Casey Anthony

OJ can't believe it.

Casey Anthony Not Guilty in Slaying of Daughter

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/06/us/06casey.html

I was just about to start this thread lol. I like your way better though.

reasonable doubt.... ugh

Prosecution did not prove its case with evidence. Not a big surprise on the verdict.

Yes, someone killed the girl. But, it was not proved by the prosecutor that Casey Anthony did it. The reasonable doubt was big enough to drive a truck through. Thinking someone did something and proving it are two different things. Nancy Grace looks like she's about to kill someone herself.

triumph5 wrote: Nancy Grace looks like she's about to kill someone, herself.

I can only berkeleying hope.......

Cue parlaying daughter's murder into $$$ in 3....2....1..

If Lifetime, Oxygen, or any of those other he-woman manhater channels put a made for TV movie featuring Sally Freakin' Fields about this crap, and I find out, I will set my television on fire.

Woody wrote: OJ can't believe it. Casey Anthony Not Guilty in Slaying of Daughter http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/06/us/06casey.html

Now that's just evil man!!

I'm ashamed of my state

ugghhh,,, thats all i am gonna say.

Throughout this whole ordeal, it's felt like they were simply looking for someone to pin this on. I think they picked the person that seemed most likely, tried to build a case, but fell short of the burden of proof. I think that in the end, the only person that knows for sure what happened is her kid.

5 months of decomposition does do a number on a body, and will normally get rid of a large amount of evidence. This means they couldn't pin down a time of death, nor even a date of death, as that was all speculation on the prosecution's part. That really makes it hard for me to say for sure that she did it.

Derick Freese wrote: 5 months of decomposition does do a number on a body, and will normally get rid of a large amount of evidence. This means they couldn't pin down a time of death, nor even a date of death, as that was all speculation on the prosecution's part. That really makes it hard for me to say for sure that she did it.

Because her actions are just totally coincidental, right? Where there is smoke, there is fire, what parent in their right mind wouldn't report their daughter missing? FFS

She is not home free yet.

"Not guilty" is not the same as innocent. Doesn't mean she was the culprit either.

I tried to imagine what it would (will?) look like when Law & Order does their take on this. But then I thought, why would they? When the defense started REALLY hammering home the idea that the evidence didn't really link ANYONE DIRECTLY to this poor little girl I knew the mother was going to get off. The writers for L&O wouldn't bother with this case unless they can manage some kind of twist that real life won't provide.

Derick Freese wrote: Throughout this whole ordeal, it's felt like they were simply looking for someone to pin this on. I think they picked the person that seemed most likely, tried to build a case, but fell short of the burden of proof. I think that in the end, the only person that knows for sure what happened is her kid. 5 months of decomposition does do a number on a body, and will normally get rid of a large amount of evidence. This means they couldn't pin down a time of death, nor even a date of death, as that was all speculation on the prosecution's part. That really makes it hard for me to say for sure that she did it.

People have been successfully convicted with no body,

As distasteful as it is to me, I think the poor kid died in the pool and the mom etc freaked. That does NOT excuse her actions; I think they didn't rise all the way to 'murder' but it got real damn close. Had they all done the right thing, i.e. called 911, reported it and tried to get the poor kid revived it would have been yet another tragic accident. Instead, they panicked, tried to cover it up and ignited a firestorm/three ring circus which the lamestream media gleefully jumped on to jack up their ratings so they could run more HotPockets ads. Thanks again, lamestream media.

I will add that regardless of the verdict she comes across as a real sleaze. Way to go instilling values there, Mom and Dad.

In reply to Salanis:

THIS...........

Regardless of our own perceptions, it is the prosecution's obligation to prove guilt "beyond reasonable doubt". In this case (and others) the state failed in carrying-out justice.

"WE" can judge from the sidelines, but the likes of Anthony and Simpson are now pariahs who have to live with their actions. If there is a hell on earth, at least one is already there.

Two related thoughts:

Everyone wants to armchair quarterback, but no one ever wants jury duty. (Believe it not, but I minored in criminal justice.)

Law & Order is sadly no longer with us.

Jury duty

Called 5X, served 3X for an inquest and criminal trials, never murder tho TG. I've never been so disillusioned in my life !! It was bad enough the prosecution didn't know it's butt from a hole in the ground, most of the jurors had the attention span of a 5 y/o. I know it's the best system we have but......

I hope they never call again

David S. Wallens wrote: Two related thoughts: Everyone wants to armchair quarterback, but no one ever wants jury duty. (Believe it not, but I minored in criminal justice.) Law & Order is sadly no longer with us.

In the OJ case, the jury chose to ignore enough evidence to jail three murderers, let alone one. In this case, the prosecution could not tie her directly to the baby's death plus what little they did have on her was queered by someone before the cops even showed.

In this case, the jury came back with the only verdict they could render. They weren't out all that long.

In the OJ case, the jury chose not to pay attention until the closing arguments where Johnny Cochran blew the prosecution out of the water. They weren't out all that long.

In this case, the prosecution's case was weak so they called Casey Anthony a slut which backfired on them.

In the OJ case, the defense called Nicole Simpson a coke whore which did not backfire on them.

.Frankly, I think the OJ case caused some folks to sit up and take notice. I know more and more of my friends are serving on juries. More people are taking the jury summons seriously but I don't know if that's true around the country.

Sadly, Law & Order LA is no substitute.

I can see her getting out of the first degree charge, but what blew my mind was that she got out of the manslaughter charge, and child abuse?

Not guilty does not mean not innocent.

CNN is still mopping up the shrapnel from Nancy Grace's brain. And after all those bombshells...

Joshua wrote: I can see her getting out of the first degree charge, but what blew my mind was that she got out of the manslaughter charge, and child abuse?

As the charges go from major to minor (murder to child abuse) the burden if proof becomes a larger nemesis. Its extremely hard to prove child abuse or neglect (which I think would be a better charge) unless someone can say "I saw this." If they had a witness, there would have been different results.

The jury made the correct decision with the case they had laid out in front of them.