Jury rules Casey Anthony Not Guilty

Jodah

New member
Aug 2, 2008
2,280
0
0
The prosecution dropped the ball. They figured she would be convicted on the charges alone and offered little evidence. I will not give my opinion on her guilt or innocence, just saying it was a poorly prosecuted case.
 

HumpinHop

New member
May 5, 2011
324
0
0
Woodsey said:
OK, so she's not guilty then. I don't see why your mother cried over it.
Key word being 'mother'. She has two boys, so the idea of someone breaking the neck of their two year old daughter and getting away with it might be a bit hard on her. It seems the majority of the people pulling for the guilty verdict were mothers who were committed to her being guilty from the start.
 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
HumpinHop said:
Woodsey said:
OK, so she's not guilty then. I don't see why your mother cried over it.
Key word being 'mother'. She has two boys, so the idea of someone breaking the neck of their two year old daughter and getting away with it might be a bit hard on her. It seems the majority of the people pulling for the guilty verdict were mothers who were committed to her being guilty from the start.
Just as well she wasn't on the jury then.
 

Joel Dawson

New member
Jun 26, 2011
66
0
0
rhizhim said:
links about how to use chloroform and several 'child missing' pages were found on her pc.
Based on what I've read, it appears that the searches were attributed to her mother. Though why her mother would be looking up chloroform confuses me.
 

JoJo

and the Amazing Technicolour Dream Goat 🐐
Moderator
Legacy
Mar 31, 2010
7,150
100
68
Country
🇬🇧
Gender
♂
Cormitt said:
Once more the US jury gets it wrong. No justice for the little girl. Oh well, leave it with the prosecutors for screwing up what would otherwise be a slam dunk.
Because evidently you know far more about the case than the jury who had to sit through 33 days of testimony.

OT: Being British, I have heard very little about this case so I haven't seen enough to make up my mind, but either way its tragic that such an adorable little girl had her life cut short. I hope that the jury have made the right decision today as if the mother is guilty then she derserves far more punishment than we could ever give her.
 

shadowmagus

New member
Feb 2, 2011
435
0
0
Being found guilty would probably have been better for her. She would have gone to prison, may or may not have gotten the death penalty, may or may not have even lived long. No, now she has to go back outside to a world that has seen her face plastered all over the place as the "woman who allegedly killed her child and tried to cover it up". You try getting a job like that. Sure, she could write a memoir, and people will buy it, but even OJ's estate went to shit because everyone knew he did it.

This woman's life is screwed regardless. Did she get away with it, perhaps. Is she going to feel the repercussions to her dying day. Most likely. I would not wish this woman's future misery on my own worst enemy.
 

Simonism451

New member
Oct 27, 2008
272
0
0
Joel Dawson said:
rhizhim said:
links about how to use chloroform and several 'child missing' pages were found on her pc.
Based on what I've read, it appears that the searches were attributed to her mother. Though why her mother would be looking up chloroform confuses me.
Chloroform is not exactly that much of an exotic thing if I compare it to my list of Google searches in the last few days
 

razer17

New member
Feb 3, 2009
2,518
0
0
HumpinHop said:
Woodsey said:
OK, so she's not guilty then. I don't see why your mother cried over it.
Key word being 'mother'. She has two boys, so the idea of someone breaking the neck of their two year old daughter and getting away with it might be a bit hard on her. It seems the majority of the people pulling for the guilty verdict were mothers who were committed to her being guilty from the start.
Pretty sure it says the in the news report that the cause of death couldn't be determined,so how you know it was a snapped neck I don't know, but maybe you should bring that evidence to light.


OT: Everyone here is going off on one about how this is a miscarriage of justice and crying out about the state of the legal system. Thing is: No one here know the true facts, no one here was in that courtroom, no one here saw the evidence.

A jury said she wasn't guilty, and that's it. They must have had good reasons to declare her not guilty. Now, I'm not saying that she definitely didn't do it, but I am saying that she was found innocent, so stop treating her as if she is definitely guilty. Plus it's better to let someone guilty off than to lock someone innocent up.
 

HumpinHop

New member
May 5, 2011
324
0
0
razer17 said:
HumpinHop said:
Woodsey said:
OK, so she's not guilty then. I don't see why your mother cried over it.
Key word being 'mother'. She has two boys, so the idea of someone breaking the neck of their two year old daughter and getting away with it might be a bit hard on her. It seems the majority of the people pulling for the guilty verdict were mothers who were committed to her being guilty from the start.
Pretty sure it says the in the news report that the cause of death couldn't be determined,so how you know it was a snapped neck I don't know, but maybe you should bring that evidence to light.


