, some of them would have liked a different outcome.

[Maof]

in the meantime, i'm sure there will be books, movies, interviews, etc. that she will make out on. then maybe she can "get outta town" because i don't even think her parents want her.

[East Detroit]

See, I can post pictures of this chick, too. Of course, using snapshots in time as an indicator of guilt or innocence is pretty lame, but what the hell.

Reading isn't lame. I posted the pictures of her laughing in court and only mentioned that she needs time to grieve and implied that her parents think she is guilty, not that she is innocent or guilty.

[Buy American]

Evidence doesn't matter. Buy American thinks she killed her kid and that's all the evidence anyone should need.

You got that right Doc. You, on the other hand, can continue to look at the world through rose colored glasses or bury your head in the sand

[Dr. Emil]

Reading isn't lame. I posted the pictures of her laughing in court and only mentioned that she needs time to grieve and implied that her parents think she is guilty, not that she is innocent or guilty.

You suck at sarcasm.

You got that right Doc. You, on the other hand, can continue to look at the world through rose colored glasses or bury your head in the sand

I'll continue looking at it through precise legal definitions and beyond a reasonable doubt colored glasses, thanks.

[royce]

She didn't report the child missing for 31 days. She lied about a nanny having Caylee. She ditched her car. There was a foul odor in the trunk of her car, which she ditched. She did not inform any of the people that she was partying with that her daughter was missing or that she had drowned. She lied about where she worked. These behaviors make up the evidence.

Now, here are questions that need to be answered related to the above behaviors. Why did she not report the disappearence of Caylee? Why did she not report the drowning of Caylee? Why did she claim a nanny had Caylee? What reason would she have for ditching her car? Why would she put garbage in the trunk of her car? Why didn't she confide in her friends that something had happened to Caylee? Why did she lie about where she worked? The answer to all of these questions is simple. She killed Caylee. Now, you mean to tell me that no one has ever been convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence? She had the motive, she had the opportunity, and most importantly, her alibis didn't add up. Also, who else would have had a reason to kill Caylee.

BTW, some other points to ponder. Should the prosecutors have not charged Casey with first degree murder? Someone killed this child. Should the prosecution have done nothing? No one would have accepted that. Maybe the prosecutor should have waited to see what Casey would have done if she was not charged, and have her followed to see what her behavior might have been. Maybe she might have gone to Casey's gravesite out of guilt and she could have been charged with something. If she admitted that Caylee had drowed and her father took the body to the swamp, could she be charged with aiding someone in a crime [[disposing of a body illegally)?

[East Detroit]

You suck at sarcasm.

Gosh, that's hurtful. Maybe you could use some of your angry energy to help find the real killer.

[Maof]

The only thing I know is that this is one of the cases that Nancy Grace covers ad nausem.

hahaha...so true

[bartock]

Apparently the jury of her peers, who have been informed of all the presented facts and properly processed the information in regards to what is necessary to convict someone of first degree murder with a consequence of capital punishment, could come up with something besides guilty on all counts. I'll trust their judgement over your wildly speculative OPINION any day of the week.

"Presented" is a good word.

How you differentiate opinion from judgement is interesting, especially given the fact that the entire trial was televised.

Your statement that the jury "properly processed" information is equally interesting.

Your statement about first degree murder andf capital punishment is also interesting.

There were 2nd degree and manslaughter counts that did not carry capital punishment penalties.

Not having a concrete cause of death DOES NOT CREATE REASONABLE DOUBT. Yet, it appears, this is what the jury became convinced of.

I am not stunned by the verdict. From what I've read, the prosecution did a terrible job. I am stunned by the rationale used by others in justifying her not being found guilty. It's like first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, and neglect are all being lumped into one crime. It's like circumstantial evidence and common sense do not exist, though they are BOTH jury instructions.

[bartock]

psychologists have note that people with bipolar experiences mania highs during trauma. This is how some people reacts to grief, uncommon as it is, but this does not provide guilt and an unreasonable doubt that she is guilt.

The prosecution should have never brought this case to trial.

This was before she supposedly knew her daughter was dead. There is nothing convincing to suggest that she was frantically or even passively looking for her supposedly missing daughter at this time.

I agree that the prosecution should have never brought a murder one case to trial. This should have been about murder two and manslaughter from the beginning. It is too easy for the defense to focus a jury in one the murder one stuff and the death penalty consequences in order to raise the high bar of beyond a reasonable doubt even higher.

[bartock]

You suck at sarcasm.




I'll continue looking at it through precise legal definitions and beyond a reasonable doubt colored glasses, thanks.

Dr., you should look up the word "reasonable." If you want to equate it with your professional standard of practice [[i.e., you are being sued, your standard of practice is what a "reasonable" physician of your specialty would consider "reasonable"), then it is so nebulous that no one would ever be convicted of any crime. Try the common sense definition and see what you come up with.

[firstandten]

I am disappointed by the verdict as well. However, I trust the juries decision. Having been a jurist in several trials, I know that the people on the jury take their responsibility very seriously. I bet if you ask them deep in their gut, they believe she is guilty, but they were able to separate what they believed and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Especially in a capital murder case, the beyond a reasonable standard doubt must be met.

[rb336]

Not having a concrete cause of death DOES NOT CREATE REASONABLE DOUBT. Yet, it appears, this is what the jury became convinced of.

I am not stunned by the verdict. From what I've read, the prosecution did a terrible job. I am stunned by the rationale used by others in justifying her not being found guilty. It's like first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, and neglect are all being lumped into one crime. It's like circumstantial evidence and common sense do not exist, though they are BOTH jury instructions.

The thing is that, at least from what I saw, from a media convinced she would hang, wasn't even a good circumstantial case. No DNA. Shoddy forensic work. No cause of death. What was left was pure conjecture, and no jury in their right mind would convict based on guesswork. There just was nothing solid.