Casey Anthony verdict in - NOT guilty (suspected, death, rating)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Reasonable doubt was created by Casey's lies. Casey knew from day one her daughter was dead and where the body was. The months and months of obstruction caused by her lies resulted in destruction of evidence. Doesn't matter if there is "no direct evidence" tying her to the murder. The fact that she knew the child was dead and covered it up for months, chloroform, duct tape on the mouth, etc., etc.. The grandparents sure as heck would never have thrown the body of that child in swamp. This case doesn't need direct evidence. There is more than enough circumstantial evidence to convict. This was a stupid and lazy jury. Same thing happened with my son's situation. Jury anxious to go home.
Reasonable doubt was created by a lack of evidence that this was a homicide. The evidence seems to suggest an accident. That's where the reasonable doubt came from.
By the way, there's no proof that there was a murder here, so unless you were involved and are not telling us all something then you should not be using the word murder.
BS there's enough circumstantial evidence. She was acquitted of child abuse as well as murder. There is no evidence that this was any crime.
Before you go calling a jury stupid, you might want to put away your emotions adn look at the facts.
Reasonable doubt was created by a lack of evidence that this was a homicide. The evidence seems to suggest an accident. That's where the reasonable doubt came from.
By the way, there's no proof that there was a murder here, so unless you were involved and are not telling us all something then you should not be using the word murder.
BS there's enough circumstantial evidence. She was acquitted of child abuse as well as murder. There is no evidence that this was any crime.
Before you go calling a jury stupid, you might want to put away your emotions adn look at the facts.
You aren't thinking straight.
If it was an accident, why was she wrapped in her crib blanket, with her favorite teddy, with duct tape across her mouth n nose, inside a couple black plastic bags, dumped in the swamp. Loving mommy parties the entire time she is missing, while lieing about the child's whereabouts.
Not only that, but there are hoardes of people and police searching day and night for a child they are led to believe is alive. Then she invents this ridiculous kidnap story. Why the horrible stench in the car - pizza? come on! Why borrow the shovel? It goes on & on.
There is NO evidence of an accident - none. That is a story made up by the defense. I cannot believe people actually bought it - the defense can't believe people actually bought it. Casey is laughing at how stupid and gullible people can be.
The prosecutor's closing made perfect sense. Caylee was going to be talking soon, Casey couldn't keep up the lies much longer. She had to make a choice. The kid was an anchor around her neck, she chose to cut her loose. GUILTY
Who knows? The evidence does seem to indicate accident. Was that accident even involving her mother? Who knows? It could have been with her parents.
Nothing in the case indicated that the child was murdered. No proof. Nothing.
Put away the little girl emotions and use your brain. The state is allowed to take away the rights of private citizens when something is proven. All of the jurors including the alternates all have agreed that the state didn't even prove that there had been a homicide.
Why the stench in the trunk? There was no solid forensic evidence showing that a dead body had been in the trunk. Last time I checked, the jurors even got to smell the trunk.
Quote:
The prosecutor's closing made perfect sense. Caylee was going to be talking soon, Casey couldn't keep up the lies much longer. She had to make a choice. The kid was an anchor around her neck, she chose to cut her loose. GUILTY
It made perfect sense to you as you watch the TV show of a lady who has her eyebrows tweezed to make her look mad. The idea that a mother would be kill her daughter out of convenience is rather silly. There was no proof of guilt. The prosecution didnt' prove their case. Pur your childish emotions aside sometime and use your brain. As I tell my niece, use your words (aka think).
There's a reason why 14 people who sat through all of the testimony took next to no time to make a decision. This is an angry country. If the defendant gets acquitted that quickly, the prosecution really didn't prove their case.
Who knows? The evidence does seem to indicate accident. Was that accident even involving her mother? Who knows? It could have been with her parents.
Nothing in the case indicated that the child was murdered. No proof. Nothing.
Put away the little girl emotions and use your brain. The state is allowed to take away the rights of private citizens when something is proven. All of the jurors including the alternates all have agreed that the state didn't even prove that there had been a homicide.
Why the stench in the trunk? There was no solid forensic evidence showing that a dead body had been in the trunk. Last time I checked, the jurors even got to smell the trunk.
It made perfect sense to you as you watch the TV show of a lady who has her eyebrows tweezed to make her look mad. The idea that a mother would be kill her daughter out of convenience is rather silly. There was no proof of guilt. The prosecution didnt' prove their case. Pur your childish emotions aside sometime and use your brain. As I tell my niece, use your words (aka think).
There's a reason why 14 people who sat through all of the testimony took next to no time to make a decision. This is an angry country. If the defendant gets acquitted that quickly, the prosecution really didn't prove their case.
On two threads I've asked what evidence was there that a drowning occurred and thus far have not gottern an answer. Please explain why you are convinced that it had in fact occurred.
Who knows? The evidence does seem to indicate accident. Was that accident even involving her mother? Who knows? It could have been with her parents.
Nothing in the case indicated that the child was murdered. No proof. Nothing.
Put away the little girl emotions and use your brain. The state is allowed to take away the rights of private citizens when something is proven. All of the jurors including the alternates all have agreed that the state didn't even prove that there had been a homicide.
Why the stench in the trunk? There was no solid forensic evidence showing that a dead body had been in the trunk. Last time I checked, the jurors even got to smell the trunk.
