# All Casey Anthony discussions - COMBINED THREAD



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/05/jury-deliberations-resume-for-second-day-in-casey-anthony-murder-trial/

I'm speechless......I'm not sure I trust the justice system anymore....There's another multi-million dollar trial down the tubes.


----------



## Lilith (Dec 25, 2010)

Chad,
Like you, I am STUNNED!  I didn't watch the whole trial by any means but followed the evidence and discussions pretty closely online and in the papers.  
I agree, this does not appear to be justice and I am anxious to hear what the jury has to say.  The prosecution was not as strong I would have liked to see, especially in the closing arguments, and I know first degree murder is a hard verdict to give - but there were options and I am so puzzled by this decision right now. 
Just WOW.
Lilith


----------



## Lilith (Dec 25, 2010)

Well, the jury has refused to talk to the press.  It may be a while before we know anything about their decisions . . . 
Lilith


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I guess I am one of the lone voices. I think justice has been served. This case has been tried in the media and the public and that is not how this Country is suppose to work. Its innocent until proven guilty and there was no direct evidence of any kind. The prosecution had a lot of theories and it was all circumstantial. 

Beyond a reasonable doubt. That is it in a nutshell. The state just did not prove their case. 

But it doesn't matter in the end. In this day, many make up their mind being fed bits and pieces from talking heads. 

This whole thing felt like being back Europe in the middle ages where the mob just wanted to be around for the hanging. 

I thought Nancy Grace's head would explode. She is the worse of all of them. They are already belittling the Jurors. She is now listing the convictions and arrest of the jurors themself. As if that has any bearing on the case. 

I wish I could be a Juror, but I am not eligible.


----------



## Ann Herrick (Sep 24, 2010)

When I heard the announcement on TV that there was a verdict to be announced in 30 minutes, my heart sank. I figured then (against all hope and reason) that it would be "Not Guilty." I seem to remember the OJ verdict was speedy, too. 

I guess the way to get away with such things is to simply not report a person missing until at least a month later, when it will be too late to determine exact cause of death.


----------



## tsilver (Aug 9, 2010)

Unbelievable


----------



## _Sheila_ (Jan 4, 2011)

There is an obvious pattern of behavior. 

Once again, a child's life is worth nothing in this country.

It has been proven time and time again.

My heart breaks, not only for this little girl, but for all the little kids that are going to die because of the decisions we make as a society.  And we wonder how we got to this place in history.  =(

Sheila


----------



## Brem (Jun 29, 2011)

My mother was really disappointed about the verdict. Personally I think she was guilty, but the jury found her not guilty on first degree murder. Any idea if the state can appeal the verdict?


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

Hey now.....
We are not talking about what is right here.
We are talking about a person being accused and tried for what they were accused of.
The application of the laws as written in the jurisdiction that the event occured in.  Which may not be the same as in my location. Who knows what the requirements to be a judge are in any location.
And then the prosecution providing more evidence than the defense such that there is no doubt in the jury's minds about guilt.
That being said this was indeed another circus.
I can only shake my head over the whole thing.

I certainly hope that I never get accused of a crime.


Just sayin.....


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

You can't appeal a aquittal, you can only appeal a conviction. Double jeopardy. She can never be tried for this again. 

The State had one shot. This was it.


----------



## Indy (Jun 7, 2010)

Well I hope she enjoys her beautiful damn life.


----------



## Lisa J. Yarde (Jul 15, 2010)

I'm shocked by the verdict as well, but obviously the jurors felt the prosecution didn't meet their burden. Unfortunately, this is not justice for Caylee Anthony. Repeatedly lying about your dead child's whereabouts requires a stiffer penalty.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

I think she's guilty, but they didn't prove it. The fact that we convict people with our heads and not our hearts is a good thing. Hard to swallow sometimes, but, I believe the system worked.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

But she did get convicted for lying. To investigators. She spend now almost 3 years in jail so I assume it will be time served. 
Lying a murder does not make.
Again, its about facts and following instructions and going over evidence that was presented. 

If we didn't have jurors that can take opinions, emotions and what they think happened out of their heads, we all would be in trouble.

Since nobody was there, nobody actually knows the including parties, its all about evidence and following the law. 

I guess its human nature to always feel like we know better, or we know this and that when we really don't.


----------



## _Sheila_ (Jan 4, 2011)

I'm not saying I know any more than anyone else about this particular case.

What I do know, is that we have become a society that puts right and wrong aside.  We can come up with a justification for just about anything.  Everything is psychologically based.  The concept of good and evil is left for plot lines, not real life.  We simply do not value life the way we once did.

Example:  I was born and raised in California.  Back when my kids were kids, there was a case of a little girl that had gone missing.  During the same week, there was a traffic rage incident where a dog was grabbed and thrown into traffic.  Maybe you remember the dog incident.  It made it to the national news.  There was close to a quarter of a million dollars raised to track down the bad guy that killed that cute little dog.  There were posters everywhere.  Oh, about the little girl?  There was just under seven thousand dollars raised to look for her.  And the posters, well, the posters for the little girl were considered a nuisance and the town took them down.  

I'm sorry, but in my opinion, we've lost the plot, and this latest mess, just proves it again.

Sheila


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Atunah said:


> If we didn't have jurors that can take opinions, emotions and what they think happened out of their heads, we all would be in trouble.


Exactly, I think we're all in trouble, because I think that is exactly what they didn't do. Where was the reasonable doubt? Did the nonexistent babysitter kill her baby and duct tape her mouth and bury her? Could be....
Did Aliens abduct her and duct tape her mouth and bury her? Could be.....
Did the Grandfather duct tape its mouth and bury her after she drowned in the pool? Could be....

Reasonable doubt does mean mathematical certainty or that the prosecution has to rule out any bizarre alternative explanation that has no evidence. I don't think most jury candidates have the critical thinking skills to do this anymore. We are fast reaching the point where nobody can be convicted of anything because "you never know for certain!"


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

I also deplore that fact that she is very possibly guilty.
But our current system of laws and jury-trial require that the prosecution "prove" guilt.
Not just provide information that all seems to point to the accused.
But proves guilt.
It almost requires that the perpetrator shoots the victim in front of a policeman and the local clergyman and the head of the PTA - all as witnesses.
But we know that in the past our system has put innocent people in jail, just because it solves the case for the system.

I am not sure what the correct answer is, but I hope "we" keep on discussing it until we figure it out.  It is a shame that innocent people should be found guilty of crimes that they did not commit but it is also a shame that the guilty can walk free.  Or just as bad, go to an asylum because they are not competent to stand trial and then be able to walk after they are cured.


----------



## Eeyore (Jul 16, 2009)

Monique said:


> I think she's guilty, but they didn't prove it. The fact that we convict people with our heads and not our hearts is a good thing. Hard to swallow sometimes, but, I believe the system worked.


+1

Having been a juror on several trials, including a murder trial, the State has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Casey had murdered her child. There was lots of circumstantial evidence they used, but no hard facts. No murder weapon, no DNA, no cause of death. The coroner couldn't even give a reasonable time of death to link Casey to her daughter's body.

Before the jury is lead away for deliberations, they (we) are told to base their decisions on the facts of evidence presented. If I sat on this jury, I would also have had to vote Not Guilty, despite what I personally felt.

In the end, Casey Anthony will be judged by a much higher authority (God) for what she may or may not have done, and there will be no appeal.

All the best.


----------



## dpinmd (Dec 30, 2009)

Atunah said:


> Again, its about facts and following instructions and going over evidence that was presented.
> 
> If we didn't have jurors that can take opinions, emotions and what they think happened out of their heads, we all would be in trouble.
> 
> ...


Agreed. We didn't see all of the evidence, we saw the sensational stuff that the media thought was worth reporting. We also probably saw/heard lots of extraneous stuff that was not admissible as evidence that colored our view but (thankfully) didn't color the jury's view. Based on what I've heard/read, I "feel" like she likely killed her daughter, but I certainly don't know that to be true.

Bottom line, I believe in our system, even when it sometimes seems like it leads to the "wrong" results.


----------



## Erica Sloane (May 11, 2011)

Monique said:


> I think she's guilty, but they didn't prove it. The fact that we convict people with our heads and not our hearts is a good thing. Hard to swallow sometimes, but, I believe the system worked.


Agreed.

One of the things that really bothered me was the falsification of the computer searches. The police and the prosecution were trying to railroad a citizen. That cannot stand if our Constitution is to remain intact. (Remember, this is the same prosecutor who was reprimanded in two other cases for withholding evidence from the defense that would lean toward a not guilty verdict.)

But aside from that major fact, the prosecution didn't have the evidence. If you don't have a cause of death, there's no way to prove that someone planned it. How, where and when were never answered.

Remember the prosecutor in his closing argument saying "We can only hope the chloroform was applied before the tape, so that Caylee went peacefully." He was trying to appeal to emotions, but in that statement he admitted they couldn't say how the death occurred. The icing on that cake was when he said the child was "in all likelihood in the trunk." Well, "in all likelihood" is not beyond all reasonable doubt.

The evidence just wasn't there to support the charges.


