Not Guilty

[Satdiver]

I can't believe the jury found Casey Anthony "not guilty" of killing her daughter.

[Injun Pete]

Just like O.J.....must of had the same jury

[badndn]

We got some dumbasses in this Country. Amazing 12 could be assembled in one spot however. They found one hair in Casey's trunk that had the DNA of the Anthony family. It had the decomposition ring. Meaning it came from a decomposing body. All of them are alive but Caylee. I don't need to hear anymore. Fry the bitch. There's so much more like the searches for chloroform etc.. They just wanted to go home and that was the fastest way (finding her not guilty). If they found her guilty, they would have had to stay for the sentencing trial. Probably another month at least. THAT is why she is walking free tomorrow. I hope someday they feel the pain the Anthonys have and somebody let's them down the same way.

[whadayawant]

Just 4 words, ''beyond a reasonable doubt''. If ya ask yerself, ''could it have happened a different way ?'', it falls within those 4 words.

[badndn]

Just 4 words, ''beyond a reasonable doubt''. If ya ask yerself, ''could it have happened a different way ?'', it falls within those 4 words.

Not really Paul. There is always doubt in everything a human does. The law is very specific. Reasonable is the key word here. Not ANY doubt. There was no reasonable doubt in this case. None. I was listening to one of the alternate jurors talk last night. He bought the drowning thing hook, line and sinker. Not one shred of evidence to indicate that, but he decided he was an expert because he watched every episode of CSI and that's what he believed may have happened. They let a murderer walk free and a baby's death go unpunished. There will be a day of reconing for her and the jurors. I'd like to duct tape her mouth and throw her in a swamp. No chloroform. I think the defense took the pictures etc. that were available and formed a story around them. Totally a fabrication. Such bullshit. Fucking weasel defense attorneys drinking champagne and whooping it up, celebrating at a bar last night. Celebrating what? A child murderer is free? Regardless of whether you believe she killed the baby or not, one fact remains...the piece of shit, sorry excuse for a human being Casey Anthony KNEW that baby was dead and she KNEW it was laying in the swamp and the maggots were eating it up. She let it lay they for 6 months. Would have let it lay there forever. JUST for that, the bitch needs a bullet in the fucking head. Fuck someone who will hurt a child.

Edited July 6, 2011 by badndn

[wopakee]

It sounds to me like you guys are basing your opinions on what you have heard the media report on and not by the evidence that was presented in the trial. Even though I think she is guilty as hell, I would have found her not guilty. Between watching on TV and listening on the radio, I only missed about an hour of the trial. The prosecution had a flimsy case and screwed themselves by over charging for murder 1. There was not enough evidence to go for the death penalty. Their only chance, considering the case they presented, would have been manslaughter. While I think it is a shame that she is going to walk, I believe the system worked properly. Instead of complaining about the jury and the defense, you should try to look from a different angle. Even if you appear to be guilty, the media has portrayed you for 3 years as guilty, and public opinion is that you are guilty, unless there is evidence to support it, you will be found innocent. That is how our system is supposed to, and did work.

[maninbox]

The way some of you guys talk about the jury makes me think you were never on one.

I really can't say if justice was done or if our system is a good one.

I have been a juror 7 or 8 times in my life - usually just a few days but once for more than 3 weeks on a big case.

I know that I took my responsibilities seriously and so did everybody else I have ever been on a jury with.

In every case I was ever on, we worked as hard as we possibly could to be thorough and correct and to make the best decision with the information we were allowed to have.

I don't belive for a minute that the jurors reached a bad verdict because they wanted to go home.

I will say this: if the prosecution did not prove that the defendant(s) committed the crime (burden of proof) beyond a "reasonable doubt", then it is a real challenge for the people on the jury to decide to send someone to jail or worse. Would you want someone you know to be convicted because they probably did it? I say no, you would want some real proof.

So, being a veteran of many juries, I support the decision that they had to make, even if it seems unreal (like the OJ trial).

If I am wrong about this, then the whole justice system is fucked.

[BONMYI]

Even if you appear to be guilty, the media has portrayed you for 3 years as guilty, and public opinion is that you are guilty, unless there is evidence to support it, you will be found innocent. That is how our system is supposed to, and did work.

 

 

Well there it is, I couldn't say it any better..

 

NOT WELL PROSCUTED !!

