Casey Anthony trial...

[dragonfly411]

Too Patient: The state didn't prove she drugged her kid or left her alone. Those are your interpretations of the story. Their assertion was that the kid was at her grandparents' home when she died. All of you are reacting emotionally but the law requires that you judge on the facts and evidence, not on what YOU personally would have done in that situation. I'm sure that there were jurors who came into the case thinking she was probably guilty but when presented with the road map to find that legally, could not.

Fine. Then how about not reporting an "accident" for 31 days. How is that not negligent/child endangerment? Not to mention no one called 911 when she "drowned". What if she still could have been saved?

If you accidentally hit someone on the road and don't report it for 31 days, you'll sure as hell get charged for something.

Word.

 

[Lanie]

Too Patient: The state didn't prove she drugged her kid or left her alone. Those are your interpretations of the story. Their assertion was that the kid was at her grandparents' home when she died. All of you are reacting emotionally but the law requires that you judge on the facts and evidence, not on what YOU personally would have done in that situation. I'm sure that there were jurors who came into the case thinking she was probably guilty but when presented with the road map to find that legally, could not.

Fine. Then how about not reporting an "accident" for 31 days. How is that not negligent/child endangerment? Not to mention no one called 911 when she "drowned". What if she still could have been saved?

If you accidentally hit someone on the road and don't report it for 31 days, you'll sure as hell get charged for something.

Word.

Yes yes yes. I think they should charge George Anthony with this (not just the reporting, but the dumping of the body...that has got to be a crime as well), and charge Cindy with perjury.

Nancy Grace said that there is a higher judge and Casey will get that punishment, and that didn't make me feel better. Casey clearly doesn't care and won't feel remorse when she looks in a mirror. The threat of hell is not a deterrent to her. To her, what she did is the same feeling I would feel after slicing an onion. Nothing.

 

[Sha]

So, I've thought about this now for a few hours...the shock and disappointment have worn off, and now it's just another really sad story of the justice system gone awry.

Wait, how did it go awry? 12 people got in a room, looked at the evidence, and decided they couldn't convict her. As easy as it is for us to sit here and say she's guilty (and I think she is), we don't have the burden of looking at the evidence and saying, "Yes, this PROVES that she did it." There was no cause of death. As VL said, they may have thought she was guilty, but the evidence all put together didn't prove it. If there had been a cause of death, I think this would have been a different case.

I just don't see how this is a case of the justice system going awry. Not going the way we want it to? Definitely. But I think it worked the way it was supposed to. The law is designed so that people are innocent until PROVEN guilty. It seems like the jury followed the law, and just couldn't find *proof* in the evidence presented to them and so they acquitted her, which actually means it's the legal system working the way it's meant to.

I can say that because I just finished listening one of the alternate jurors discussing his take on the case. He believed things that WEREN'T in evidence...like the drowning, which snowballed (his words, not mine)...and failed to take into consideration the evidence that WAS in evidence, like the duct tape. That is where I consider the whole trial gone awry. He said he considered the dysfunction of her family, and that excused away the 31 days. The chloroform? That could have been from cleaning products...but what cleaning product smells of decomposition?

Does he speak for all of them? No. Of course not. But listening to him speak, I saw some major lapses in judgement. That's my opinion.

Ditto about that alternate juror!!! IT me soo angry!!! You believe there was an accident and there was absolutely NO evidence for that - you believe George Anthony 'covered' something up, and there's NO evidence for that either (any ane person can see how much he loved his granddaughter), but you explain away the duct tape by saying, "Oh, uhmmm...that's how the Anthony's disposed of their pets..." USE YOUR COMMON SENSE!! Why would duct tape be on the skull of a child if not for a murder????? Then he said,"Oh, the whole family is dysfunctional...." -So what? So 'dysfunctioanal' means the family covered up her death and threw her body in a swamp??? It just doesn't make sense. Talk about serious leaps of judgement. It's like they suspended the ordinary common sense that would tie Casey to the murder and instead believed the 'pie in the sky' theories the defense told. Unbelievable!! I hope they all get berated by their family and friends when they go home.