----------



## CatherineIsom (May 22, 2011)

I think I agree with many of the posters here. I truly believe she is guilty, but if the evidence does not support it then reasonable doubt wins!
I was on jury duty in the UK for a sexual assault case. We found him not guilty even though I thought he was. I was the first to voice the 'not guilty' scenario as the evidence just didnt support what we all knew deep down to be true. it is upsetting to be in that situation knowing the victims will not get justice. 
It is a very sad world we live in.


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

I purposely didn't watch any of the coverage of this case because of the media's sensationalized involvement, but I did read about it some in the newspaper. My gut instinct is to believe she did it. I think that's most people's gut instinct, because humans are emotional creatures and this is an emotional case. The fact that a jury filled with emotional creatures found her not guilty so quickly tells me that the prosecutor didn't do its job.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

One of the things that has bugged me from the beginning and then especially when watching the trial is that Meter Reader that called 911 in August about the remains. He said he poked at the remains with his stick, which of course puts a lot of doubt at the duct tape theory from the prosecution. 

But what bugs me most is, what did this guy do from august to december when the remains where finally found by police. He called I think 2 or 3 times and nobody responded? There was also a search in august at the area and nothing was found. Just very odd.


----------



## planet_janet (Feb 23, 2010)

With a body as decomposed as poor Caylee's was when it was discovered, the prosecution was at a major disadvantage from the start. In this era of "CSI" and other similar t.v. shows, people want DNA evidence.  People do not realize that it is NOT DNA that solves a MAJORITY of criminal cases--it is good old-fashioned detective work. The prosecution had a TON of very extremely compelling (in my view) circumstantial evidence, but it clearly wasn't enough for the jury.  Very, very sad.


----------



## tecwritr (Oct 28, 2008)

geoffthomas said:


> I also deplore that fact that she is very possibly guilty.


She is not "very possibly guilty." Under Florida laws, and most likely other states laws, she is NOT Guilty!

Oh, I also believe Nancy Grace should be removed from the airways. She convicts people on her show before they even go on trial.


----------



## luvmy4brats (Nov 9, 2008)

My heart is breaking over this verdict. I have followed this case since day 1 (or day 31 if you want to be precise). I have read and every deposition, every police interview, watched every jail video, looked at every picture released, mapped cell phone pings and watched every singe pre-trial hearing. There was evidence not allowed because it would be too prejudicial against the defendant.. The jury wasn't allowed to see how she reacted when the unidentified remains were found (SHE knew it was Caylee before they were id'd) Her thefts and sexual behavior during those 31 days were not allowed, many of the photos taken during that time, cell phone texts (which would have shown motive) were not allowed all because they were deemed too prejudicial. The jurors should have been able to smell the cans of air with the decomposition smell still in them.  

Justice was not served today. Our justice system failed that little girl and let her killer walk free. I was and still am stunned about the verdict. 

I am appalled that lawyers can get up in front of the jury and lie through their teeth and blame everybody under the sun except their client. The conduct of the defense team was absolutely sickening. The fact that the defense team, killer, and the killer's lying family will most likely make millions with interviews, books, tv shows, and movies disgusts me to no end...  

This jury just showed that you can murder your baby, throw her away like garbage and repeatedly lie about it and get away with murder.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

_Sheila_ said:


> I'm sorry, but in my opinion, we've lost the plot, and this latest mess, just proves it again.


I don't know who these people are--and the story sounds very sad--but the US has been doing much better on crime during the past few decades:










"Despite the recent stagnation of the homicide rate, however, property and violent crimes overall have continued to decrease, though at a considerably slower pace than in the 1990s. Overall, the crime rate in the U.S. was the same in 2004 as in 1969, with the homicide rate being roughly the same as in 1966. Violent crime overall, however, is still at the same level as in 1974, despite having decreased steadily since 1991"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Crime_over_time

We're not a perfect society, but hell hounds aren't running loose on the streets, either. That's only what the media wants you to think. To them, our fear is very profitable.

B.


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

While lawyers are not my favorite people.....
Lawyers work under the premise that even the most miserable serial killer deserves the best defense available (actually that he/she can afford).  And yes some lawyers take high-profile cases because of the notoriety that they will get.
But it appears that the prosecution could not (or did not) provide a doubtless case.
From what I heard, they surely left a lot of doubt in the minds of all.
I am constantly appalled at how poor a job is often done by the "government".


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

It's better for 10 guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to suffer.


----------



## planet_janet (Feb 23, 2010)

There is nothing in me that will ever, ever believe that Casey Anthony is innocent.  I have been following this case for three years and I watched the entire trial. I do not believe the "accidental drowning" theory.  A person whose child is found floating in a swimming pool does not NOT call 911 and chooses instead to stuff the child's lifeless body into a garbage bag and throw it into a swamp.  Oh, and then proceed to go out and party for 31 days, steal money from their purported "best friend", get a tattoo, and lie, lie, lie, lie.  I do not believe she was molested by her father and/or her brother. Even if she was, it is not an excuse for any of the behavior she exhibited while her child was "missing".  I do believe that she is a narcissistic, pathological liar who got away with murder today.


----------



## planet_janet (Feb 23, 2010)

Luvmy4brats said:


> I am appalled that lawyers can get up in front of the jury and lie through their teeth and blame everybody under the sun except their client. The conduct of the defense team was absolutely sickening. The fact that the defense team, killer, and the killer's lying family will most likely make millions with interviews, books, tv shows, and movies disgusts me to no end...


Did you see that the DT was at a bar near the courthouse after the trial ended celebrating their victory with a champagne toast? I get that they were celebrating their win, but really?? A little girl is dead and they helped her killer walk free today. How about a little decorum? Absolutely abhorrent.


----------



## Cuechick (Oct 28, 2008)

I feel bad for the jury. I am sure they would have loved to have some real evidence that ruled out all doubt. I am sure many thought she might be guilty or were even sure (as most of us are) that she did it. However they had to follow the law... not their hearts...

It is just times like this that I wish Dexter was not a fictional character... he even lives (fictionally) in Florida.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

This is our judicial system as laid out in the US Constitution and everything was done correctly.  According to our system, she received a fair trail and has been found not guilty.  I see there are some strong opinions about the decision and about the defendant, her family and her legal representation.  That's fine to have those opinions, but the fact remains that it's over.

I stopped listening to the media's versions of criminal proceedings way back when with the Darlie Routier case here in North Texas.  It was so sensationalized and she was tried and convicted in the court of public opinion long before a verdict was reached.  I don't know if  either woman is actually guilty of what she was accused, but in both cases it was in the media's interest to hype the story and present the details in the most lurid way possible.


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

planet_janet said:


> Did you see that the DT was at a bar near the courthouse after the trial ended celebrating their victory with a champagne toast? I get that they were celebrating their win, but really?? A little girl is dead and they helped her killer walk free today. How about a little decorum? Absolutely abhorrent.


Outside that restaurant, sharing your outrage, was a mother from Pinellas County, where the jurors were drawn from. She said she had received a summons for jury duty the day that, she later realized, jurors were selected for this trial. As she tearfully criticized the verdict, she said she wished she hadn't "gotten out of jury duty" back then because if she had been on that jury, she would have held out for a guilty verdict. Too funny! In a pathetic sort of way. Ducking jury duty is common in this country--about as common as the opinion that Casey Anthony is guilty. If anyone thinks justice wasn't served today, they should remember that the next time they try to get out of jury duty.


----------



## planet_janet (Feb 23, 2010)

I realize you probably weren't directing your "getting out of jury duty" comments at me, but I get called for jury duty every 1-2 years on the dot and I have NEVER tried to "get out of" it.  There have been two instances--the first when I was about to give birth to my first child; the second, when work commitments would have prevented me from being on a jury if I were to be chosen for one--where I asked to delay my jury duty and was granted the requested delay.  I ended up reporting for jury duty at the later dates given to me by the court. I kind of resent the implication that people who are "outraged" by today's verdict are the same ones who try to skirt jury duty. This is certainly NOT the case for everyone who is angered about the outcome of this trial.


----------



## Tippy (Dec 8, 2008)

Jury duty is a great privilege and a great sacrifice.  I have worked for federal court for 31 years.  Far more people want to get out of jury duty than actually perform their civic duty.  Given their state of mind, perhaps it is best they are not a juror.

The jurors in the CA trial did their duty.  They were the sole judges of the facts and they spent an adequate amount of time in deliberations.  I respect their verdict.  I imagine that when all is said and done, CA will receive a sentence of "time served", in some way shape or form.

However a not guilty verdict does not mean this woman will live free.  She appears to have destroyed a great many personal relationships.  She will always carry with her what happened to her daughter.  She will always live with the hate, disrespect, contempt and distrust of many people in the United States.  She may be able to make money as a result of this tragedy, but I don't think the money will buy her peace of mind or true freedom.

Prisons come in different shapes and sizes and can be constructed by various materials.  A not guilty verdict does not mean she lives outside a prison.


----------



## Tippy (Dec 8, 2008)

By the way Janet, I applaud your civic duty and willingness to serve on jury duty.  You have given freely of yourself and your time.  Would that everyone had the same sense of responsibility.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

I think juries have lost the ability to differentiate between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "without a shadow of a doubt"

One is the basis for conviction and the other is an impossible standard that will almost never be reached in a court of law.