 

 

Dave

[Blu]

Perhaps the procescution did not do a good job, perhaps she really was innocent (doubtful). I have been a juror a couple of times, my super-smart girlfriend has been on one recently. Our conclusions were the same: Most people have no ability to objectivly consider facts without preconceptions and draw a reasonable conclusion. The jury I was one was populated with morons, there was one other guy with a brain, he was also dismayed at the level of understanding the others had. Luckly the guy took a plea before the trial ended.

[badndn]

Ok...reasonable doubt...didn't prove their case. what would you guys need to convict her? A video of her chloroforming Caylee and putting duct tape on her mouth? Or of her dumping her in the swamp? That is not the case in virtually EVERY muder case ever tried. They would have said it wasn't her...video too blurry... and some would have bought that excuse too. Bottom line is...She killed her kid. She has zero conscience about it. It was proven. She will walk and she will fuck up again. Hopefully it hurts herself, not an innocent child. What happened to common sense? Geez people....she killed an innocent child. HER child. She was unremorseful. She lied about it. She covered it up. She tried to put it off on her dad and brother...on the cops...on the guy that found the body... Is there anything redeeming in this person? Does anything go these days? Will people buy anything these days? If there wasn't proof in this case, we need to release every convict from jail. There are MANY in jail and on deathrow that were convicted with WAY less evidence.

[Fins]

Ok...reasonable doubt...didn't prove their case. what would you guys need to convict her? A video of her chloroforming Caylee and putting duct tape on her mouth? Or of her dumping her in the swamp? That is not the case in virtually EVERY muder case ever tried. They would have said it wasn't her...video too blurry... and some would have bought that excuse too. Bottom line is...She killed her kid. She has zero conscience about it. It was proven. She will walk and she will fuck up again. Hopefully it hurts herself, not an innocent child. What happened to common sense? Geez people....she killed an innocent child. HER child. She was unremorseful. She lied about it. She covered it up. She tried to put it off on her dad and brother...on the cops...on the guy that found the body... Is there anything redeeming in this person? Does anything go these days? Will people buy anything these days? If there wasn't proof in this case, we need to release every convict from jail. There are MANY in jail and on deathrow that were convicted with WAY less evidence.

I live in Orlando. Unbelievable, that 12 morons could return this verdict and turn this psycokiller loose. There is no justice..a 2 year old girl was murdered by her mother... who in return in set free. What goes around comes around..just ask OJ !

[Airpirate]

Looking at what the prosecution presented, there was nothing that would point to guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" even though you think she did it, you have top go by what facts are.

 

That being said, do I think she did it, yes guilty as hell. I hope she rots there

 

 

Soar with the Angels Caylee

[badndn]

WHAT IS THE REASONABLE DOUBT??

[Chiefin]

It sounds to me like you guys are basing your opinions on what you have heard the media report on and not by the evidence that was presented in the trial. Even though I think she is guilty as hell, I would have found her not guilty. Between watching on TV and listening on the radio, I only missed about an hour of the trial. The prosecution had a flimsy case and screwed themselves by over charging for murder 1. There was not enough evidence to go for the death penalty. Their only chance, considering the case they presented, would have been manslaughter. While I think it is a shame that she is going to walk, I believe the system worked properly. Instead of complaining about the jury and the defense, you should try to look from a different angle. Even if you appear to be guilty, the media has portrayed you for 3 years as guilty, and public opinion is that you are guilty, unless there is evidence to support it, you will be found innocent. That is how our system is supposed to, and did work.

 

 

Yup,,,agree 100%

[badndn]

believe me...I watched WAY too much of the trial. Besides, from what the jurors are saying, their decision had nothing to do with evidence....just their "feeling" and personal feelings about George Anthony. I'll ask again...what is the reasonable doubt and what do you base it on? The media "portrayed" her that way because she is guilty. The liberal media loves to befriend a criminal. In this case even the media couldn't justify it. It's just like the OJ trail. You get a bunch of dumbasses on a very complex case and they think they are Perry Mason and CSI all rolled into one.

Edited July 7, 2011 by badndn

[Wildhorse]

Should have went for a lesser charge.

