Casey Anthony is innocent

[sbk92]

I am stunned by this verdict.

Not so much not guilty of 1st degree murder, but not guilty of anything other than misleading police.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

I am stunned by this verdict.

Not so much not guilty of 1st degree murder, but not guilty of anything other than misleading police.

From what i heard it was simply a case of the prosecution not proving anything beyond reasonable doubt. Its sad, but that's how it works. They dropped the ball.

 

[sbk92]

From what i heard it was simply a case of the prosecution not proving anything beyond reasonable doubt. Its sad, but that's how it works. They dropped the ball.

Basically every legal expert following the case that I've heard from has said the prosecution did a terrible job.

Still, as a human being, all I need to see is that **** out dancing and having a good time days after her daughter dies to remove all reasonable doubt for me.

Does a loving mother who just lost their child in a drowning accident do that? No.

Ya know who does? A cold hearted vicious bitch who no longer wanted the baggage of having a toddler around anymore.

Absolutely stunned that 12 people thought differently.

 

[sbk92]

I have to believe the fact that she's a woman helped her.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Basically every legal expert following the case that I've heard from has said the prosecution did a terrible job.

Still, as a human being, all I need to see is that **** out dancing and having a good time days after her daughter dies to remove all reasonable doubt for me.

Does a loving mother who just lost their child in a drowning accident do that? No.

Ya know who does? A cold hearted vicious bitch who no longer wanted the baggage of having a toddler around anymore.

Absolutely stunned that 12 people thought differently.

Im not a legal expert, but it was clear that they did a terrible job. Don't blame it on the jurors, they are told the criteria for issuing their verdict, what to listen for, and what the prosecution has to prove. I would have said not guilty as well, because the prosecution didn't prove that the mother killed the daughter beyond a reasonable doubt. They were all over the place. It was embarssing. Don't blame the jurors.. blame the prosecutors and the system.

Its the same reason OJ got off. You can't just issue a verdict based on if you feel they did it or not.

 

[sbk92]

Im not a legal expert, but it was clear that they did a terrible job. Don't blame it on the jurors, they are told the criteria for issuing their verdict, what to listen for, and what the prosecution has to prove. I would have said not guilty as well, because the prosecution didn't prove that the mother killed the daughter beyond a reasonable doubt. They were all over the place. It was embarssing. Don't blame the jurors.. blame the prosecutors and the system.

Its the same reason OJ got off. You can't just issue a verdict based on if you feel they did it or not.

I wouldn't issue my verdict on if I felt she did it or not. I'd do it knowing she did it.

Because she can not explain away her daughter dying and then partying days later while the corpse isn't even in the ground. She can't explain that away. Only a murderer does that.

Guilty as charged. Don't need a brilliantly prosecuted case. I can figure that one out on my own.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

I wouldn't issue my verdict on if I felt she did it or not. I'd do it knowing she did it.

Because she can not explain away her daughter dying and then partying days later while the corpse isn't even in the ground. She can't explain that away. Only a murderer does that.

Guilty as charged. Don't need a brilliantly prosecuted case. I can figure that one out on my own.

That's kinda the point. They screen all the jurors. lol

You can't decide based on how you feel. If the prosecution fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did it, you have to say not guilty. They sucked and failed to even get close to proving that she did it. The jurors did what they had to. Don't think for a second that means that they didn't all feel that she did it.

 

[sbk92]

That's kinda the point. They screen all the jurors. lol

You can't decide based on how you feel. If the prosecution fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did it, you have to say not guilty. They sucked and failed to even get close to proving that she did it. The jurors did what they had to. Don't think for a second that means that they didn't all feel that she did it.

You're acting like there's a clear defined bar for reasonable doubt. Certainly you decide on how you feel.

What's a reasonable doubt to you may not be a reasonable doubt to the next person. That's why you have a jury.

The prosecution would have proven it to me by 1) proving the child is dead, 2) proving that the mother did nothing to report the death and then 3) proving she went out partying while the body was still warm.

Case closed. Beyond all reasonable doubt for me.

This wasn't a case that should have needed a brilliant prosecutor.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

You're acting like there's a clear defined bar for reasonable doubt. Certainly you decide on how you feel.

What's a reasonable doubt to you may not be a reasonable doubt to the next person. That's why you have a jury.

The prosecution would have proven it to me by 1) proving the child is dead, 2) proving that the mother did nothing to report the death and then 3) proving she went out partying while the body was still warm.

Case closed. Beyond all reasonable doubt for me.

This wasn't a case that should have needed a brilliant prosecutor.

Again.. you have to prove that the mother killed the child to get her on a murder charge. They didn't prove that. You can't say, well the mother went out partying so clearly she did it. It doesn't work like that. There has to be clear evidence. The only thing they are allowed to go on is the evidence presented at the trial. Not media reports of what happened or what others think. The evidence presented didn't prove that Casey Anthony killed her child. Not guilty.. simple as that. They did what they are supposed to do. You don't let emotion get involved or what you "think" happened. If the prosecution doesn't prove that something happened.. it didn't happen.