I dont think there is reasonable doubt that she killed her daughter


----------



## Tippy (Dec 8, 2008)

Beyond a reasonable doubt is a difficult concept until you have actually served on a jury and gone through the process.  

I simply do not see why we have to bad-mouth a jury simply be cause we do not agree with their verdict.  Remember, that jury sat in the courtroom through that trial, day in and day out.  Most of us simply watched the trial through the eyes of the media.


----------



## Erica Sloane (May 11, 2011)

Luvmy4brats said:


> My heart is breaking over this verdict. I have followed this case since day 1 (or day 31 if you want to be precise). I have read and every deposition, every police interview, watched every jail video, looked at every picture released, mapped cell phone pings and watched every singe pre-trial hearing. There was evidence not allowed because it would be too prejudicial against the defendant.. The jury wasn't allowed to see how she reacted when the unidentified remains were found (SHE knew it was Caylee before they were id'd) Her thefts and sexual behavior during those 31 days were not allowed, many of the photos taken during that time, cell phone texts (which would have shown motive) were not allowed all because they were deemed too prejudicial. The jurors should have been able to smell the cans of air with the decomposition smell still in them.
> 
> Justice was not served today. Our justice system failed that little girl and let her killer walk free. I was and still am stunned about the verdict.
> 
> ...


I watched nearly every minute of the trial, and plenty of the media lynch mob.

Don't forget the evidence that WAS admitted that was prejudicial to the defendant.

The judge let an anthropologist speculate on the cause of death because no medical examiner would do it. The prosecution was shopping for an opinion.

The judge let the anthropologist show a computer animation of how the duct tape would have looked when placed over her face. Like so many other aspects of the government's case, this was done purely to appeal to the emotions of the jurors.

What would the jurors think of the smell in the cans? That they should convict her because something smelled bad? Seven police officers were by that car on the night of July 16th and smelled nothing, according to their testimony. Then the prosecution brings in some guy who has a financial interest in selling his "sniffer machine." Never been done in a court before and the jury rightly rejected that junk science.

The prosecution trying to use falsified computer search documents should bother every citizen. There were no "84" visits to the chloroform site. Those were myspace visits that the police and prosecution omitted from their second "analysis" (I use that word loosely) of the hard-drive. I'm glad they didn't get away with that. The government shouldn't be able to manufacture false evidence against any citizen. So I agree that lawyers (in this case, for the prosecution) and police shouldn't be lying to the jury. Why in the world would any citizen want them to have that much power?

This was a great example of the justice system working. After a three-year investigation and a State Attorney's Office with 150 investigators and lawyers, the government STILL couldn't prove their case. The jury showed that the government must PROVE through actual credible evidence (not junk science and falsified reports) that the defendant is guilty beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. The government failed because the evidence wasn't there.

Of course, the jurors didn't watch Nancy Grace, who convicts people on television on Day One of their case. They also seemed to have not let emotion trump logic and reason. Good for them. Good for the Constitution.


----------



## Lyndl (Apr 2, 2010)

Tippy said:


> Beyond a reasonable doubt is a difficult concept until you have actually served on a jury and gone through the process.
> 
> I simply do not see why we have to bad-mouth a jury simply be cause we do not agree with their verdict. Remember, that jury sat in the courtroom through that trial, day in and day out. Most of us simply watched the trial through the eyes of the media.


I totally agree. I have been on a jury that had to find someone not guiity. We ALL thought he was guilty, but there was simply not enough evidence.

To be honest, I'd never heard of this case before today, it certainly never made the News down here. From what I've read today, I can't see how a Jury could have found her guilty. The burden of proof exists to protect the innocent, and occasionally the guilty are also set free. You cannot, and should not, convict someone on a feeling.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

I haven't read the thread yet, but here goes. I'm torn. Yes, I personally think she's guilty and would have liked to see her convicted. I can't imagine serving on that jury was easy though. I don't know what the deliberation was like. We -- the public -- heard things they did not. It's one thing for me to think, "yeah, she did it," and it might be another thing had I been one of the jurors. So, I have to give them respect.

Innocent until proven guilty is how the legal system operates, but it's not how the average guy watching and speculating operates. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that people "out in the wild" won't form opinions. I see no logical reason why any mother wouldn't report her child missing, and then would lie repeatedly to the police so that they apportion their resources inefficiently. She lead them on a wild goose chase and it makes no sense to me. The pictures of her partying actually make _more _sense to me, I can reconcile those better, than I can understand her obstructing a search for her baby. Unless she knew that the more decomposed she was when she found, the less likely they could pin it on her -- and this is probably exactly while she was found not guilty. The prosecution could paint a picture, but lead people to what would seem to be a logical conclusion, but they couldn't give exact cause of death. There was no Law and Order filling in of all the puzzle pieced and no Perry Mason confession.

I think the public wants to feel some sort of justice was served, and that didn't happen. Not just because she was found Not Guilty, but because there's no reason to believe anyone else will be charged. Most people see pictures of that little girl, think about how short her life was, and want someone to answer for it -- and yesterday it became clear that sometimes there's no neat ending.


----------



## gryeates (Feb 28, 2011)

I only became aware of this case yesterday through FB and I read a concise article by the BBC. From what was cited, filtered as it was through the distorting hyperbolic lens of the media, I know I could not have found her guilty. The evidence was an inconclusive mess as others have noted and the three-ring circus nature of the coverage made it no surprise to me that the verdict was not guilty.

I also think people are letting their feeling that Casey Anthony is an unpleasant human being lead them to branding her a killer. I believe the former is true but it does not, by default, lead us to the latter conclusion. Emotively arguing for this to be seen as the case though seems to have been the foundation of the prosecution's approach which I find much more contemptible, particularly when this was a death penalty case. Dislike and loath someone as much as you like but that doesn't give you the right to take their life away on that basis.

I think Caylee deserved a better mother and a loving family environment to grow up in but I don't believe that because her mother could not fulfill our hopes and expectations in this regard that means she should go to the block. That way lies the lynch mob.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

gryeates said:


> I only became aware of this case yesterday through FB and I read a concise article by the BBC. From what was cited, filtered as it was through the distorting hyperbolic lens of the media, I know I could not have found her guilty. The evidence was an inconclusive mess as others have noted and the three-ring circus nature of the coverage made it no surprise to me that the verdict was not guilty.
> 
> I also think people are letting their feeling that Casey Anthony is an unpleasant human being lead them to branding her a killer. I believe the former is true but it does not, by default, lead us to the latter conclusion. Emotively arguing for this to be seen as the case though seems to have been the foundation of the prosecution's approach which I find much more contemptible, particularly when this was a death penalty case. Dislike and loath someone as much as you like but that doesn't give you the right to take their life away on that basis.
> 
> I think Caylee deserved a better mother and a loving family environment to grow up in but I don't believe that because her mother could not fulfill our hopes and expectations in this regard that means she should go to the block. That way lies the lynch mob.


I don't understand your death penalty argument. The jury had many different options for conviction that would not include the death penalty. It was not a dichotomous "Not Guilty or Chopping Block" decision.


----------



## dpinmd (Dec 30, 2009)

gryeates said:


> I also think people are letting their feeling that Casey Anthony is an unpleasant human being lead them to branding her a killer. I believe the former is true but it does not, by default, lead us to the latter conclusion. Emotively arguing for this to be seen as the case though seems to have been the foundation of the prosecution's approach which I find much more contemptible, particularly when this was a death penalty case. Dislike and loath someone as much as you like but that doesn't give you the right to take their life away on that basis.
> 
> I think Caylee deserved a better mother and a loving family environment to grow up in but I don't believe that because her mother could not fulfill our hopes and expectations in this regard that means she should go to the block. That way lies the lynch mob.


Amen. I am very grateful to live in a country where you are "innocent until PROVEN guilty" and not "innocent until Nancy Grace decides you're guilty."


----------



## gryeates (Feb 28, 2011)

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> I don't understand your death penalty argument. The jury had many different options for conviction that would not include the death penalty. It was not a dichotomous "Not Guilty or Chopping Block" decision.


You're right, it wasn't but the way a lot of people are talking, the tone of feeling suggests they feel like it should have been, there's a lot of talk about her getting her just desserts in 'the next life' which says to me that it is clearly on people's minds, and it was one of the options available and could have been imposed if the more serious charges were proven. To me, that would be of incredible significance if I was on a jury as a life is in the balance not just a set amount of years off that life.


----------



## *Sandy Harper* (Jun 22, 2011)

She will continue to suffer as a mother for the death of a child. That's more punishment than any court. It serves no purpose to hang her or put in jail for the rest of her life. We have to look into our social system when any mother kills her own child.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I am actually worried about her safety now. With idoits like Nancy Grace still going after her, you never know the disturbed people that get ideas in their heads. There are "tourists" hanging around there for sakes. Some of them act like this affected them personally. Sometimes folks get way to involved in strangers life and in things not their business. 

She will have to move away to another state. Can you imagine living in that area where the grandparents live? The idoits keep driving there, walking there bothering everyone. Instead of going home and dealing with their own business. 