 

[princesss]

Is there anybody here that didn't have their mind made up about this trial before it began? I feel like that may be affecting the way people are reacting to this case. If you made your mind up ahead of time, then everything the State brought forward would only serve to cement your belief in her guilt. However, if your mind was not completely made up, it seems like you'd be more likely to sit and really analyze whether or not the state actually proved their case. The jurors had an obligation to the court, not to Caylee, and they met their obligation. Perhaps the people on this jury weren't convinced of her guilt to begin with and looked at the evidence and didn't believe it pointed to Casey as the guilty party beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps they were totally convinced of it, but the evidence couldn't back it up. Again, the prosecution has to prove the case - there is no burden of proof on the defense. If I remember my few civics lessons correctly, Baez didn't have to prove any of the allegations he brought forward were true. The State, however, had to show that the evidence they had led to Casey and only Casey being the only possible perpetraitor of the crime.

 

[february2003bride]

The two that got away...

 

[Italiahaircolor]

Is there anybody here that didn't have their mind made up about this trial before it began? I feel like that may be affecting the way people are reacting to this case. If you made your mind up ahead of time, then everything the State brought forward would only serve to cement your belief in her guilt. However, if your mind was not completely made up, it seems like you'd be more likely to sit and really analyze whether or not the state actually proved their case. The jurors had an obligation to the court, not to Caylee, and they met their obligation. Perhaps the people on this jury weren't convinced of her guilt to begin with and looked at the evidence and didn't believe it pointed to Casey as the guilty party beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps they were totally convinced of it, but the evidence couldn't back it up. Again, the prosecution has to prove the case - there is no burden of proof on the defense. If I remember my few civics lessons correctly, Baez didn't have to prove any of the allegations he brought forward were true. The State, however, had to show that the evidence they had led to Casey and only Casey being the only possible perpetraitor of the crime.

This is where I guess I differ from everyone who thinks there was reasonable doubt and whatever...

I don't care how, or when, or where I learned about the evidence against Casey, IMO, it leads to only here. It doesn't matter when I made my mind up, only that I did, and I believe her guilty as sin. I have no reasonable doubt that anyone BUT her did it. I really believe all roads lead to Casey.

 

[monarch64]

I personally think the law should prohibit the parent of a child, if they are accused of that child's murder, from profiting off the death of their child.

Unfortunately, once you're aquitted, you're legally as innocent as if you'd never been charged. I don't see how the law can stop you from exercising your right to free speech. That stinks in this case. But what if somebody were charged & tried & the real criminal turned up afterward? They'd be prevented from writing about it too.

If she makes a dime off this story I'm going to throw up. Again. Wanted to vomit all day yesterday. I've NEVER, even after the OJ trial, been so disgusted about anything. Couldn't even look at this thread yesterday, much less contribute.

OJ was a pariah. That was 20 yrs ago or whatever; things have changed (gone downhill) a lot since then. Are we gonna see this horrid woman next on Dancing With the Stars? Grrrrr.

Here's an example of the calibre of that whole crew. Taken through the window of a coffee shop across from the courthouse after the verdict, aimed at reporters outside. My god. And lawyers wonder why the public doesn't like them!

I agree with Mason. The media deserves a huge F U. Especially that tw*t Nancy Grace and her sidekicks for sensationalizing this. If it weren't for piranha like her and Jane the jury might not have been so contaminated.

I agree with you 100%, MrHand. This whole thing has made me want to puke, especially the rabid fans of the case who hang on every word put forth by media. People who are bitching about Casey's celebrity status are the same people who watched Nancy Grace, bought the books, analyzed every little detail on message boards, tweeted about it, updated their FB status about it, etc. You can't really cry about her celebrity status after the fact if you've fed into her notoriety all along.

A little girl was murdered in 2008. The accused murderer was tried and not convicted because the U.S. justice system worked. That. Is. All. If people really want to shun the accused, stop giving her the attention on which she thrives.

 

[mary poppins]

I'm with LV and the others on this - totally disgusted. There was plenty of evidence, and remains which is more than with most cases (Scott Peterson?). There was a pattern of behaviour (lying), silence for 31 days (!), signs of a cover up and ridiculous defense theories. The defense tactic of choose clueless jurors and then confusing them with absurd theories worked (no need for actual supporting evidence or theories!). It's sad because there is no justice but also because now Casey will cash in - book dealks, interviews, maybe a reality show. Our celebrity obsessed culture combined with voyeuristic dumbed down needs has turned sex tapes, murder, horrible scandals into a business opportunity--it's revolting. And I'm sure a few jurors will cash in too.

