We see way more than the jury does. I didn't think they could legally prove 1st degree, but I expected a lesser charge. I haven't followed this closely, but now I'll be very interested in what the jurors say. With such a fast verdict, the jury obviously felt that guilt couldn't be proven within their constraints. They may well all be convinced she is guilty.
how does a child that may have drowned end up by trees...no missing reports til a month later etc etc...argh this is WRONG verdict.
Two paramount principles that our judicial system was built upon: innocent until proven guilty, and guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Plain and simple, there was doubt.
I actually couldn't agree more with that statement. I know I don't know everything and wasn't there when the crime is committed but that's the way our justice system works.
Ok, so I can see reasonable doubt for the murder 1, but what about the aggravated child abuse? Manslaughter? Bottom line: a child who has drowned "accidentally" does not wind up in a trash heap with duct tape around her face.
Perhaps she should have been charged with abuse of a corpse then, but I don't think that she was. She would have probably been found guilty of that.
And (maybe) there is a possibility that these two principles are allowing guilty people to walk free of crimes they have committed. We have far too many who walk free for crimes they did commitand are put in jail for crimes they didn't commit. Something in our judicial system is not working correctly and needs to be addressed and fixed.
This also prevents people from being wrongly convicted. No system is perfect. You can compare with the Amanda Knox case. In many countries the burden is on the defendant to prove innocence; here, we require prosecution to prove guilt. I find the speed of verdict shocking.
What doubt though? I don't understand. To a layperson, her actions after her daughter went missing (partying), her actions to authorities trying to find her daughter (purposely misleading them), her car stinking of a dead body (that doesn't seem circumstantial)... I don't get it. Does that not enter into a judgement? I take this as an indictment of our society, and our justice system. I think it's just become too easy to populate a jury with stupid people who can be easily manipulated. And one of the craziest things is--this has turned out to be a tremendous investment for her. Granted, she paid with a few years of her life in jail, and lots of stress. But for voluntarily sacrificing her daughter, she will now make millions in book & movie deals. What a shrewd business move in an economically turbulent time! We have a new cottage industry here in America. Kill your child, and act in the most bizarre and outwardly obviously guilty manner, and populate your jury with retards--and if you can get off, and make a lot of money!
I do not like this statement at all. The ten guilty should not escape and the one innocent should not suffer. We shouldn't settle for a mediocre justice system... we need to strive for more and fix it.
All the evidence shows is that Caylee died. There isn't any real evidence showing how she died or, if it was foul play, who did it. I think that everyone would agree that Casey's actions after the death of her daughter were inappropriate, but that doesn't necessarily mean that she caused the death of her daughter. We as the audience have had access to a lot more information than the jurors got. Whatever they heard, they didn't hear enough to convince them that Casey was guilty of murder or manslaughter. Twelve jurors of her peers found her not guilty. That's how it goes.
I guess I don't see it as a mediocre justice system. I see it as you can't condemn a person to prison or death if there is doubt. You may be wrong, but it's better to be wrong and let a guilty person go free than it is to be overzealous and send an innocent person to prison. It's a tenant of our judicial system.
There's already talk of Kristen Stewart from Twilight to play her in a movie similar in style to Monster (Charlize Theron played Aileen Wuornos).
I just can't move past the idea, in general, of it being okay or better to be wrong and allowing a murderer, serial killer, or rapist to go free.
If it's not proven that they did it, why should they be sentenced to prison or death? We're entering a dangerous state of affairs if we start convicting people with no or minimal proof. The fact is that in this case, none of us was there and none of us knows conclusively what happened. We all have our gut feelings and our opinions based on the evidence that we've seen. Unfortunately, none of us was on that jury. Twelve other people were, and those twelve people weighed all the evidence and determined that there was not enough evidence to convict her. In this case, the prosecutors should have worked harder to make sure that their case was rock solid. It's their fault that they didn't, not the jurors fault for not being convinced.
I agree with this, for the most part. I would think the duct tape clinging to her skull would indicate this was a homicide. (The mandible was still attached, which I'm pretty sure means she was still alive when the duct tape was put on.) The burden was on the prosecution to prove this was first-degree murder, and I don't believe they did that. This case was missing fingerprints, DNA, eye witnesses.... anything directly linking Casey to the crime when Caylee's body was found. Personally, I believe Casey is responsible for her daughter's death; it pains me that she can walk free, and celebrate her "victory", while we still have no idea who killed Caylee. I really did expect them to find her guilty of manslaughter, so I'm shocked by the jurors' verdict. ETA: I totally agree with Caesar's post: My DH is an attorney and we had many conversations about this case. (Actually, it was more me asking him tons of questions and him patiently answering them for me. )
On another note, how telling is it that her own parents left the courtroom after the verdicts were read? Maybe I'm seeing something that's not there, but if they were happy for their daughter wouldn't they have been there, hugging her and smiling? I'd be interested to hear what they have to say.