Whats more sad is that I bet for a lot of those "tourists" from other states and places, there are plenty of missing and dead children. So why not put all that outrage there and help in your own community. 

What a circus.


----------



## valleycat1 (Mar 15, 2011)

I didn't even realize this was trial was such a big deal (we rarely watch commercial news) until about a week ago when the coverage seemed to be ramping up but all about the crowds trying to get in, not the facts of the case.

I agree with Eeyore & the others.  The jury trial she was entitled to reached a verdict.  Even on the juries I've served on with lesser charges & no media exposure to speak of, all the jurors took their responsibilities very seriously.  For whatever reason, the prosecution didn't convince the jurors beyond a reasonable doubt.  In a trial it's the prosecution's job to prove the accused committed the specific crime they're charged with - all the rest is immaterial.

Until the principal(s) involved in Casey's death come forward, none of us really knows whether mom is innocent or guilty.  Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean you have to convict them.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

*Sandy Harper* said:


> She will continue to suffer as a mother for the death of a child. That's more punishment than any court. It serves no purpose to hang her or put in jail for the rest of her life. We have to look into our social system when any mother kills her own child.


Not all mothers do suffer when they lose a child. It's counter-intuitive and it's also true.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

gryeates said:


> I only became aware of this case yesterday through FB and I read a concise article by the BBC. From what was cited, filtered as it was through the distorting hyperbolic lens of the media, I know I could not have found her guilty. The evidence was an inconclusive mess as others have noted and the three-ring circus nature of the coverage made it no surprise to me that the verdict was not guilty.


What was the missing piece you feel you needed or that the jury might have needed?


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

I too was stunned by the verdict. At the same time, I also have felt that the way people like Nancy Grace tried this woman in the press is rather ridiculous.  Ultimately, it is up to 12 men and women to decide.  The alternate juror on the Today show today said that he felt the prosecution had not given an adequate motive and could not provide a reason why Caylee died.  It is the best system we have.  So, in its own way, justice was served.


----------



## 4Katie (Jun 27, 2009)

I think Casey Anthony is a lying, selfish, pitiful excuse for a human being and mother. I have no doubt she had something to do with Caylee's death, either by causing it, contracting someone else to do it, or by sheer neglect. I think she's guilty of many things. 

But I agree with the verdict because I don't think they proved she was guilty of murder.

All I can hope for is that life somehow, sometime, in some way, dispenses justice.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

*Sandy Harper* said:


> She will continue to suffer as a mother for the death of a child. That's more punishment than any court. It serves no purpose to hang her or put in jail for the rest of her life. We have to look into our social system when any mother kills her own child.


So you are saying no mother who kills her child should be prosecuted or imprisoned?


----------



## _Sheila_ (Jan 4, 2011)

She will continue to suffer as a mother for the death of a child. That's more punishment than any court. It serves no purpose to hang her or put in jail for the rest of her life. We have to look into our social system when any mother kills her own child.

And to think I'd decided not to comment any more. 

I'm sorry, but didn't you see the pictures of her out partying with her friends before she was arrested?

If this woman isn't stone cold guilty -- what happened? Why was she out partying? She knew she had a child. She knew that child wasn't with her parents. She was out having a great time. Even if she didn't kill the child (which is a really huge leap) -- she didn't do anything to try to find her, or protect her, or grieve her. If one day you had a little girl, and you doted on her, and the next day she was gone -- would you go out to party with your friends? Lie to the cops? Change your story every twelve minutes?

You can say a whole lot of things about this woman -- but she hasn't shown any signs of suffering because of the death of her daughter. As soon as the jury left, she was all smiles, all the way through the trial.

Do I think this is one sick woman? Yep.

Criminally insane? Not a chance.

Guilty? As sin.

I don't fault the lawyers, they did their job and they did it well. I don't fault the jury. They did their job, and they did it well.

I fault us, as a society. We've gotten to the point that anything goes, and if a little girl dies... well... add her name to a very long list.

Sheila


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

Atunah said:


> I am actually worried about her safety now. With idoits like Nancy Grace still going after her, you never know the disturbed people that get ideas in their heads. There are "tourists" hanging around there for sakes. Some of them act like this affected them personally. Sometimes folks get way to involved in strangers life and in things not their business.
> 
> She will have to move away to another state. Can you imagine living in that area where the grandparents live? The idoits keep driving there, walking there bothering everyone. Instead of going home and dealing with their own business.
> 
> ...


I couldn't agree more.

In his statement yesterday, State Attorney Lawson Lamar said his staff will continue prosecuting the 140 other murder cases they are currently trying, 11 of which involve victims who were children. I bet not one of these outraged, traveling looky-loos will stick around Orlando to "seek justice" for these anonymous kids.

There are some 1500 children who are murdered in the U.S. each year. The main reason Caylee Anthony was singled out is that Nancy Grace flogged the story to death with her self-serving rants. Nancy Grace is first and foremost a ratings-seeking TV personality who profits from tragedy. Viewers who follow her may think they are helping seek justice for "little...Caylee...Marie...Anthony," but they are really only helping Nancy Grace and her network get rich.

Nancy Grace is as big a liar as Casey Anthony. Check out the lies surrounding her back story, lies she continues to repeat on her show: 
http://www.observer.com/2006/03/did-nancy-grace-tv-crimebuster-muddy-her-myth/

People who watch Nancy Grace and consider her anything other than a joke deserve to go through life duped.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

I somehow missed the whole Nancy Grace thing in all this. I have no idea who she is. She seems to be vilifies as much if not more than Casey Anthony by posters. I'll have to look into that....or not


----------



## *DrDLN* (dr.s.dhillon) (Jan 19, 2011)

It's self destructive behavior of a mother who lacked moral sense.  It's very unnatural for a mother to kill her own child. Even animals have god-given love for the young ones. It's a learned behavior that is a small reflection of our society.

My heart goes for that little girl.  Hanging Casey Anthony or putting her in jail will do no good other than revenge in the name of justice. She is not a threat to anyone.  We need to focus on why it happened and make sure that such things don't happen by raising the conscious of our society.


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

*DrDln* (dr.s.dhillon) said:


> It's self destructive behavior of a mother who lacked moral sense. It's very unnatural for a mother to kill her own child. Even animals have god-given love for the young ones. It's a learned behavior that is a small reflection of our society.


It's clear that despite the not guilty verdicts as to homicide, a majority of the public is convinced that Casey killed Caylee. This makes me wonder two things:
1. How will the public react when Casey has another baby?
2. How will the child react to her mother when she learns about Caylee?


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

I wasn't aware of this case until a few days ago and then heard the verdict yesterday.  Ever since OJ and a few other high-profile criminal cases, I've not invested myself emotionally in these media circuses.  Nancy Grace is a horror.  A co-worker yesterday told me you had to know about this, since Nancy Grace and the Today Show had exploited it to the fullest.  I watch neither NG nor the Today Show.  

I am now aware of the media phenomenon and many facebook member's reactions (and subsequent formation of groups, such as "Turn Your Porch Lights on for Caylee").  I posted something yesterday about my lack of attention to this story.  I got a few responses from people who expressed the same and then today another FB posted that we must be idiots and child-haters.  I think something is wrong here.  People need to get a life.


----------



## Brem (Jun 29, 2011)

The pictures of her partying really show that she's not a caring mother. There might not of been proof of her being the killer, but it certainly didn't mean she didn't do it. 

I really hope that no movies are made about her, or books for that matter. It'll just be her capitalizing on her child's death.


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

Brem said:


> The pictures of her partying really show that she's not a caring mother. There might not of been proof of her being the killer, but it certainly didn't mean she didn't do it.
> 
> I really hope that no movies are made about her, or books for that matter. It'll just be her capitalizing on her child's death.


I have no doubt that there will be made-for-tv movies, and I will not watch them.


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

For those who (like me) did not know who Nancy Grace is - from Wikipedia:

Nancy Ann Grace (born October 23, 1959) is an American legal commentator, television host, television journalist, and former prosecutor. She frequently discusses issues from what she describes as a victims' rights standpoint, with an outspoken style that has won her both praise and condemnation. She is the host of Nancy Grace, a nightly celebrity news and current affairs show on HLN, and she was the host of Court TV's Closing Arguments. She also co-wrote the book Objection! - How High-Priced Defense Attorneys, Celebrity Defendants, and a 24/7 Media Have Hijacked Our Criminal Justice System.


----------



## 4Katie (Jun 27, 2009)

mlewis78 said:


> I have no doubt that there will be made-for-tv movies, and I will not watch them.


But she'll make a ton of money and keep on partying.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

mlewis78 said:


> I have no doubt that there will be made-for-tv movies, and I will not watch them.


That's ok....She'll be on Girls Gone Wild in no time flat.

*did I just say that out loud* *Bad Chad....Bad*


----------



## gryeates (Feb 28, 2011)

MichelleR said:


> What was the missing piece you feel you needed or that the jury might have needed?