OT: Everyone here is going off on one about how this is a miscarriage of justice and crying out about the state of the legal system. Thing is: No one here know the true facts, no one here was in that courtroom, no one here saw the evidence.

A jury said she wasn't guilty, and that's it. They must have had good reasons to declare her not guilty. Now, I'm not saying that she definitely didn't do it, but I am saying that she was found innocent, so stop treating her as if she is definitely guilty. Plus it's better to let someone guilty off than to lock someone innocent up.
I believe neck breaking was one of the Google searches, from what I can recall of the jury coverage. I didn't mean to imply that she did break her childs neck, but that my mother perceived her to based on the evidence.
 

Lunar Shadow

New member
Dec 9, 2008
653
0
0
cyrogeist said:
my reaction: utter bullshit
her mother said her car smelled like dead people...
So does mine, but because I accidently left chicken in my car on a hot summer afternoon.
 

Del-Toro

New member
Aug 6, 2008
1,154
0
0
I guess they couldn't prove she did it. Not to say they didn't have evidence, but the US criminal justice system is supposed to work on that absolutism. If there's a sliver if reasonable doubt, it doesn't matter what the balance of probabilities is, a jury has to acquit. They might have made a convincing case, but if it's a case with holes in in sufficient to make one doubt the defendant's guilt, then acquittal is supposed to occur.
 

Heart of Darkness

The final days of His Trolliness
Jul 1, 2009
9,745
0
0
I been hearing about this shit for three years. I live in Central Florida, and not a day has gone by when I haven't heard something on the news about this story. Honestly, I'm glad the end's in sight, because it means an end to the endless vomit the media keeps spewing out about this whole ordeal.

And frankly, the verdict doesn't surprise me at all. The prosecution proved nothing other than "Casey lied to the cops." I'm still waiting for the jurors to talk about what exactly happened in deliberations, but I'm glad that prosecution didn't get a conviction on such flimsy evidence.
 

BonsaiK

Music Industry Corporate Whore
Nov 14, 2007
5,635
0
0
HumpinHop said:
How is everyone reacting to the verdict, yay or nay?
It's a court of law, not a public stoning. She's had her day in court and found to be not guilty so people should now just shut the hell up and accept it. I know that's hard for mothers with high maternal instincts but too bad, they're just going to have to suck it up, and it's not like the private affairs of other people are really any of their business anyway. It's between her, the people who it directly affects and the courts, and nobody else - despite how the media may make it seem. People who believe in the idea of vigilante justice should move to some dodgy country where they can stone people to death on suspicion alone. In the meantime civilised people in proper countries will use the court system and accept both the process and the results that it produces, even if they don't happen to always like it.

Anyone that bitter about it should rest assured that she'll probably do time for the other charges anyway, and baby-killers (even if they're innocent) tend to do time pretty rough.

Anyone making judgements on her in this thread is a fool (at best). You weren't there, you didn't see the evidence, you have no right to judge anyone. The court deliberated for days on the verdict, which means that they were given a hell of a lot of information to think about and consider. A hell of a lot of information that you mostly don't even have access to. Think about that before you post something that makes you look like a vigilante.
 

BonsaiK

Music Industry Corporate Whore
Nov 14, 2007
5,635
0
0
The Lesbian Flower said:
She had absolutely no reaction when the defense was telling how gruesome her child's death was and describing it in great detail but was in tears during her verdict. That doesn't seem right.
Think about it in the context of the trial, it makes 100% complete and perfect sense.

She's been having people tell her about the gruesome details of the child's death for years now, probably ever since the incident, probably on a daily basis too. She's heard it before, likely hundreds of times. She probably had a reaction the first 50 times but it's like listening to a song the radio plays to death or a broken record - hear it enough goddamn times and after a while it just doesn't move you at all anymore. On the other hand, the verdict is crunch time. She's shitting herself and you would be too, no matter how innocent/guilty you were, especially after all those months of buildup.
 

Instinct Blues

New member
Jun 8, 2008
508
0
0
She had her day in court and the prosecution failed to prove that she killed her daughter because they basically had no solid evidence proving she did. The prosecutions job is to provide te evidence and frankly the evidence they brought was rather weak.
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
I'm going to quote my post from the other thread, since this seems to be the more active one.

Owyn_Merrilin said:
I'd say justice was served. There was no evidence that she was guilty of anything aside from lying to police officers, and there was reason to believe she did that because she wasn't entirely right in the head. Despite what the media's coverage of cases like this lead people to believe, people are innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution had no proof.
This was a death penalty case. They shouldn't be executing people in the first case, but if the government is going to do it, they'd better be damned sure that the person is actually guilty. There was too much reason to doubt that she committed murder.