They must be laughing at us in other countries - what a joke.

There has been a lot of talk about initiating a Caylee's Law--something that would honor her and change the way things are done. People are saying that, the proposal should be, if a child goes missing, it is the parents/caregivers job to report that child within 24 hours or it's a felony.

I personally think the law should prohibit the parent of a child, if they are accused of that child's murder, from profiting off the death of their child. I think that's just common sense.

Holy moly! Common sense? Really?! A person should lose rights if he is merely accused of a crime? The cornerstone of our criminal justice system is that people are innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty in the court of public opinion, but guilty in a court of law in accordance with the laws. The purpose is to provide order and protect the accused.

Just because charges are brought, doesn't mean they are valid. And just because Nancy Grace or Jane Velez say it's so or question in an inflammatory way doesn't make it so. Remember the Duke lacrosse team? Been keeping track of the developments about IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn? Have you ever heard of the Innocence Project? People are wrongly accused and wrongly convicted for a variety of reasons more often than anyone would care to think. The presumption of innocence cannot be suspended.

The Son of Sam law prohibits convicted criminals from profiting from their crimes. It may be distasteful for you to think Casey may make money off of this situation, but she's certainly within her rights to do so. Your proposed law, based on emotion, would turn the criminal justice system on its head.

Here is a sampling of parents who were accused or convicted of killing their kids, and later exonerated. I'm also including a caretaker because parents can easily be substituted in the scenario.


JonBenet Ramsey's parents.
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9833564

Mississippi mother exonerated in child’s death

http://www.mississippilink.com/news/article_ab93833a-8112-59b5-90e3-2b2c087cd0ae.html

Illinois day care provider exonerated

http://www.dmcantor.com/blog/2011/03/08/lisa-randall-update-peoria-woman-exonerated-by-judge-seeking-12-6-million.html


NPR last week did a story about Canadian pathologist Dr. Charles Smith, whose child death investigations resulted in many wrongful convictions over the course of a decade

http://sherrysherret.blogspot.com/

Shaken baby syndrome, including conviction based on false confession (also on NPR last week)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/magazine/06baby-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=magazine

Shaken baby syndrome conviction overturned

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7856016/Father-whose-shaken-baby-conviction-was-quashed-faces-new-access-battle.html

 

[AmeliaG]

I haven't been following the case, so I honestly can't have an opinion on the verdict but can someone explain to me the similarities with the OJ Simpson trial?

I followed the OJ Simpson trial from the pre-trial hearing to the verdict and remember a lot of forensic evidence - everyone said it was more evidence than you'd see in the average murder trial and it got totally disregarded by the jury. That's what shocked me. From what I've heard of the Anthony trial, it had less direct evidence than average, so I'm not seeing the comparison unless its the publicity the two trials generated.

But like I said, I haven't been following this trial so I may have missed something.

 

[karpouzi]

The O.J. Simpson trial was also completely different because of race issues and jury nullification that I don't think were a factor in this case.

 

[mary poppins]

Both high profile cases, OJ and Casey Anthony were acquitted of murdering family members. Many members of the general public believed they should have been convicted. Controversy among believers on each side ensued. In addition, both claimed to be looking for the real killers, making it a mockery among those who believed OJ and Casey were the real killers. Racial issues involved in each case, more so for OJ ("pretty white mom/cute white baby" issue for Casey).

There was a lot of direct evidence in the OJ case, and only circumstantial evidence in Casey's case.

 

[JewelFreak]

Before DNA detection & all the forensic technology of the past 20 yrs, almost all convictions were on circumstantial evidence, way back through history. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. Since murderers rarely ask somebody to watch while they do the job, it's all there is many times. Common sense has to rule in those cases. It sure as hell didn't here. No wonder the jury chickened out of talking to the press.