I think what was missing was hard evidence, plain and simple. Conjecture, circumstantial evidence and fabricated evidence do not make a water-tight case. The government prosecutors and the media have done a very good job, to my mind, of creating a case against this woman based on prejudice rather than something empirical and I commend the jury for not buying it. Also by stacking their own lies on top of Casey Anthony's, the prosecution and the media have created a situation where it is very likely we will never know what exactly happened to Caylee and so there will be no justice for her which I think is incredibly sad.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

So is HLN the same as CNN Headline News?   I'm confused


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

BRIAN DICKERSON of the DETROIT FREE PRESS wrote today:

....Casey Anthony's murder acquittal simply wouldn't have been possible without Nancy Grace's intercession.
...No journalist did more to make Casey Anthony the poster girl for bad mothers everywhere, ....
...You do not escape a legal abyss as deep as the one Casey Anthony had dug for herself without skilled legal representation, ...
...Until Grace and her fellow-travelers made her the uber-villainess, Casey Anthony was just another indigent defendant, ...
...As a practical matter, Grace's only function was to conjure a media event sufficiently hot and bright to attract a competent legal team.


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> So is HLN the same as CNN Headline News? I'm confused


I think so. The HLN site for her show is in the CNN site.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

gryeates said:


> I think what was missing was hard evidence, plain and simple. Conjecture, circumstantial evidence and fabricated evidence do not make a water-tight case. The government prosecutors and the media have done a very good job, to my mind, of creating a case against this woman based on prejudice rather than something empirical and I commend the jury for not buying it


This is a misunderstanding of the justice system. Circumstantial evidence is perfectly capable of eliminating reasonable doubt and is valid and essential. This new idea that only direct evidence is valid is extremely damaging to our justice system.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
Criminal law

Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning.
With obvious exceptions (immature, incompetent, or mentally ill individuals), most criminals try to avoid generating direct evidence. Hence the prosecution usually must resort to circumstantial evidence to prove the mens rea levels of "purposely" or "knowingly." The same goes for tortfeasors in tort law, if one needs to prove a high level of mens rea to obtain punitive damages.
One example of circumstantial evidence is the behavior of a person around the time of an alleged offense. If someone was charged with theft of money and was then seen in a shopping spree purchasing expensive items, the shopping spree might be circumstantial evidence of the individual's guilt.

In practice, circumstantial evidence has an advantage over direct evidence in that it is more difficult to suppress or fabricate.[citation needed] Eyewitness testimony is notoriously inaccurate at times,[citation needed] and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony. Good strong circumstantial evidence can be a far more reliable basis on which to determine a verdict.[citation needed] Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eye-witness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eye witness does.

--------------

no other coherent explanation for the large amount of circumstantial evidence was provided. The Defense gave no real explanation for her actions.


----------



## Meemo (Oct 27, 2008)

4Katie said:


> I think Casey Anthony is a lying, selfish, pitiful excuse for a human being and mother. I have no doubt she had something to do with Caylee's death, either by causing it, contracting someone else to do it, or by sheer neglect. I think she's guilty of many things.
> 
> But I agree with the verdict because I don't think they proved she was guilty of murder.
> 
> All I can hope for is that life somehow, sometime, in some way, dispenses justice.


Yep. She's a lying liar - a convicted one, so I don't have to say "alleged". My gut feeling is that she had something to do with Caylee's death - but a jury isn't supposed to convict on gut feelings. I didn't watch a lot of the trial, heard some of it on TVs in other rooms on multiple news channels. I've heard everything from "The judge stacked the deck for the defense" to "The judge stacked the deck for the prosecution", which I'm guessing means ultimately he was pretty fair-handed. And had she been convicted, I'm not sure it wouldn't have been overturned down the line because I'm not sure all the evidence was there, and some of it was debatable.

And yes, it does make you wonder why the media gets fascinated by certain missing persons and certain murders and not others. All those folks camped out to watch the "show" that was Casey's trial so that "Caylee would get justice" - how about justice for all those other 11 children the prosecutor mentioned. Were they just not as cute & adorable as Caylee?


----------



## Trilby (Jul 26, 2009)

As my friend posted on FB,...."will casey go searching for the real killer now? in every strip club across america? leave no pole unturned?"


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

FWIW, one of the alternate jurors spoke today, saying he also would have voted not guilty and explains why: http://news.yahoo.com/casey-anthony-found-not-guilty-daughters-murder-011307290.html


----------



## Meemo (Oct 27, 2008)

Cuechick said:


> I feel bad for the jury. I am sure they would have loved to have some real evidence that ruled out all doubt. I am sure many thought she might be guilty or were even sure (as most of us are) that she did it. However they had to follow the law... not their hearts...
> 
> It is just times like this that I wish Dexter was not a fictional character... he even lives (fictionally) in Florida.


Speaking of Dexter...


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

Mike McIntyre said:


> I couldn't agree more.
> 
> In his statement yesterday, State Attorney Lawson Lamar said his staff will continue prosecuting the 140 other murder cases they are currently trying, 11 of which involve victims who were children. I bet not one of these outraged, traveling looky-loos will stick around Orlando to "seek justice" for these anonymous kids.
> 
> ...


Thanks for providing that link.
It certainly puts Nancy Grace into perspective.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Mike McIntyre said:


> People who watch Nancy Grace and consider her anything other than a joke deserve to go through life duped.


I'll express that to my octogenarian grandmother, thanks.


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

It is a shame that newspeople have become entertainers first.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

gryeates said:


> I think what was missing was hard evidence, plain and simple. Conjecture, circumstantial evidence and fabricated evidence do not make a water-tight case. The government prosecutors and the media have done a very good job, to my mind, of creating a case against this woman based on prejudice rather than something empirical and I commend the jury for not buying it. Also by stacking their own lies on top of Casey Anthony's, the prosecution and the media have created a situation where it is very likely we will never know what exactly happened to Caylee and so there will be no justice for her which I think is incredibly sad.


You don't always get that. Sometimes you don't even get a body. Circumstantial evidence can be enough to convict -- if there is enough of it to eliminate doubt. Clearly, there wasn't enough there for the jury, but there isn't a lot more that could reasonably be expected, and it's hard for me to think of a plausible explanation for her choices, even when the quirks of human nature are taken into account.


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

Hey everyone,

This is a very emotionally charged issue with lots of strong feelings. I get that. I also want to put out a gentle reminder that this is Kindleboards where we have a reputation for being respectful and polite--and no personal attacks. This discussion has been very civil and I want to thank everyone for that. Let's keep the discussion going the way it has been...like I said, a reminder, not a reprimand to anyone.

Thanks, KB friends.

Leslie
Global Mod


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

geoffthomas said:


> It is a shame that newspeople have become entertainers first.


In the old days, when it was just ABC, CBS and NBC, networks allowed their news divisions to operate at a loss. Gathering and broadcasting the news was considered a public service. Not in the 24/7 cable "Breaking News" era. Every TV "news" show has to turn a profit or they are out on their can. When the bottom line is the bottom line, it's all entertainment.


----------



## 4Katie (Jun 27, 2009)

Trilby said:


> As my friend posted on FB,...."will casey go searching for the real killer now? in every strip club across america? leave no pole unturned?"


I'm sure she will search for the real killer. And OJ will help her.


----------



## Erica Sloane (May 11, 2011)

_Sheila_ said:


> She will continue to suffer as a mother for the death of a child. That's more punishment than any court. It serves no purpose to hang her or put in jail for the rest of her life. We have to look into our social system when any mother kills her own child.
> 
> And to think I'd decided not to comment any more.
> 
> ...


This is a good example of emotion over reason. This seems to be a good summation of why people are angry -- complete with the aspects of her odd behavior. But that doesn't prove murder, let alone premeditated murder.

To this day, no one has explained how the child died. And since we don't know that, there's absolutely no way to prove it (whatever "it" is) was planned.

And to say "We've gotten to the point that anything goes" is a bit dramatic. That's in line with the emotional approach some are taking, though.

By the way, reasonable doubt doesn't mean the defense has to provide a reasonable explanation for ANYTHING. The government has to prove their case beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. They couldn't do that and twelve people who were instructed to be reasonable saw right through the holes in the government's case.


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

MichelleR said:


> I'll express that to my octogenarian grandmother, thanks.


It's never too late.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Mike McIntyre said:


> It's never too late.


I'm thinking that if a woman who built tanks during WWII, and who outlived both her kids, gets something out of watching a crazy shrew, that I'm going to let it alone.


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

I think watching news shows for entertainment is great.
But I don't like it being passed off as "informing" me.
And especially as an authoritative critique of the issues.

Just sayin.....


----------



## john_a_karr (Jun 21, 2010)

Not one juror had spine enough to oppose the others and have a mistrial. There was ample circumstantial evidence to at least go after 2nd degree murder. Certainly manslaughter. But full acquittal? No. These jurors imposed their own values on someone who didn't deserve it, and justice was not done. The alternate juror, #14, believed Casey Anthony was "a good mother." Yeah, all good mothers go dancing and partying while their only child -- a three year-old -- has gone missing_ for thirty days_.


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

I agree that circumstantial evidence can (and maybe should have) convict.
But I think the prosecution screwed it up - by making an emotional plea rather than resting on the facts.