[wopakee]

Ok...reasonable doubt...didn't prove their case. what would you guys need to convict her? A video of her chloroforming Caylee and putting duct tape on her mouth? Or of her dumping her in the swamp? That is not the case in virtually EVERY muder case ever tried. They would have said it wasn't her...video too blurry... and some would have bought that excuse too. Bottom line is...She killed her kid. She has zero conscience about it. It was proven. She will walk and she will fuck up again. Hopefully it hurts herself, not an innocent child. What happened to common sense? Geez people....she killed an innocent child. HER child. She was unremorseful. She lied about it. She covered it up. She tried to put it off on her dad and brother...on the cops...on the guy that found the body... Is there anything redeeming in this person? Does anything go these days? Will people buy anything these days? If there wasn't proof in this case, we need to release every convict from jail. There are MANY in jail and on deathrow that were convicted with WAY less evidence.

 

 

You cite chloroform as if it was proven. It wasn't. They used 2 different forensic tools to search the computer. The first program showed 1 search for chloroform that lasted 5 seconds. The second program showed 84 searches for chloroform, which was proven to be a false return caused by a problem with the program. The police couldn't get the program to work, so they had the man who wrote the code do the search and he came up with the flawed results - reasonable doubt. The police collected the air samples that were sent to 2 different labs for testing. 1 lab said they found gasoline. The other lab said they found high amounts of chloroform, however they only did a qualative test, not a quantative test, so they don't know how much chloroform was there. Since chloroform is found naturally in the atmosphere, in cleaning products, which were part of the garbage in the trunk, and will be produced by decomposition, whether it be human or from trash - reasonable doubt. The duct tape was not proven to be on the face, it was theorized by the prosecutors that it covered the mouth and nose. There was no DNA found on the tape - reasonable doubt. Those were the main points of the States case. Yes, they did prove that she is a pathological liar and a sick bitch, but that doesn't make you guilty. I personally feel that she is guilty, but there must be evidence for a conviction. Anyone that thinks she should have been convicted is going strictly by emotion and not by the law. Either that, or they are just parroting what they have heard from the media. If that is how you want our justice system to operate, then you must have loved the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch hunt, and the McCarthy era.

[badndn]

You cite chloroform as if it was proven. It wasn't. They used 2 different forensic tools to search the computer. The first program showed 1 search for chloroform that lasted 5 seconds. The second program showed 84 searches for chloroform, which was proven to be a false return caused by a problem with the program. The police couldn't get the program to work, so they had the man who wrote the code do the search and he came up with the flawed results - reasonable doubt. The police collected the air samples that were sent to 2 different labs for testing. 1 lab said they found gasoline. The other lab said they found high amounts of chloroform, however they only did a qualative test, not a quantative test, so they don't know how much chloroform was there. Since chloroform is found naturally in the atmosphere, in cleaning products, which were part of the garbage in the trunk, and will be produced by decomposition, whether it be human or from trash - reasonable doubt. The duct tape was not proven to be on the face, it was theorized by the prosecutors that it covered the mouth and nose. There was no DNA found on the tape - reasonable doubt. Those were the main points of the States case. Yes, they did prove that she is a pathological liar and a sick bitch, but that doesn't make you guilty. I personally feel that she is guilty, but there must be evidence for a conviction. Anyone that thinks she should have been convicted is going strictly by emotion and not by the law. Either that, or they are just parroting what they have heard from the media. If that is how you want our justice system to operate, then you must have loved the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch hunt, and the McCarthy era.

It appears that you are looking hard to find a doubt whether reasonable or not. You are convinced. I'm not going to change your mind. But, the jury's job is not to go looking for any doubt. The doubt has to be reasonable. How did the hair from a decomposing body get in her trunk? You need to listen to the actual testimony on the levels of chloroform in the trunk. Of course there was no DNA on the tape. She put the baby in the swamp for months. What evidence is there that actually provides a reasonable doubt. Not an opening for a person to run with a theory...but doubt. The evidence against her was overwhelming. Casey says her daughter drowned. 4 hours later she was partying with her boyfriend. Same thing she did for 31 days. She ain't a sick bitch. She's a child murderer. A cold hearted killer. If Caylees DNA were on the tape they would have argued it was because of incidental, coincidental contact with the decaying body after George threw it in the woods...or Roy Krock...or whoever. It's fairytale time. This jury would have believed that too. Taping a dead baby's mouth. Making an accident look like murder. Amazing. I want my justice system to look for the truth and recognize it when it is right in your face. Bet you thought OJ should have been found not guilty too.