 

[Maria D]

Is there anybody here that didn't have their mind made up about this trial before it began? I feel like that may be affecting the way people are reacting to this case. If you made your mind up ahead of time, then everything the State brought forward would only serve to cement your belief in her guilt. However, if your mind was not completely made up, it seems like you'd be more likely to sit and really analyze whether or not the state actually proved their case. The jurors had an obligation to the court, not to Caylee, and they met their obligation. Perhaps the people on this jury weren't convinced of her guilt to begin with and looked at the evidence and didn't believe it pointed to Casey as the guilty party beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps they were totally convinced of it, but the evidence couldn't back it up. Again, the prosecution has to prove the case - there is no burden of proof on the defense. If I remember my few civics lessons correctly, Baez didn't have to prove any of the allegations he brought forward were true. The State, however, had to show that the evidence they had led to Casey and only Casey being the only possible perpetraitor of the crime.

Princess, I have to think that you are right about the bolded part. How else can 12 people in less than 11 hours agree otherwise? I guess I just don't understand what the point of trial by jury is if not to vote with what you are convinced of.

I thought the idea was for the prosecution to present the evidence that backs up their case, the defense to defend against that evidence and the prosecution's version of events, along with presenting an alternate theory if they so desire (but do not have to prove), and then, most important part, for the jury to decide what to believe based on evidence and reasonable doubt. Now that we have sophisticated science it seems that the thought/deliberation process of the jury has been bypassed. Unless there is irrefutable scientific forensic evidence that every expert agrees with, people will say that the prosecution didn't prove it. So, even if a juror is convinced the defendant is guilty, they must acquit? So what's the point of trial by jury -- why not just have a protocol for weighing evidence and let a computer do it.

edited to add:
Jewelfreak, I completely agree.

Another similarity with the OJ case was the stunningly short length of deliberations. IIRC, the OJ jury took 4 hours after a 9 month trial.

 

[lbbaber]

Before DNA detection & all the forensic technology of the past 20 yrs, almost all convictions were on circumstantial evidence, way back through history. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. Since murderers rarely ask somebody to watch while they do the job, it's all there is many times. Common sense has to rule in those cases. It sure as hell didn't here. No wonder the jury chickened out of talking to the press.

I agree with you 100%
The jury didnt talk because they are trying to make money off it. Some have publicists shopping around for PAID interviews. TMZ just ran a story about it. Sick.

 

[monarch64]

Before DNA detection & all the forensic technology of the past 20 yrs, almost all convictions were on circumstantial evidence, way back through history. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. Since murderers rarely ask somebody to watch while they do the job, it's all there is many times. Common sense has to rule in those cases. It sure as hell didn't here. No wonder the jury chickened out of talking to the press.

I agree with you 100%
The jury didnt talk because they are trying to make money off it. Some have publicists shopping around for PAID interviews. TMZ just ran a story about it. Sick.

Regarding jurors getting paid for interviews: I can't say I'm surprised. Whether or not I agree with that sort of thing I will keep to myself, but as long as there are people out there willing to watch tabloid television (or any other programs that feature interviews with those jurors), pay for books/magazines, etc. then why WOULDN'T a juror (especially one who may not have much money in the bank and might see this as an opportunity to oh...feed or shelter their family) cash in on his/her 15 minutes? Who is really in the wrong here, the juror trying to make a buck after getting paid tiddlywinks for weeks, or the consumer who just can't tear themselves away from the story?

 

[chemgirl]

Ugh, she obviously did it. I was shocked that the jury came back with a verdict so quickly. I assumed, since they didn't request anything, that they were set on guilty.

I also hate that her life will be totally "back to normal" in a few years...five max. I'm basing this from experience. There was a rapist and serial killer who operated in my area. She lured girls, raped them, tortured them, and murdered them. She murdered her own sister. She got a deal if she testified against her accomplice. Everyone was shocked when video tape of the murders was found. She was a monster. Ten years later and she's in a relationship and has kids. She's altered her appearance and most people don't know who she is anymore. I would scream at her if I saw her on the street, but I have no idea what she looks like now.

Its a sad fact, but most people will be going "Casey who?" and she'll be back to her old ways before you know it.

Chem Girl---I'm guessing Karla Holmolka?

Had I been onthat jury I would have hung it. There is no way in hell I would have gone along with the not guilty on the two lower charges.