But a jury is supposed to decide if they believe guilt is established without any doubt.
I don't see how anyone could have decided guilty with no doubts...based upon what was presented, forget that I might FEEL she did it.
I believe that is how our system works.
Didn't say that I like the result in this case.  
But......


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

MichelleR said:


> I'm thinking that if a woman who built tanks during WWII, and who outlived both her kids, gets something out of watching a crazy shrew, that I'm going to let it alone.


Your eightysomething grandma sounds exceptional, kinda like my 91-year-old mom, who served during World War II as a nurse on a Red Cross ship in the Pacific that got bombed by the Japanese. Mom still plays tennis. It's doubles, these days, of course, but it's Australian rules doubles--two against one. Mom usually spots her opponents the alley on her side of the court. Old people have more on the ball than we give them credit for, so don't sell your grandma short.


----------



## scl (Feb 19, 2011)

Don't forget she was not found innocent, she was found not guilty.  Big Difference.


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

..."BREAKING NEWS"...

Outrage! Outrage! Hear All About It...

Casey Anthony may make $  from her murder trial (a trial that found her not guilty).

How are we hearing this and getting "outraged" about it?

From the faux-outraged "news"/media/entertainment establishment that is making $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ off the death of "Little...Caylee...Marie...Anthony."

Cue the emoticons for Nancy Grace, "Dr." Drew, and the endless procession of blow-dried and dyed blond former defense attorneys/prosecutors on retainer to "seek justice"...
$   
$$$  
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

geoffthomas said:


> For those who (like me) did not know who Nancy Grace is - from Wikipedia:
> 
> Nancy Ann Grace (born October 23, 1959) is an American legal commentator, television host, television journalist, and former prosecutor. She frequently discusses issues from what she describes as a victims' rights standpoint, with an outspoken style that has won her both praise and condemnation. She is the host of Nancy Grace, a nightly celebrity news and current affairs show on HLN, and she was the host of Court TV's Closing Arguments. She also co-wrote the book Objection! - How High-Priced Defense Attorneys, Celebrity Defendants, and a 24/7 Media Have Hijacked Our Criminal Justice System.


I think Nancy Grace hijacked this and many other trials!


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

4Katie said:


> I'm sure she will search for the real killer. And OJ will help her.


I realize that you are not serious (or are you?), but this is where OJ is now (from Wikipedia -- but true):

"In September 2007, Simpson was arrested in Las Vegas, Nevada, and charged with numerous felonies, including armed robbery and kidnapping. In 2008 he was found guilty and sentenced to 33 years imprisonment, with a minimum of 9 years without parole. He is currently serving his sentence at the Lovelock Correctional Center in Lovelock, Nevada."


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

The reference is to O.J.'s claim that he would work tirelessly to find the real killers -- and then he went golfing -- instead of confusion as to where he is now.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

john_a_karr said:


> Not one juror had spine enough to oppose the others and have a mistrial. There was ample circumstantial evidence to at least go after 2nd degree murder. Certainly manslaughter.


Depending on how she was originally charged, those might not have been options the jury was allowed to consider.


----------



## Shellybean (Apr 22, 2009)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Depending on how she was originally charged, those might not have been options the jury was allowed to consider.


They were options for the jury to consider. Copy and Pasted from here but can be found many places with a google search.

*Count One, First Degree Murder
Count Two, Aggravated Child Abuse
Count Three, Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child*

She was convicted of four counts of *Giving False Information to a Law Enforcement Officer in Reference to a Missing Person*

BTW, she was just sentenced to the maximum of four years for the four misdemeanor convictions. She has served nearly 3 years already so she's going back to jail to be released by the end of this month or early in August.


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

See I would make the point that the prosecution really goofed:
I'll bet there is something she could have been charged with that the circumstantial evidence would have "proved" without any doubt or that the charge would not require absence of doubt.
Then she might have been convicted and be going to jail.
But they had to "go for it".

Just sayin.....


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

geoffthomas said:


> See I would make the point that the prosecution really goofed:
> I'll bet there is something she could have been charged with that the circumstantial evidence would have "proved" without any doubt or that the charge would not require absence of doubt.
> Then she might have been convicted and be going to jail.
> But they had to "go for it".
> ...


I don't know....manslaughter is one of the lowest "you caused someone's death" charges you can have.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

But that is the whole issue. The state did not prove that she caused a death. Without that, it doesn't matter what those charges are called. Its still all the same result, death. 
Can't prove it, can't find guilty on it under the law of the state and under the instructions they were given. 

The system as we have it in place worked. 

I am sure just watching and reading stuff out there, some will not be happy until either someone does harm to her or she kills herself. The Witchhunt is now on. Everyone coming out of the woodwork suing for something. One one hand nobody wants her to make any money of any kind, yet they want to sue for money. Boggles the mind.


----------



## planet_janet (Feb 23, 2010)

CA is being released from jail next Wednesday, July 13.  Anyone need a nanny?


----------



## planet_janet (Feb 23, 2010)

Atunah said:


> But that is the whole issue. The state did not prove that she caused a death. Without that, it doesn't matter what those charges are called. Its still all the same result, death.
> Can't prove it, can't find guilty on it under the law of the state and under the instructions they were given.
> 
> The system as we have it in place worked.


Cause and manner of death was never proven in the Laci Peterson trial and Scott Peterson was still convicted of first degree murder. What is the difference between that case and this one?


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Whats the difference? Different case, different evidence, different testimony, different police, different prosecution. We have trials for each case in this country separate. We don't just have one mass trial for all defendants in this Country at once.


----------



## KindleChickie (Oct 24, 2009)

If this case "proves" anything to me it is that news has become entertainment.  I did not follow the case.  A little girl is dead.  It is a horrific thing.  It is not entertainment.  The mother is put on trial.  Angain, this is not entertainment.  The mother is acquitted of the most serious charges.  And once again, this is not entertainment.  My faith in the justice system is not shaken.  The men who walk out of prison after serving decades after being falsely accused shake my faith more, but they are not entertaining enough for news coverage.

Why our society and media obsess over certain cases and others are not even reported beyond the local paper is mind boggling.  But all these cases that blow up have a few things in common.  Pretty, white girls.  For those who say we do not value life, we do.  The most valuable life is pretty white girls. They dominate our crime reporting and all the cases that explode in the court of public opinion are overwhelmingly theirs.


----------



## planet_janet (Feb 23, 2010)

I followed the Laci Peterson trial as closely as I followed the CA trial.  The Laci Peterson case was very similar to the CA case in that it was primarily a case of circumstantial evidence--badly decomposed body (or bodies, rather, in the Peterson case) but no physical evidence beyond that. Yet the jury in that trial found the defendant guilty.  There are definite similarities between the two cases and I would submit that the differences in the verdicts came down to the juries.  One of the juries spent over a week reviewing the evidence before announcing the verdict.  The other jury deliberated for less than 11 hours and then hopped on a bus out of town.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

KindleChickie said:


> If this case "proves" anything to me it is that news has become entertainment. I did not follow the case. A little girl is dead. It is a horrific thing. It is not entertainment. The mother is put on trial. Angain, this is not entertainment. The mother is acquitted of the most serious charges. And once again, this is not entertainment. My faith in the justice system is not shaken. The men who walk out of prison after serving decades after being falsely accused shake my faith more, but they are not entertaining enough for news coverage.
> 
> Why our society and media obsess over certain cases and others are not even reported beyond the local paper is mind boggling. But all these cases that blow up have a few things in common. Pretty, white girls. For those who say we do not value life, we do. The most valuable life is pretty white girls. They dominate our crime reporting and all the cases that explode in the court of public opinion are overwhelmingly theirs.


I don't know if I agree, I think this case caught attention because of the outlandish nature of a mother out partying for 30 days while her child was missing and not even reporting it and then lying to everyone about where the child was, then the child is later found dead. (These are established facts in the case, and this is enough to catch the attention of the press)

Off the top of my head I can only remember 4 big over top pressgasms of cases like this. Laci Peterson (missing pregnant mother, husband has no idea what happened to her with fishy alibi) OJ, the two boys who shot their parents with shotguns, and this one. I don't think pretty white girls is the common denominator... I think it is bizarre/outlandish stories


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

planet_janet said:


> I followed the Laci Peterson trial as closely as I followed the CA trial. The Laci Peterson case was very similar to the CA case in that it was primarily a case of circumstantial evidence--badly decomposed body (or bodies, rather, in the Peterson case) but no physical evidence beyond that. Yet the jury in that trial found the defendant guilty. There are definite similarities between the two cases and I would submit that the differences in the verdicts came down to the juries. One of the juries spent over a week reviewing the evidence before announcing the verdict. The other jury deliberated for less than 11 hours and then hopped on a bus out of town.


Similar but not the same. It was different states entirely. In both cases, our legal system functioned correctly and they resulted in two different results. Our opinions on those results are irrelevant as we were not jurors nor do we know precisely what was discussed.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Geoffrey said:


> Similar but not the same. It was different states entirely. In both cases, our legal system functioned correctly and they resulted in two different results. Our opinions on those results are irrelevant as we were not jurors nor do we know precisely what was discussed.