It made perfect sense to you as you watch the TV show of a lady who has her eyebrows tweezed to make her look mad. The idea that a mother would be kill her daughter out of convenience is rather silly. There was no proof of guilt. The prosecution didnt' prove their case. Pur your childish emotions aside sometime and use your brain. As I tell my niece, use your words (aka think).
There's a reason why 14 people who sat through all of the testimony took next to no time to make a decision. This is an angry country. If the defendant gets acquitted that quickly, the prosecution really didn't prove their case.
Wait a minute... "The idea that a mother would be kill her daughter out of convenience is rather silly." Are you kidding me? Ever heard of Susan Smith or the countless other parents who kill their children "out of convenience" on a regular basis in countries all around the world??? (Not to mention abortion.) "Silly"? Your blind eye to the FACTS of life seem rather silly to me.
Furthermore, the reason 14 people took next to no time to make a "decision" is because they didn't want to be sequestered for the holiday weekend, no doubt--- OR--- they erroneously made up their minds before they actually considered all of the evidence and discussed the FACTS with one another, as they are required to do as jurists. Either way, talk about decisions made out of "convenience" rather than logic...
I'll say it again- whether she actually "murdered" her child or not--- she IS COMPLICIT in a very serious crime no matter what all of the pro-Casey-camp has to say (whose defense of her I will never understand.) The fact that she is literally walking away from any culpability in the cover-up of the facts surrounding the death and the disposal of the body is mind-numbing to those of us who do, in fact, consider those facts and yet see her merely slapped on the wrist for "lying"!
A true travesty of justice has occurred here and practically all of the world knows it. Only a handful of naysayers are inexplicably able to accept that travesty, it seems. Fortunately for me, as a Christian--- I know that one day Casey Anthony will answer for her crimes.
Wait a minute... "The idea that a mother would be kill her daughter out of convenience is rather silly." Are you kidding me? Ever heard of Susan Smith or the countless other parents who kill their children "out of convenience" on a regular basis in countries all around the world??? (Not to mention abortion.) "Silly"? Your blind eye to the FACTS of life seem rather silly to me.
Furthermore, the reason 14 people took next to no time to make a "decision" is because they didn't want to be sequestered for the holiday weekend, no doubt--- OR--- they erroneously made up their minds before they actually considered all of the evidence and discussed the FACTS with one another, as they are required to do as jurists. Either way, talk about decisions made out of "convenience" rather than logic...
I'll say it again- whether she actually "murdered" her child or not--- she IS COMPLICIT in a very serious crime no matter what all of the pro-Casey-camp has to say (whose defense of her I will never understand.) The fact that she is literally walking away from any culpability in the cover-up of the facts surrounding the death and the disposal of the body is mind-numbing to those of us who do, in fact, consider those facts and yet see her merely slapped on the wrist for "lying"!
A true travesty of justice has occurred here and practically all of the world knows it. Only a handful of naysayers are inexplicably able to accept that travesty, it seems. Fortunately for me, as a Christian--- I know that one day Casey Anthony will answer for her crimes.
Reasonable doubt was created by a lack of evidence that this was a homicide. The evidence seems to suggest an accident. That's where the reasonable doubt came from.
By the way, there's no proof that there was a murder here, so unless you were involved and are not telling us all something then you should not be using the word murder.
BS there's enough circumstantial evidence. She was acquitted of child abuse as well as murder. There is no evidence that this was any crime.
Before you go calling a jury stupid, you might want to put away your emotions adn look at the facts.
Let me put it to you clearly.
One of the lesser charges against Casey was Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child. This can be the death of a child from something as simple as neglect-such as neglecting to provide for safety or neglecting to properly supervise a child.
Casey was the last person with Caylee who was not even three years old. Caylee turns up dead and Casey does not give a truthful account of what happened. Even if an accident did happen, it would be negligent to not seek help immediately. If the child was dead too long for medical help than it is neglect by leaving a child unsupervised for an unreasonable period of time.
The circumstances speak for themselves. Casey's wrong doing can be inferred from the mere fact that the occurrence happened:" Res ipsa loquitor".
Who knows? The evidence does seem to indicate accident. Was that accident even involving her mother? Who knows? It could have been with her parents.
Nothing in the case indicated that the child was murdered. No proof. Nothing.
Put away the little girl emotions and use your brain. The state is allowed to take away the rights of private citizens when something is proven. All of the jurors including the alternates all have agreed that the state didn't even prove that there had been a homicide.
Why the stench in the trunk? There was no solid forensic evidence showing that a dead body had been in the trunk. Last time I checked, the jurors even got to smell the trunk.
It made perfect sense to you as you watch the TV show of a lady who has her eyebrows tweezed to make her look mad. The idea that a mother would be kill her daughter out of convenience is rather silly. There was no proof of guilt. The prosecution didnt' prove their case. Pur your childish emotions aside sometime and use your brain. As I tell my niece, use your words (aka think).
There's a reason why 14 people who sat through all of the testimony took next to no time to make a decision. This is an angry country. If the defendant gets acquitted that quickly, the prosecution really didn't prove their case.
Location: Looks like I'm getting out "Valley On The Sun" Arizona
190 posts, read 417,332 times
Reputation: 224
She's found guilty of a coverup of a murder, but not guilty of the murder....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