I REALLY, REALLY want the jurors to agree to a presser after they decompress and that vacationing juror returnws from London. Hope she enjoys her trip {do we have a dripping with sarcasm emoticon?}

Exactly. I didn't think many people would know about the case because I don't recall it being covered in the US.

 

[lbbaber]

Before DNA detection & all the forensic technology of the past 20 yrs, almost all convictions were on circumstantial evidence, way back through history. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. Since murderers rarely ask somebody to watch while they do the job, it's all there is many times. Common sense has to rule in those cases. It sure as hell didn't here. No wonder the jury chickened out of talking to the press.

I agree with you 100%
The jury didnt talk because they are trying to make money off it. Some have publicists shopping around for PAID interviews. TMZ just ran a story about it. Sick.

Regarding jurors getting paid for interviews: I can't say I'm surprised. Whether or not I agree with that sort of thing I will keep to myself, but as long as there are people out there willing to watch tabloid television (or any other programs that feature interviews with those jurors), pay for books/magazines, etc. then why WOULDN'T a juror (especially one who may not have much money in the bank and might see this as an opportunity to oh...feed or shelter their family) cash in on his/her 15 minutes? Who is really in the wrong here, the juror trying to make a buck after getting paid tiddlywinks for weeks, or the consumer who just can't tear themselves away from the story?

The biggest problem I have with jurors getting paid is that the more outlandish the verdict, the more they can demand for interviews. Almost EVERYONE wants to hear WHY they made THIS decision. They skipped the press conference and then hired publicists!?! It shouldnt be allowed. Who's to say they arent swayed by potential $$$ to vote one way or another. I feel this for ALL cases, not just this one.

 

[Laila619]

Before DNA detection & all the forensic technology of the past 20 yrs, almost all convictions were on circumstantial evidence, way back through history. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. Since murderers rarely ask somebody to watch while they do the job, it's all there is many times. Common sense has to rule in those cases. It sure as hell didn't here. No wonder the jury chickened out of talking to the press.

I agree with you 100%
The jury didnt talk because they are trying to make money off it. Some have publicists shopping around for PAID interviews. TMZ just ran a story about it. Sick.

Sick is right. Somehow I'm not surprised about the jurors though.

 

[monarch64]

Before DNA detection & all the forensic technology of the past 20 yrs, almost all convictions were on circumstantial evidence, way back through history. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. Since murderers rarely ask somebody to watch while they do the job, it's all there is many times. Common sense has to rule in those cases. It sure as hell didn't here. No wonder the jury chickened out of talking to the press.

I agree with you 100%
The jury didnt talk because they are trying to make money off it. Some have publicists shopping around for PAID interviews. TMZ just ran a story about it. Sick.

Regarding jurors getting paid for interviews: I can't say I'm surprised. Whether or not I agree with that sort of thing I will keep to myself, but as long as there are people out there willing to watch tabloid television (or any other programs that feature interviews with those jurors), pay for books/magazines, etc. then why WOULDN'T a juror (especially one who may not have much money in the bank and might see this as an opportunity to oh...feed or shelter their family) cash in on his/her 15 minutes? Who is really in the wrong here, the juror trying to make a buck after getting paid tiddlywinks for weeks, or the consumer who just can't tear themselves away from the story?

The biggest problem I have with jurors getting paid is that the more outlandish the verdict, the more they can demand for interviews. Almost EVERYONE wants to hear WHY they made THIS decision. They skipped the press conference and then hired publicists!?! It shouldnt be allowed. Who's to say they arent swayed by potential $$$ to vote one way or another. I feel this for ALL cases, not just this one.

Good point.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

I agree with you 100%, MrHand. This whole thing has made me want to puke, especially the rabid fans of the case who hang on every word put forth by media. People who are bitching about Casey's celebrity status are the same people who watched Nancy Grace, bought the books, analyzed every little detail on message boards, tweeted about it, updated their FB status about it, etc. You can't really cry about her celebrity status after the fact if you've fed into her notoriety all along.

A little girl was murdered in 2008. The accused murderer was tried and not convicted because the U.S. justice system worked. That. Is. All. If people really want to shun the accused, stop giving her the attention on which she thrives.