I'm concerned by this idea that the jury is always right and cannot be questioned. The trial was public and I'm not aware of any evidence the jury saw that is not also publically available


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> I'm concerned by this idea that the jury is always right and cannot be questioned. The trial was public and I'm not aware of any evidence the jury saw that is not also publically available


The jury may not have been present during court sessions concerning evidence admissibility, and they also may have been exposed to some evidence/testimony that they were specifically instructed to ignore because it was deemed inadmissible. Whether those decisions on admissibility were correct or not is separate issue you'll need to take up with the judge and the lawyers, not the jury. The 12 jurors came to a unanimous decision rather quickly (and at least one alternate juror has said he would have voted the same way), which points to very little overall indecision on their part, which leads me to believe they came up with an appropriate verdict, _based on what evidence they were allowed to consider, how they were instructed by the judge to perform their decision-making, and how the lawyers of each side presented their cases._ Whether or not their judgment is factually correct or not is irrelevant in judging how well they performed, particularly since no one who is talking actually _knows_ all the facts.

I am much less likely to blame the 12 unanimous jurors -- if there is any blame to be given -- than I am the judge and the prosecution lawyers -- again, if there is, in fact, any blame to be given (versus a case that simply was not winnable for the prosecution based on the available evidence, the Constitution, and the applicable laws for that jurisdiction.)


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

Of course, Casey has now completey destroyed her already dysfunctional family.  He father has already tried suicide once and her completely delusional mother is going to collpase in a total breakdown one of these days.  It's sad all the way around.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

I remember one piece of the prosecution's evidence was a complete waste of time. They spent a lot of time proving that the hair at the scene and the hair in the car were a match......duh, we can assume the baby rode in the car a lot and her hair would be all over the car. That piece of evidence seemed like a waste of time. That's like taking fingerprints inside your own house. Yes, I touched everything....I moved it there   

My argument is still that things like CSI, etc. have changed juries' expectations to a nearly unreachable level of evidence. Only the stupidest killers will now be able to be convicted, because only mountains of direct physical evidence, multiple camera angle captures and satellite photos with 10 eyewitness will establish "without a reasonable doubt"


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I don't think so at all. Shows like CSI have been on TV for many many years now and according to what I have heard many say, 80-90 percent of cases end in convictions still. That is a high rate. 

I give the jurors more credit. They did their duty under the law and now they are being vilified, just because some don't like the outcome. Its easy to play  arm chair judge and jury. Nobody else but the people involved where there. Nobody knows what decision they would have come to unless they were part of the jury, sequestered and following the specific guidelines as they were given.  

You can't pick and choose. If this jury didn't get it right, who is to say they got it right in the Peterson or any other guilty verdict. Why only pick the acquittal one. We either stand by our system or not.


----------



## *DrDLN* (dr.s.dhillon) (Jan 19, 2011)

Mike McIntyre said:


> It's clear that despite the not guilty verdicts as to homicide, a majority of the public is convinced that Casey killed Caylee. This makes me wonder two things:
> 1. How will the public react when Casey has another baby?
> 2. How will the child react to her mother when she learns about Caylee?


Good questions. I assume people will not react the way they do today.
Second the child will believe the mother more than other people. This is just what I think.


----------



## Eeyore (Jul 16, 2009)

The results of the trial are final and there is nothing we here at Kindleboards can do about it. Instead of fuming, it would be nice to put our attention to preventing something like this from happening again. A mother has started an online petition to President Obama and Congress to create Caylee's Law, which "would make it a felony for parents to fail to notify police within 24 hours of a child's disappearance or within an hour of a child's death. Casey Anthony waited 30 days before reporting Caylee missing."

However, a constitutional law Professor at Harvard points out that creating such a law at the federal level would face legal challenges. So I would ask that KB members contact their State Representatives to enact Caylee's Law in the State they live in. It would be a fitting memorial for the death of a little two year old girl.

http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/07/petition-for-caylees-law-goes-viral/#ixzz1RRj1fnSm

Update: Hooray, four States have said they will sponsor a version of Caylee's Law. Is your State one of them?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey-anthony-trial-aftermath-caylee-law-drafted-states/story?id=14020260

All the best.


----------



## KindleChickie (Oct 24, 2009)

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> I don't know if I agree, I think this case caught attention because of the outlandish nature of a mother out partying for 30 days while her child was missing and not even reporting it and then lying to everyone about where the child was, then the child is later found dead. (These are established facts in the case, and this is enough to catch the attention of the press)
> 
> Off the top of my head I can only remember 4 big over top pressgasms of cases like this. Laci Peterson (missing pregnant mother, husband has no idea what happened to her with fishy alibi) OJ, the two boys who shot their parents with shotguns, and this one. I don't think pretty white girls is the common denominator... I think it is bizarre/outlandish stories


I disagree. If OJ had killed his first wife, the media would not have been as outlandish. I never heard of the two boys so I guess the press coverage wasn't as great.

I could name case after case where there are truly outlandish murderers that never make a media splash. There have been a few books written about our media obsession for these cases. Remember the white female POW during the Iraqi war? Remember she wasn't the only female POW?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

KindleChickie said:


> ... never heard of the two boys so I guess the press coverage wasn't as great.


Assuming this refers to the Menendez Brothers, it was all over the media at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyle_and_Erik_Menendez


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

MichelleR said:


> Assuming this refers to the Menendez Brothers, it was all over the media at the time.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyle_and_Erik_Menendez


That's the one I was thinking of


----------



## DenverRalphy (Mar 24, 2010)

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> I remember one piece of the prosecution's evidence was a complete waste of time. They spent a lot of time proving that the hair at the scene and the hair in the car were a match......duh, we can assume the baby rode in the car a lot and her hair would be all over the car. That piece of evidence seemed like a waste of time. That's like taking fingerprints inside your own house. Yes, I touched everything....I moved it there


Well it was somewhat significant as the hair found in the _trunk _of the car was confirmed to have dropped post-mortem.


----------



## ◄ Jess ► (Apr 21, 2010)

KindleChickie said:


> If this case "proves" anything to me it is that news has become entertainment. I did not follow the case. A little girl is dead. It is a horrific thing. It is not entertainment. The mother is put on trial. Angain, this is not entertainment. The mother is acquitted of the most serious charges. And once again, this is not entertainment. My faith in the justice system is not shaken. The men who walk out of prison after serving decades after being falsely accused shake my faith more, but they are not entertaining enough for news coverage.
> 
> Why our society and media obsess over certain cases and others are not even reported beyond the local paper is mind boggling. But all these cases that blow up have a few things in common. Pretty, white girls. For those who say we do not value life, we do. The most valuable life is pretty white girls. They dominate our crime reporting and all the cases that explode in the court of public opinion are overwhelmingly theirs.


While I'm sure some people see it as entertainment, I think a lot people are invested in the case because when it surfaced, there was hope Caylee was still alive and a lot of people were worried about her. When it turned out that she was dead, people want to see some sort of justice for what happened because now they're personally invested. I honestly didn't follow the case at all. I remember hearing about Caylee years ago and that was it. I also wouldn't say that all the cases that get a lot of media attention feature pretty, white girls. The only other similar story that I've heard about a ton on the news most recently was a little boy named Kyron. Again, it got a lot of attention because he disappeared in very strange circumstances and the family might have had something to do with it.


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

There seems to be an increase in the number of parents allowing harm to come to their children - take the CA case here or the many cases of people recently leaving their children in their vehicles for hours to die of heat and dehydration.  And children walking into traffic.  And children being left in shopping malls.
These are all crimes - IMHO.
Our society needs to focus on providing education about morality and responsibility and accountability and self-discipline and self-denial.  All facets of our society used to "teach" this stuff (parents, churches, schools, etc.).  But parents cannot teach what they have never been taught themselves, the schools are not allowed to teach such things, churches seem to have backed away because people might not come back (and put money in the collection) if they are told life is hard, etc.

So we have a large portion of our citizens who live only for themselves and only in the moment.
And all of our advertising (entertainment) confirms that this is good.
So when a obviously confused young woman has a child and tries to raise it by herself with no other help but a seriously confused family.....disaster happens.
Duh!
We can expect more of this, I am afraid.


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

planet_janet said:


> Cause and manner of death was never proven in the Laci Peterson trial and Scott Peterson was still convicted of first degree murder. What is the difference between that case and this one?


I think you might be onto something. Just to be safe, let's send all murder suspects straight to death row, and let God sort them out later.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Mike McIntyre said:


> I think you might be onto something. Just to be safe, let's send all murder suspects straight to death row, and let God sort them out later.


Naw, lets just let them all go......You can never be certain it wasn't a frame-up and anyway its all their parents and society's fault.

*a little tongue in cheek there, just flipping the coin over*


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> Naw, lets just let them all go......You can never be certain it wasn't a frame-up and anyway its all their parents and society's fault.


Exactly -- wasn't caught on tape, didn't happen!


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

MichelleR said:


> Exactly -- wasn't caught on tape, didn't happen!


Actually tape could be faked so that wouldn't count


----------



## 4Katie (Jun 27, 2009)

DenverRalphy said:


> Well it was somewhat significant as the hair found in the _trunk _of the car was confirmed to have dropped post-mortem.


Wow - I hadn't heard that.