DNA was missing because the body laid out in the heat and moisture for five months ~ that's what I mean about reasonble doubt vs shadow of a doubt. It is reasonable to expect that a body exposed to moisture and heat would NOT have DNA evidence as both the witness for the prosecution and defense stated. These witness both agreed they would not expected to find any DNA on the remains. The duct tape had rotted at the same rate as the body ~ no cotton fibers left in the tape, etc . . no one moved that body and the tape was placed on the her BEFORE the body decomposed. I still don't understand
Good points, INteacher. I hesitated to post, but am saddened and disgusted with the verdict. No child abuse/neglect..whatever?? Horrible.
I was driving south on Interstate 17 when the verdict was anounce and believe me or not the traffic slowed a little. People were driving with their mouths OPEN!
Doubt about whether it was premeditated murder. No doubt in my mind that Casey IS responsible for her child's death.
Not sure that anything can be read into this either way. The courtroom was under order not to show emotion or reaction, and they would not have been allowed to approach the defense table. They could as easily have gone outside to express emotion as any other reason. Think it is really harsh to call the jurors stupid. Their job is to follow the law and render a decision based on legalalities of the case and evidence. Their own personal feelings as to her guilt should not sway their verdict. They can only consider the case that the prosecution puts forward: either they legally prove their assertions beyond. Reasonable doubt, or they don't. In this case, there was a lack of physical evidence tying her directly to the body or crime scene. If anything, I feel that the prosecution far overshot by making this a capital case. Would there ha e been a different outcome had they aimed for lesser charges or wrongful death? However they feel, I can imagine they were very relieved that the death penalty threat was removed.
There is no physical evidence becausee the body was throw into the woods and exposed to heat and moisture for five months and ALL witnesses both for the defense and prosecution agree too ~ However, the duct tape, the clothing that Caylee wore was from Caylee's diaper bag and NOT the Anthony's home, the laundry bag, the decomposion in the truck of a car that only Casey, Casey's borrowing a shovel from a neighbor, HOW do you get around that evidence?
Circumstantial? I cannot say that I understand. I just know that as a mother it is my duty to protect my child. The moment Casey did not notify the police that her child was missing made her guilty. The rest, I guess we will never know for sure. If she is innocent of physically doing this to her child, she is definitely guilty of not protecting and proactively helping to find the person that took her child, and perhaps save her daughter's life. Things (sometimes horrible things) happen to good people. But your love, and fear should drive you to find your child the MOMENT your child is missing.
Casey's defense is that Caylee was never missing; she drowned in the pool. If that's true, then in Casey's mind there was no need to find her. She knew where she was the whole time.
This is when, among other times, I sincerely wish I still had the religious faith I was raised with...
It is still the job of the parent to protect. She should have alerted the authorities immediately and not tried to cover up this unfortunate death (if that is what it was). She should have been given a sentence of neglect, or 3rd degree murder. She should have been given more than what she will receive. But that is just me. Obviously, I have not been following this case very closely because like the OJ trial ~ I assumed the case was open and shut. My thoughts were: "Clearly she/he is guilty and will go to jail forever." Well, OJ got what he deserved just at a later date. Who knows what will happen to Casey Anthony now. But I am sure that the scarlet letter is firmly attached to her persona and she will have many that will haunt her until the day she goes to HER final resting place. You reap what you sow.
She was smiling, laughing, and celebrating. I don't think she has a conscience. She will probably laugh at all the people who think she is guilty. She does care. She's a psychopath.
I was also shocked by the verdict. I keep thinking of this little sweet girl who will now most probably never get any kind of justice.
There's a group on FB planning to turn on their porch lights at 9 PM (local time, whatever time zone you're in) in memory of Caylee Anthony. If you're interested in doing something like that, go for it. I'll be doing it. http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=237189926299700
Wowsers, your response was seething with various forms of hate. I'm not sure, as an educator, using the language you have to describe the jury is all that productive. I am of the belief that karma is a b**** and people eventually get their comeuppance in the end. I wasn't there when Caylee died/was murdered and therefore, cannot say for certainty what happened to her. In fact, none of us can. The media convicted her before the trial began and the jury didn't, go figure. You may think the justice system is inept right now but I'm pretty sure if you were on the other end of criminal charge that you would be thankful for the notion of due process that we have in our country. Just a thought