You what makes me sick, makes me want to puke? When people feel it's their place to say caring about something like this case is wrong. I cannot say it enough, and I'll say it again...Caylee Anthony was a person, she was an innocent child with her whole life in front of her and she deserves justice for what was done to her. Her own mother didn't care she was dead, and so people around the world took on that role and they grieved her death and wanted Caylee to find peace, they cared that she discarded like trash...she wasn't just some kid who died in 2008. And it's a shame that in this world anyone could view this situation as such.

And people can blame whomever they wish for the media spectacle...Nancy Grace or JVM... but at least they gave Caylee a voice rather than silencing it. They put a face with the name, and pictures and stories and videos. If they did so only for rating, so be it, the result was the same, people cared. Caylee deserved someone to care about her.

So Casey Anthony is not guilty in the eyes of the courts...I'm not the courts. I can think and feel and judge her however I see fit, and I will continue to do just that. In my opinion, she's not a celebrity...not by a mile. Write a book, sell the story, force out some crocodile tears into her magic tissues--I do not care. I'll never invest a dollar into hearing her side of things. If she's a "celebrity" in the eyes of some, it's for the wrong f****** reasons. She may have skated through the legal system, but there is still the court of public opinion--and I have a feeling, for her, that's the one that matters the most.

 

[AmeliaG]

Thanks for filling me in. I was thinking it had more in common with the British nanny trial but there the judge reduced the jury verdict and let the girl go on time served and there was a lot of outrage. A quick jury verdict on a trial this long is always a bit surprising.

Ugh, she obviously did it. I was shocked that the jury came back with a verdict so quickly. I assumed, since they didn't request anything, that they were set on guilty.

I also hate that her life will be totally "back to normal" in a few years...five max. I'm basing this from experience. There was a rapist and serial killer who operated in my area. She lured girls, raped them, tortured them, and murdered them. She murdered her own sister. She got a deal if she testified against her accomplice. Everyone was shocked when video tape of the murders was found. She was a monster. Ten years later and she's in a relationship and has kids. She's altered her appearance and most people don't know who she is anymore. I would scream at her if I saw her on the street, but I have no idea what she looks like now.

Its a sad fact, but most people will be going "Casey who?" and she'll be back to her old ways before you know it.

Chem Girl---I'm guessing Karla Holmolka?

Had I been onthat jury I would have hung it. There is no way in hell I would have gone along with the not guilty on the two lower charges.

I REALLY, REALLY want the jurors to agree to a presser after they decompress and that vacationing juror returnws from London. Hope she enjoys her trip {do we have a dripping with sarcasm emoticon?}

Exactly. I didn't think many people would know about the case because I don't recall it being covered in the US.

The trial of Paul Bernardo? Oh yes, it did get a lot of coverage in the US. That case was horrifying and I was disgusted she got a 10 year plea deal.

As a former juror, though, the idea of jury members having to face an angry public after being sequestered for weeks doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy. I don't think on the trial I was on that I could have focused on the evidence if we hadn't been promised anonymity. The idea of jurors making publicity and money off of it doesn't sit well with me either.

 

[Pandora II]

I started watching this case coming to it completely blind - ie no details known about it at all, even the names - and I don't even know what Nancy Grace looks like!

On the basis of what the prosecution put forward and looking at what the defense came up with, I would say it was beyond all reasonable doubt. Not necessarily on the premeditated, but on the aggravated child abuse.

Whoever said other countries must be laughing... nope, most haven't seen any coverage and anyway we all have our own similar stories.

One that really stands out to me in the UK was the case of Bille-Jo Jenkins. I come from the town where she died and knew the accused's neighbours, his colleagues and several of the senior police officers on the case. He went to jail for 9 years for her murder (battering her to death with a tent peg in the garden) and then managed to get an appeal. The first appeal they couldn't reach a verdict and it was declared a mistrial, the second appeal the jury was told that they would accept 10/2. (I heard that it was 9/3 against him by someone who would know). Another mistrial was called and he they announced that they would not seek a 3rd trial. So he wasn't found innocent but he got away with in (and we may yet have to pay him compensation for his imprisonment ).