----------



## Brem (Jun 29, 2011)

That is if it ever happens? It seems as if Hollywood is hell bent on making her life into a story. As much as I hate the idea, I know it'll sell, which is quite sad. I know we'll be seeing a book or two in the future, that's a given, but do you see a movie? And if so, will you watch it?


----------



## tsilver (Aug 9, 2010)

no


----------



## Dawn McCullough White (Feb 24, 2010)

Probably not.  Too upsetting.

Dawn


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Nope. Doesn't interest me at all, just as the current new reports and the case itself have not interested me. (I am somewhat interested in studying other people's reactions to it, however, because people amaze/confound me all the time with which things they obsess over and which they pay no attention to.  )


----------



## 4Katie (Jun 27, 2009)

Good god, no. I've seen and heard quite enough.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Multiple threads on this topic have been combined . . . sorry for any confusion.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

no.....but I bet Lindsey Lohan would be perfect!


----------



## planet_janet (Feb 23, 2010)

Geoffrey said:


> Similar but not the same. It was different states entirely. In both cases, our legal system functioned correctly and they resulted in two different results. Our opinions on those results are irrelevant as we were not jurors nor do we know precisely what was discussed.


Never said these cases were the same, and I do not care if my or anyone else's opinion on the results are irrelevant. It is my opinion and I can and will express it.

Edited to add that I'm sorry if this comes across rudely. It has been a long day and I (obviously) have very strong opinions and feelings about this topic.


----------



## planet_janet (Feb 23, 2010)

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> no.....but I bet Lindsey Lohan would be perfect!


Agreed!!!!

I will never watch a movie about CA, nor will I ever purchase a book about her or her family.


----------



## Erica Sloane (May 11, 2011)

4Katie said:


> Quote from: DenverRalphy on Yesterday at 03:38:25 PM
> Well it was somewhat significant as the hair found in the trunk of the car was confirmed to have dropped post-mortem.
> 
> Wow - I hadn't heard that.


There was conflicting testimony about the science of post mortem root-banding on hair. The prosecution witness admitted that some of the hairs in his research showed the banding even when taken from living individuals. The single hair in the trunk was not confirmed to have been dropped post-mortem.


----------



## john_a_karr (Jun 21, 2010)

In case anyone still has the desire for more insights into this thing, there's an article in the link below, with a video of the juror ...

Casey Anthony juror: If not for the death penalty, we might have convicted her

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-juror-if-not-for-the-death-penalty-we-might-have-convicted-her/


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

That's interesting, John, and I think another juror implied something similar. However, that's outside of what was asked of them, as the reporter mentions -- to worry about what the penalty might be. That being said, it might be nearly impossible not to consider the implications under the circumstances of a first degree murder conviction. When you listen to the talking heads, they almost all seem to be careful to respect the jury's decision, while adding they would have arrived at a different conclusion -- that they think the evidence was there.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

MichelleR said:


> That's interesting, John, and I think another juror implied something similar. However, that's outside of what was asked of them, as the reporter mentions -- to worry about what the penalty might be. That being said, it might be nearly impossible not to consider the implications under the circumstances of a first degree murder conviction. When you listen to the talking heads, they almost all seem to be careful to respect the jury's decision, while adding they would have arrived at a different conclusion -- that they think the evidence was there.


Which still confuses as they could have convicted her of manslaughter, which does not carry the death penalty.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> Which still confuses as they could have convicted her of manslaughter, which does not carry the death penalty.


I know. There seems like a lot of confusion here. Did they not understand about a lesser charge? Did they think they needed an exact cause of death or had to have some sort of "smoking gun?"


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

Cnn reported: Perry told the seven-woman, five-man jury if they decide Casey Anthony is not guilty of first-degree premeditated murder, they can decide whether to convict her of a less serious charge -- second-degree murder, manslaughter or third-degree felony murder. Similarly, they can convict her of child abuse rather than aggravated child abuse.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

geoffthomas said:


> Cnn reported: Perry told the seven-woman, five-man jury if they decide Casey Anthony is not guilty of first-degree premeditated murder, they can decide whether to convict her of a less serious charge -- second-degree murder, manslaughter or third-degree felony murder. Similarly, they can convict her of child abuse rather than aggravated child abuse.


Which makes this quote nonsensical: "Casey Anthony juror: If not for the death penalty, we might have convicted her"


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

Yeah Chad.
I thought that there were the 3 counts - but the CNN report clearly says that when the judge charged the jury, he gave them options.  So either CNN has reported it wrong, or you are absolutely correct.


----------



## Brem (Jun 29, 2011)

If a movie does get made, who do you think will play her? I can see many people boycotting the film if it were to ever happen.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

I picked Lindsey Lohan..... That skater who took out Nancy Kerrigan would be good, but she is too old now


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

Brem said:


> If a movie does get made, who do you think will play her?


Casey Anthony could play herself. To be a good actor, you have to be a convincing liar.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

Ok, I'm late to the party since I'm on vacation and didn't much of the coverage.  What little I did see made me weep for the lack of journalistic impartiality.  At one point I asked my wife to turn off a judgmental shrew who had decided the correct outcome of the trail was GUILTY before all the facts were given to the jury.  And that's no way to run a justice system.  No body here knows the real answer nor does the media.  No one should ever allow the media to convict a person beforehand, no matter how awful the crime.

Perhaps we should go back to the days when TV wasn't allowed in the courtroom.

Sent from my iPhone


----------



## Eeyore (Jul 16, 2009)

Rascal Flatts and Gary LeVox Co-Wrote a Song in Tribute to Caylee Anthony. It is called "She's Going Places". You can link to the article, which also has the song being performed.

http://tasteofcountry.com/rascal-flatts-gary-levox-caylee-anthony-song/

All the best.


----------



## graffitionthesun (Jun 5, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> That's interesting, John, and I think another juror implied something similar. However, that's outside of what was asked of them, as the reporter mentions -- to worry about what the penalty might be. That being said, it might be nearly impossible not to consider the implications under the circumstances of a first degree murder conviction. When you listen to the talking heads, they almost all seem to be careful to respect the jury's decision, while adding they would have arrived at a different conclusion -- that they think the evidence was there.


I actually think they did what was asked of them. They didn't feel like they ad enough information to say if she really committed the crime, so they said she wasn't guilty.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

MichelleR said:


> That's interesting, John, and I think another juror implied something similar. However, that's outside of what was asked of them, as the reporter mentions -- to worry about what the penalty might be. That being said, it might be nearly impossible not to consider the implications under the circumstances of a first degree murder conviction. When you listen to the talking heads, they almost all seem to be careful to respect the jury's decision, while adding they would have arrived at a different conclusion -- that they think the evidence was there.





graffitionthesun said:


> I actually think they did what was asked of them. They didn't feel like they ad enough information to say if she really committed the crime, so they said she wasn't guilty.


Perhaps not, but the discussion you're quoting is specifically about a juror indicating that perhaps there wasn't so much reasonable doubt as concern over the penalty.


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

Geemont said:


> Ok, I'm late to the party since I'm on vacation and didn't much of the coverage. What little I did see made me weep for the lack of journalistic impartiality. At one point I asked my wife to turn off a judgmental shrew who had decided the correct outcome of the trail was GUILTY before all the facts were given to the jury. And that's no way to run a justice system. No body here knows the real answer nor does the media. No one should ever allow the media to convict a person beforehand, no matter how awful the crime.
> 
> Perhaps we should go back to the days when TV wasn't allowed in the courtroom.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone


As it turns out, Nancy Grace and the other bloviators who monetized misery in the name of "seeking justice for...Little...Caylee...Anthony" had ZERO impact on the verdict. What they did accomplish was to make a ton of money off their misguided viewers, the majority of whom remain ignorant of the rules of evidence, judge's instructions and the U.S. Constitution. I say, more televised trials (as opposed to "expert" opinions). If more people watched justice in motion, they might actually learn what they failed to in junior high school.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

Mike McIntyre said:


> I say, more televised trials (as opposed to "expert" opinions). If more people watched justice in motion, they might actually learn what they failed to in junior high school.


I'm not sure TV trials would necessarily help. There once was a show called Court TV, I think, though I never saw it, that showed full trials. Did enough people watch? Probably not.

A better method would be more emphasis on logic, science, and philosophy. If more people understood how to build an argument, defend it with evidence, and (very importantly) know and except when contradictory information and facts are more likely to be correct than one's current opinion, then the TV blowhards would have less to shrill about. As is, it seems to me, many folks who watch TV can't (or won't) differentiate between entertainment (Nancy Grace) and true impartial journalism (if that exists.)


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Court TV wasn't a show, but rather a network. It's now called Tru TV.


----------



## Alle Meine Entchen (Dec 6, 2009)

Just wanted to warn all of you who are interested in the trial to watch what you click on in your emails. There is an email going around about a "new confession" video of Casey Anthony. It's either just a video or her confessing to her lawyer. Don't click on it, it's a link that'll give you a virus. Snopes.com has a story on it: http://www.snopes.com/fraud/phishing/casey.asp

Basicallly, the link opens up your fb and computer to phishers and scammers as well as viruses. There is no video, but there are people who are willing to take advantage of others.


----------

