Jury rules Casey Anthony Not Guilty

boag

New member
Sep 13, 2010
1,623
0
0
Katana314 said:
I'm fine with it. I'll consider the facts...

- This woman is scarred by the media for life, and may not be able to show her face to anyone around her again
- She certainly lied, but it's certainly possible she's innocent. SOMETHING convinced the jury. Keep in mind, readers of this article haven't seen all the facts. The media may not have seen all the facts. The jury has.
- If she IS guilty, this woman is not at all likely to kill someone again, especially after this whole trial. The purpose of criminal justice is not for the dead to assume revenge; it is to act as a deterrent against further crimes. Problem solved.
- If she IS guilty, no mother could live without horrible nightmares of her moment of anger.

There, all said and done. No reason for anyone to worry about it anymore.
until she gets a book deal and makes millions.
 

almostgold

New member
Dec 1, 2009
729
0
0
Innocent until proven guilty guys. I regularly google how to chloroform and kill babies, have trace amounts of chemicals relating to the decomposition of human remains in my trunk, and wait till call the police till after 31 days from when children go missing. Doesn't mean anything.
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
chronobreak said:
and somehow ingested chloroform,
They don't have any proof she ingested chloroform. Chloroform is one of the chemicals that the body produces in decomposition; there's no way of telling if the chloroform that was present was caused by decomposition or if it was the cause of death. The whole chloroform thing came up because someone did some google searches for it on Casey's computer, but that's not enough evidence in itself to say Caley was killed with chloroform. There's a reason the medical examiners couldn't come up with the cause.
 

Chris Sandford

Nope, no title.
Apr 11, 2010
244
0
0
Im glad she got not guilty.
They had no cause of death on the victim, no murder weapon, and the motive was "let me kill my child so i could party."
 

Madara XIII

New member
Sep 23, 2010
3,369
0
0
Sober Thal said:
Thanks for the chuckle. If only Noob was in the jury....
Ha! That'd be a hell of situation and I'd honestly love to see that.

Btw Noob,

What WOULD happen if you were on the Jury?

 

RaikuFA

New member
Jun 12, 2009
4,370
0
0
these idiots who say shes innocent will buy her books, watch her tv show and all that crap. like i said our systems so corrupt we can let killers become famous
 

AgDr_ODST

Cortana's guardian
Oct 22, 2009
9,317
0
0
its been said before I know but i'll say it again.....None of you who are decrying this as a miscarriage of justice(ie that she should've been found guilty), calling Casey a horrible *****, wishing ill on her were there none of you know the all facts or know all of what happened in the courtroom(just as I wasn't there either). Fact is she's been found not guilty while the truth(which may never truely come to light) could be that she really is guilty.....just as it could easily have been the reverse and she could've been found guilty when she really didn't do it. I'll try not judge her either way but I do think that the jury did make the right call based on the weak case the prosecution presented compared to the strong defense put forth by Caseys lawyers
 

RN7

New member
Oct 27, 2009
824
0
0
Even if she's not guilty, doesn't mean she isn't innocent. But that doesn't matter. The truth is irrelevant. All that matters is what you can prove and you can make people believe. This is a prime example. So what if the evidence pointed to it. The jury was made to believe she's not guilty so...there. American legal system winning out again. Totally.
 

Bassik

New member
Jun 15, 2011
385
0
0
Craorach said:
Honestly, the OPs mother is an idiot.
Yes, people who react emphaticly to situations are usually idiots. Not us cold, logical, emotionless robots!
 

The Apothecarry

New member
Mar 6, 2011
1,051
0
0
So, guilty of lying to investigators but not murder?...



How often do lying and murder not go hand in hand?
 

Android2137

New member
Feb 2, 2010
813
0
0
Does this mean that everyone's going to shut up about it now? Because really, I've had it with this case! It's all my mom watched on TV anymore. Why were we giving it so much media attention? It's not like she's the first and only mother ever to be accused of murdering her baby.
 

Cormitt

New member
Apr 16, 2009
93
0
0
Jodah said:
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.
Hard to disagree with this. From what I've watched on CNN this afternoon it looks like they dropped the ball worse than I thought. Granted the evidence was primarily circumstantial but at some point too many coincidences have to lead to guilt. Bottom line, they got lazy with the effort to prosecute.
 

HumpinHop

New member
May 5, 2011
324
0
0
Is anyone else just happy it's over?

I'm well aware it's a horrific incident, but if you expose and cover anything for too long people have to get sick of it(Bin Laden).

Come to think of it, what else is really in the news right now that could take it's place now that the case has wrapped up?
 

ZeZZZZevy

New member
Apr 3, 2011
618
0
0
From what I read, neither side really had solid evidence, which explains the verdict

If the prosecution couldn't prove it, the jury (who the legal system tried to make as objective as possible) would have to say "not guilty" because we can't convict someone if the prove isn't concrete.

With all the media coverage though, Anthony will probably be punished by the public for a while to come.
 

HumpinHop

New member
May 5, 2011
324
0
0
Craorach said:
Honestly, the OPs mother is an idiot.

This has nothing to do with anyone but those involved in the case, there is no reason for anyone else to be emotionally involved.

The defence team was right in attacking the media and saying "You cannot convict someone until they've had their day in court". If they are found guilty in a court of law, they are guilty, if they are not, then they are not.. there is no other way that the system can work. The media should support this and remember it is their place to report fact and news, not speculation.
No reason at all, really? You've never gotten mad when someone guilty of murder or rape gets off with a slap on the wrist? There's no logical reason to be upset in the same way it's illogical to fear death as an inevitability, Spock.

Nothing is as white and black as you're depicting it, and the same goes with media coverage. The trial (33 days long) was covered live for an entire month, how many viewers do you think were tuning into that? Ratings before responsibility and integrity, sir.
 

Dr Snakeman

New member
Apr 2, 2010
1,611
0
0
So she's been declared not guilty. Okay. Why is this a problem? How, exactly, does anyone know that she actually did it and "got away with it"?

Personally, I'm kind of sick of people acting like being accused of a crime is the same as being guilty. I agree that the details of this case seem a bit fishy, and Casey seems like she was a terrible mother, but there is no proof that she killed her daughter. No cause of death, no nothing.

If the jury says she didn't do it, then barring any new evidence, I see no reason to question it (aside from the very human desire to cast blame in order to make oneself feel better).
 

Carnagath

New member
Apr 18, 2009
1,814
0
0
I don't know the specifics of the case, but from what I've read it seems that the prosecution fucked up really bad. Again, from what little I know, this was a case that depended a lot on highly technical analysis of forensic evidence. What I don't understand is what a jury of civilians is doing making decisions regarding a case that requires a great deal of legal and scientific knowledge to approach. I don't "get" the American judicial system sometimes.
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
Carnagath said:
I don't know the specifics of the case, but from what I've read it seems that the prosecution fucked up really bad. Again, from what little I know, this was a case that depended a lot on highly technical analysis of forensic evidence. What I don't understand is what a jury of civilians is doing making decisions regarding a case that requires a great deal of legal and scientific knowledge to approach. I don't "get" the American judicial system sometimes.
Just wondering, where are you from? The American justice system was lifted pretty much wholesale from English Common Law, at least in terms of how trials work.