His wife and 4 daughters have moved to Australia and want nothing to do with him, and the police are not exactly looking for anyone else. He's now doing a Phd on his own case...


Regarding Cindy and George saying that they have now closed the chapter on Caylee's death. I reckon that that is them saying that the trial showed them exactly what happened and the depths their daughter will go to and whatever the jury has or hasn't done, they have their answers.

 

[AmeliaG]

Caylee deserved someone to care about her.

I agree, italiahaircolor. It's always heartbreaking when a young child dies needlessly.

 

[mrhand]

After reading the posts of so many people questioning a seated, sequestered jury, I'm glad we have a jury selection process that is designed to keep most of you from ever getting onto a jury in the first place.

 

[monarch64]

I agree with you 100%, MrHand. This whole thing has made me want to puke, especially the rabid fans of the case who hang on every word put forth by media. People who are bitching about Casey's celebrity status are the same people who watched Nancy Grace, bought the books, analyzed every little detail on message boards, tweeted about it, updated their FB status about it, etc. You can't really cry about her celebrity status after the fact if you've fed into her notoriety all along.

A little girl was murdered in 2008. The accused murderer was tried and not convicted because the U.S. justice system worked. That. Is. All. If people really want to shun the accused, stop giving her the attention on which she thrives.

You what makes me sick, makes me want to puke? When people feel it's their place to say caring about something like this case is wrong. I cannot say it enough, and I'll say it again...Caylee Anthony was a person, she was an innocent child with her whole life in front of her and she deserves justice for what was done to her. Her own mother didn't care she was dead, and so people around the world took on that role and they grieved her death and wanted Caylee to find peace, they cared that she discarded like trash...she wasn't just some kid who died in 2008. And it's a shame that in this world anyone could view this situation as such.

And people can blame whomever they wish for the media spectacle...Nancy Grace or JVM... but at least they gave Caylee a voice rather than silencing it. They put a face with the name, and pictures and stories and videos. If they did so only for rating, so be it, the result was the same, people cared. Caylee deserved someone to care about her.

So Casey Anthony is not guilty in the eyes of the courts...I'm not the courts. I can think and feel and judge her however I see fit, and I will continue to do just that. In my opinion, she's not a celebrity...not by a mile. Write a book, sell the story, force out some crocodile tears into her magic tissues--I do not care. I'll never invest a dollar into hearing her side of things. If she's a "celebrity" in the eyes of some, it's for the wrong f****** reasons. She may have skated through the legal system, but there is still the court of public opinion--and I have a feeling, for her, that's the one that matters the most.

Hey, I never said it was wrong to care about the death of a child, uh-uh, did NOT say that. What I said was that I find it atrocious that people get all up in arms and basically hysterical about the case yet they themselves are the ones feeding the machine that is the media who is encouraging people like Casey Anthony because she knows she'll garner attention and probably make money from her notoriety because PEOPLE ARE STILL WILLING TO PAY TO SEE THE FREAK SHOW.

And it's nice that you think Nancy Grace is giving Caylee Anthony a voice...perhaps it's my cynical view of the world, but I view it this way: Nancy Grace is making beaucoup bucks off a little girl who was murdered by sensationalizing her case and has done nothing but add fuel to the fire with her demeanor and language. That is sick and wrong, to me. Maybe she'll interview Casey Anthony and cause her to commit suicide too (do a little Google on ol' Nancy) and then the lynch mob will be appeased.

 

[KatyWI]

Seriously? I honestly am having a hard time figuring out why people are so outraged that this case ended the way it did. No one here was in the court room every day, and every single jury member that WAS believed they had to acquit, for whatever reason. End of story.

I keep waiting for someone, anyone to mention how sad it is that children die EVERY DAY in horrible ways and we never figure out what happens to them, but no one has. Amazing.

 

[Laila619]

After reading the posts of so many people questioning a seated, sequestered jury, I'm glad we have a jury selection process that is designed to keep most of you from ever getting onto a jury in the first place.

What's your problem?

 

[Italiahaircolor]

Seriously? I honestly am having a hard time figuring out why people are so outraged that this case ended the way it did. No one here was in the court room every day, and every single jury member that WAS believed they had to acquit, for whatever reason. End of story.