Sucks, because everyone on that jury probably feels/knows she did it too. This is why the system is flawed.

 

[dbair1967]

From what i heard it was simply a case of the prosecution not proving anything beyond reasonable doubt. Its sad, but that's how it works. They dropped the ball.

Those jurors should be strung up.

Maybe they didnt prove murder, but there was definitely enough there for manslaughter of some degree and at the VERY LEAST she should be found guilty of neglect for failing to report the girl missing for 30-something days.

She killed the kid, and got away with it because of a broken legal system and a bunch of douche bags on a jury.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Those jurors should be strung up.

Maybe they didnt prove murder, but there was definitely enough there for manslaughter of some degree and at the VERY LEAST she should be found guilty of neglect for failing to report the girl missing for 30-something days.

She killed the kid, and got away with it because of a broken legal system and a bunch of douche bags on a jury.

Dude.. the prosecution didn't prove that Casey killed her. Its as simple as that. Calling the jurors douchebags for doing their job isn't going to help it.

I agree about the broken legal system.. but you can't make it so that less evidence is required in order to convict someone. There's already too many innocent people being killed or put in jail. What needs to happen is "douchebag" prosecutors actually do their job if they take something to court. They were already in a hole when the med. examiner couldn't come up with a cause of death, but they could have found something to link Casey being the one who duct taped Caley's face or something. They failed.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I have to believe the fact that she's a woman helped her.

That's hard to fathom since women outnumbered the men on the jury. Women get really involved in a case when a child is involved.

 

[dbair1967]

Dude.. the prosecution didn't prove that Casey killed her. Its as simple as that. Calling the jurors douchebags for doing their job isn't going to help it.

I agree about the broken legal system.. but you can't make it so that less evidence is required in order to convict someone. There's already too many innocent people being killed or put in jail. What needs to happen is "douchebag" prosecutors actually do their job if they take something to court. They were already in a hole when the med. examiner couldn't come up with a cause of death, but they could have found something to link Casey being the one who duct taped Caley's face or something. They failed.

She was charged with mroe than just 1st degree murder. They could have convicted her on the other charges.

 

[dbair1967]

That's hard to fathom since women outnumbered the men on the jury. Women get really involved in a case when a child is involved.

Apparently not in this case.

 

[sbk92]

Again.. you have to prove that the mother killed the child to get her on a murder charge. They didn't prove that. You can't say, well the mother went out partying so clearly she did it. It doesn't work like that. There has to be clear evidence. The only thing they are allowed to go on is the evidence presented at the trial. Not media reports of what happened or what others think. The evidence presented didn't prove that Casey Anthony killed her child. Not guilty.. simple as that. They did what they are supposed to do. You don't let emotion get involved or what you "think" happened. If the prosecution doesn't prove that something happened.. it didn't happen.

Sucks, because everyone on that jury probably feels/knows she did it too. This is why the system is flawed.

Save your lecture.

Showing me the evidence of the child being dead, not being reported dead and then the mother out partying days later is proving to me she killed the kid.

It may not be proving it to you, but I'd bet every dollar I'll ever earn in my life that she killed that kid. Which would go above and beyond any reasonable doubt.

And each and every jury member had the power to make that same decision.

 

[sbk92]

A man in that same situation gets a 1st degree conviction and the death penalty. He'd be an animal with no place in society.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

She was charged with mroe than just 1st degree murder. They could have convicted her on the other charges.

She was. She was convicted on 4 counts of lying to police officers. The other charges were aggrivated child abuse and manslaughter.. neither of which was proven either.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Save your lecture.

Showing me the evidence of the child being dead, not being reported dead and then the mother out partying days later is proving to me she killed the kid.

It may not be proving it to you, but I'd bet every dollar I'll ever earn in my life that she killed that kid. Which would go above and beyond any reasonable doubt.

And each and every jury member had the power to make that same decision.

No.. they had the power to make a sound decision based on only the evidence provided in the trial. The prosecution did a terrible job, they didn't prove anything really.. and the jurors had to find her not guilty. Black and white.

I'd bet every dollar i own that she was involved.. i don't know that she killed her directly.. but either way she's a sick woman and i agree i wish she'd have been convicted. She'll get hers someday though.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

A man in that same situation gets a 1st degree conviction and the death penalty. He'd be an animal with no place in society.

A 5 time repeat convicted felon would have gone free in that case as much as the prosectors f'd up.

 

[sbk92]

So basically DaHammah is saying if he was on the jury he would be convinced she's guilty but would vote not guilty based on the prosecution not really making a great case.

lol

Jesus Christ.