[wopakee]

It appears that you are looking hard to find a doubt whether reasonable or not. You are convinced. I'm not going to change your mind. But, the jury's job is not to go looking for any doubt. The doubt has to be reasonable. How did the hair from a decomposing body get in her trunk? You need to listen to the actual testimony on the levels of chloroform in the trunk. Of course there was no DNA on the tape. She put the baby in the swamp for months. What evidence is there that actually provides a reasonable doubt. Not an opening for a person to run with a theory...but doubt. The evidence against her was overwhelming. Casey says her daughter drowned. 4 hours later she was partying with her boyfriend. Same thing she did for 31 days. She ain't a sick bitch. She's a child murderer. A cold hearted killer. If Caylees DNA were on the tape they would have argued it was because of incidental, coincidental contact with the decaying body after George threw it in the woods...or Roy Krock...or whoever. It's fairytale time. This jury would have believed that too. Taping a dead baby's mouth. Making an accident look like murder. Amazing. I want my justice system to look for the truth and recognize it when it is right in your face. Bet you thought OJ should have been found not guilty too.

 

 

I thought OJ was guilty just as I think Casey is guilty. The difference is that I didn't hear all of the OJ trial to make an informed and reasonable call about whether the verdict was just or not. I did hear all of the Anthony trial. Did you? Or, are you just repeating what you have heard? You are correct that you are not going to change my mind. My opinion is based on the facts presented during the case, my own interpretation of them, and the law. As for the 1 hair that showed the banding, this is the first time that type of scientific evidence has been used in a court of law, and is a science still in it's infancy. Since it is new and there were not any studies done yet, they, the prosecutor's experts, did their own study. It was inconclusive. They found banding on some of the hairs from dead bodies, but they also found banding on some of the control group hairs that were from live bodies - reasonable doubt. I suspect that you have never served on a jury before, otherwise you would understand that you have to separate your emotional response to a murder from the facts as presented. I live 45 minutes East of Orlando and have had to listen to the news everyday for 3 years about this case. I was sure that she would be found guilty when the trial began, considering everything that was reported on during those 3 years. The problem was that the only stuff that the prosecutors gave to the media was anything that favored their case and none of the information that came out during the trial. I was, and still am, convinced that she is guilty. But, I am also smart enough to form an opinion, based on evidence and the law, instead of being an ill-informed sheeple and follow the herd.

[badndn]

I thought OJ was guilty just as I think Casey is guilty. The difference is that I didn't hear all of the OJ trial to make an informed and reasonable call about whether the verdict was just or not. I did hear all of the Anthony trial. Did you? Or, are you just repeating what you have heard? You are correct that you are not going to change my mind. My opinion is based on the facts presented during the case, my own interpretation of them, and the law. As for the 1 hair that showed the banding, this is the first time that type of scientific evidence has been used in a court of law, and is a science still in it's infancy. Since it is new and there were not any studies done yet, they, the prosecutor's experts, did their own study. It was inconclusive. They found banding on some of the hairs from dead bodies, but they also found banding on some of the control group hairs that were from live bodies - reasonable doubt. I suspect that you have never served on a jury before, otherwise you would understand that you have to separate your emotional response to a murder from the facts as presented. I live 45 minutes East of Orlando and have had to listen to the news everyday for 3 years about this case. I was sure that she would be found guilty when the trial began, considering everything that was reported on during those 3 years. The problem was that the only stuff that the prosecutors gave to the media was anything that favored their case and none of the information that came out during the trial. I was, and still am, convinced that she is guilty. But, I am also smart enough to form an opinion, based on evidence and the law, instead of being an ill-informed sheeple and follow the herd.

Didn't watch every minute, but most of it. There are many other examples like the hair. If you want to call it junk science, that's your right. But, in this case, there were so many things that you have to try hard to make the "reasonable doubt" argument,it becomes unreasonable. No comment on the the duct tape? Again, since we didn't see her put it on the baby, there is reasonable doubt. Even if we did see her, we could have just been mistaken. It might not have been THAT baby...or Casey. The wind was blowing that day and it dried your eyes and you had to be blinking a lot. Light was dim. You were 30 feet away. Reasonable doubt? NO! You and a few other have been played by a slick defense team. To me, it is just further dumbing down of America and lack of responsibilty for a persons actions. Sorry we disagree. I will still buy you a beer...but you're wrong. LOL

[badndn]

just listened to juror #3. Oh my gosh.