I keep waiting for someone, anyone to mention how sad it is that children die EVERY DAY in horrible ways and we never figure out what happens to them, but no one has. Amazing.

I watched the trial everyday...didn't need to be front and center, I saw the same things they did from the comfort of my home. The 12 people who acquitted her? They never even bothered to ask for a single piece of evidence to review once they were handed the case for deliberation, and please don't tell me they had "perfect recall". At the end of the day, I'd say they weren't working much more than I was, but, that of course is only my opinion. Actually, I was probably looking at things with a wider scope.

See, I'm not a scientist. Most of the forensic testimony was way, way over my head. None of the people on the jury were forensic's people either. I was all but glued to the television during and after the daily coverage trying to understand what didn't come easily to me, because if she was really innocent, there had to be something there which wouldn't fit. I spent hours and hours on this thread with others taking about what we learned and what we knew, putting it back into real life--how would we act, how would we feel, what would we do. It's my feeling that the jurors never bothered to get really knee deep in the evidence in a case that was all about the evidence, since there was no eye witness. They were tired, they missed their families and the comfort of home. I can sympathize with that. But I don't see how a case that took no less than 3 years to put together can be cinched up in under 11 hours with no need for recall.

And yes, of course it's sad that children die everyday. It's heartbreaking and it's criminal and it shouldn't be that way. But I feel like Caylee became bigger than herself in this case, she became a symbol for all those children who are discarded and expendable and it shined a light on that dark place and was a call to action for many people.

I wish every child justice, Caylee included. But if we're going to sit here and just shrug our shoulders and say "well that's that" then we're missing the justice part, because NO ONE is paying for what happened. NO ONE. We're sending the wrong message. Even if what happened was no more than an accident. We're saying that it is NOT CRIMINAL to throw a child in a swamp and walk away. We're saying that if you can LIE your way around an issue, you're free to live La Bella Vita. And that, is no justice I want ANY part in.

 

[JewelFreak]

No one here was in the court room every day,

In fact, some of us were, via that invention called "television." All day. Every day. Seem to have paid more attention than the jurors did.

I keep waiting for someone, anyone to mention how sad it is that children die EVERY DAY in horrible ways and we never figure out what happens to them, but no one has. Amazing.

Because this is not a discussion about all children who die in bad ways. It is about ONE who did, by the demonstrated planning & execution of her own mother. For which a jury refused to make her pay because there was no videotape of the act itself. If a tape of Casey dumping her dead kid into a swamp existed, I think this jury would have said, "well, that doesn't prove she killed her." They watch too much CSI. Sad when the court should remind jurors that what they see on tv is F.I.C.T.I.O.N. & not to expect it in real life.

If she's a "celebrity" in the eyes of some, it's for the wrong f****** reasons.

She definitely will be, Italia. Countless famous people who have contributed nothing of value beyond being well-known attract followers who will do anything to be near anyone who gets publicity for any reason at all. Last night I heard a disgusted lawyer joke Casey will soon have her own line of handbags -- I'm not sure he was kidding. It's all pretty depressing.

After reading the posts of so many people questioning a seated, sequestered jury, I'm glad we have a jury selection process that is designed to keep most of you from ever getting onto a jury in the first place.

Goodness, Mr H., a bit holier than thou, aren't we? These opinions were formed after hearing the evidence & are therefore not mere prejudice. Would you say the same after the OJ verdict, where the trial was complete with his DNA? Nobody else's opinion means we can't express our own -- as you have done a little clumsily.

--- Laurie

 

[KatyWI]

The jury was sequestered. They had no contact with the outside world - no family, no newspapers, no fun outings. You can be pretty sure that all the waking hours they spent outside of the courtroom were hours that they spent thinking about this case. I wouldn't be so quick to say that the only time they thought about what they heard in the courtroom was during those final 11 hours.

The state didn't prove that Casey killed her, no matter how much circumstantial evidence points to that fact. And they didn't prove that Casey was the one who tossed her in a swamp, either. Do I believe she's guilty? Absolutely. But could I have found her guilty in a court of law where the alleged crime was not proven by the state? When even you are saying that it's possible it was an accident that the Anthony family (god knows who) covered up..? Probably not.