[TallRider]

If those that have responded to this thread had been on that jury . . . with the positions taken and the comments made . . . seems like there might have been a hung jury had the trial taken place in IIRA Superior Court.

 

I'm just sayin' . . .

[Vintageroger]

If those that have responded to this thread had been on that jury . . . with the positions taken and the comments made . . . seems like there might have been a hung jury had the trial taken place in IIRA Superior Court.

 

I'm just sayin' . . .

 

 

That is if..............and I mean if some of us would have been picked to sit on the jury.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Vintageroger

[wopakee]

Didn't watch every minute, but most of it. There are many other examples like the hair. If you want to call it junk science, that's your right. But, in this case, there were so many things that you have to try hard to make the "reasonable doubt" argument,it becomes unreasonable. No comment on the the duct tape? Again, since we didn't see her put it on the baby, there is reasonable doubt. Even if we did see her, we could have just been mistaken. It might not have been THAT baby...or Casey. The wind was blowing that day and it dried your eyes and you had to be blinking a lot. Light was dim. You were 30 feet away. Reasonable doubt? NO! You and a few other have been played by a slick defense team. To me, it is just further dumbing down of America and lack of responsibilty for a persons actions. Sorry we disagree. I will still buy you a beer...but you're wrong. LOL

 

 

I don't think that banding is junk science. But it hasn't been around long enough nor studied enough to be a proven indicator to be used in a court of law. It took many years before the use of DNA evidence was proven to be accurate and reliable enough to be introduced as evidence, and now it is used all the time. Given enough time, I'm sure that the labcoat nerds will figure it out or they might discover that there is no merit in it. Time will tell. I've already addressed the duct tape...and we have different views on that. Played by a slick defense team? There was nothing slick about Jose Baez. He is an inexperienced lawyer that fumbled his way through the trial and had to learn as he went. The defense didn't win the case, the prosecution lost it. Ashton and Burdick are excellent lawyers, yet they prosecuted the case with flimsy evidence and did a poor job of presenting it to the jury. As I've stated a few times, I think that she is guilty and wish that she had been convicted, but the evidence didn't support it. I will admit that I assumed you didn't watch the case and had formed your opinion based on what the talking heads were saying on TV and the small snippets shown on the news. Given, that you say you watched most of the trial, and I have no reason to doubt you, I will gladly accept that beer. It's obvious that we both enjoy a good, informed debate. We can discuss the reasons you're wrong and I'll bring the Patron.

[badndn]

I don't think that banding is junk science. But it hasn't been around long enough nor studied enough to be a proven indicator to be used in a court of law. It took many years before the use of DNA evidence was proven to be accurate and reliable enough to be introduced as evidence, and now it is used all the time. Given enough time, I'm sure that the labcoat nerds will figure it out or they might discover that there is no merit in it. Time will tell. I've already addressed the duct tape...and we have different views on that. Played by a slick defense team? There was nothing slick about Jose Baez. He is an inexperienced lawyer that fumbled his way through the trial and had to learn as he went. The defense didn't win the case, the prosecution lost it. Ashton and Burdick are excellent lawyers, yet they prosecuted the case with flimsy evidence and did a poor job of presenting it to the jury. As I've stated a few times, I think that she is guilty and wish that she had been convicted, but the evidence didn't support it. I will admit that I assumed you didn't watch the case and had formed your opinion based on what the talking heads were saying on TV and the small snippets shown on the news. Given, that you say you watched most of the trial, and I have no reason to doubt you, I will gladly accept that beer. It's obvious that we both enjoy a good, informed debate. We can discuss the reasons you're wrong and I'll bring the Patron.

The defense threw everything they could think of against the wall. Seeing what would stick. The jury chose to follow one of the fairy tales instead of using their common sense. If you think there was no proof in this case, we need to turn them all loose and stop the economic burden of peer trials. Just check for DNA, fingerprints and video. The burden of proof should be no higher with a high profile televised trial, than with the unknown trial that happens in courts everyday all accross the Country. In your way of thinking, a prosecutor could never win a circumstantial case. There would be no such thing. A criminal case shouldn't come down to video and DNA and so-called experts. It should be common sense and facts. There were plenty of facts in this case. Some choose to believe fairy tales instead of facts. It makes them feel important and like a CSI detective. I don't like tequila. I have something better.