[smoothy]

Late to the thread because I've been overseas.

Anyone want to start a pool about how long it takes before someone bumps the Murderess off? Just kidding, wasn't serious... but I won't be surprised if it does happen.

I have no doubt she actually did it, or had a hand in it... they were just unable to provide that "beyond a reasonable doubt" proof required, particularly in a capital murder charge which would have the highest hurdle for good reason. But then, I wasn't on the jury.

I think she is a narcissistic waste of human flesh based on how she behaved alone. What parent would wait 31 days much less go partying before reporting their missing child.

Personally I think the prosecutors blew it by HOW they charged her, and what they charged her with.

Death penalty cases have the highest level of standards of proof, and for good reason... but she's not exempt from civil charges... thats how the got OJ after all. THAT would NOT be double jeopardy.

They should have had other charges with lesser punishments that might have had a different outcome.

I never heard about a lone juror holdout, even if I had expected to... but then I was traveling and what I did hear was spotty at best.

[southamerica]

Great contribution Smoothy. As time passes and I have been able to approach the situation less emotionally, I can see the position the jurors were in more clearly. I wonder if this is why I've yet to be selected for jury duty?

The prosecution failed Caylee.

[tomder55]

Today I learned that a juror quit her job for fear of retaliation for their decision. There has been a bit of a mob mentality since this case began. Best guess is that Casey Anthony will require the protections of the witness protection program . Apparently the jurors will require it also.

Mob justice is not justice regardless of the outcome of the case.

[Alty]

Today I learned that a juror quit her job for fear of retaliation for their decision. There has been a bit of a mob mentality since this case began. Best guess is that Casey Anthony will require the protections of the witness protection program . Apparently the jurors will require it also.

Mob justice is not justice regardless of the outcome of the case.

I agree Tomber.

The jury, even though I didn't agree with their verdict, doesn't deserve to be harassed and threatened because of the verdict.

The people that are making threats are no better then Casey. The law is the law, and people should follow it.

[tickle]

Can we all just leave this thread alone. It is only rehashing, alty was upset, not able to carry on with the thread and was going to unsuscribe.

AB doesn't want to carry on with it.

Everything is supposition. I feel badly for the jurors. As you can imagine, they were chosen at random and landed in a rats nest.

I think I mentioned before, child offenders do not last long in jail, meaning, they don't come out alive.

tick

[tickle]

Great contribution Smoothy. As time passes and I have been able to approach the situation less emotionally, I can see the position the jurors were in more clearly. I wonder if this is why I've yet to be selected for jury duty?

The prosecution failed Caylee.

The prosecution failed because there was no hard evidence, the trail had gone cold. Unusual for so short a time but that happens.

[Alty]

Can we all just leave this thread alone. It is only rehashing, alty was upset, not able to carry on with the thread and was going to unsuscribe.

AB doesnt want to carry on with it.

Everything is supposition. I feel badly for the jurors. As you can imagine, they were chosen at random and landed in a rats nest.

I think I mentioned before, child offenders do not last long in jail, meaning, they dont come out alive.

tick

Tick, I do want to unsubscribe, but the fact is, I can't. The truth has to be told. The people that are fighting for the conviction don't know the facts, and that's very clear. They haven't bothered to actually view the evidence, or watch the trial. Frankly, I don't even know why they're posting, since they don't know the facts.

I agree that the jurors landed in a rats nest. They saw what they saw, thought she was guilty (all the jurors that have spoken out said that they thought she was guilty), but for some reason they weren't drilled on reasonable doubt, and let a murderer walk free. That doesn't mean that their lives should be hell because of this, and the people that are making death threats etc. well, shame on them!

Child molesters don't last long in jail, but Casey isn't a child molester, she's a child killer, and she gets out on Sunday. She won't be in jail long enough for anyone to do anything to her, and anyone that does attempt to end her life is just as bad as her.

She should be in jail for life, or facing the death penalty. Sadly, that didn't happen. Now that she's free, now that the "justice system" has run its course and let a killer go free, anyone that decides to take matters into their own hands, well, they're just as guilty as she is.

I hope karma works. What comes around goes around. Hopefully that will happen to Casey.

[Athos]

I think I mentioned before, child offenders do not last long in jail, meaning, they dont come out alive.

tick

Casey Anthony is being RELEASED from jail - Sunday.

Did you think she was staying?

[Alty]

Casey Anthony is being RELEASED from jail - Sunday.

Did you think she was staying?

Exactly. She's out in 5 days, depending on where you live. ;)

I am upset by this thread. Not because of the content, but because the people arguing for the Not guilty verdict don't know the case at all. Most of them admit that until this thread, or others like it, they didn't even know about the case. They're guessing when it comes to the facts, and that's very clear in their posts.

I'm only upset because I do know the case, and I do know how the trial went (I watched the whole thing). I made my opinion of guilty based on the trial, not Nancy Grace or any other show.

I only ask that the people that comment here at least take the time to actually watch the trial, know what's involved. Until you do that, your opinion means very little, because you don't have the facts.

[Athos]

the prosecution failed because there was no hard evidence,

Apparently, you haven't read the previous posts here. Some of us have gone to great lengths trying to explain the difference between "hard" evidence, and circumstantial evidence.

Had you taken the time, you would not have posted the above.

[Athos]

Altenweg - I think we were posting at the same time. Some duplication, but not a problem.

[Alty]

Apparently, you haven't read the previous posts here. Some of us have gone to great lengths trying to explain the difference between "hard" evidence, and circumstantial evidence.

Had you taken the time, you would not have posted the above.

Greenie!

I wish I could give you a real one.

I agree. There's rarely hard evidence, but the circumstantial evidence in this case was overwhelming.

Again I ask, and please, feel free to answer. If Caylee wasn't killed by her mother, then how did she die? What other scenario (keeping in mind the chloroform, the duct tape, the garbage bags, the laundry bags, the smell of decomposition in the trunk of Casey's car, the hair found in Casey's car, belonging to Caylee, with post mortem banding on the root, etc. etc.) makes sense? Drowning doesn't make sense. Also, keep in mind the lies about a nanny kidnapping Caylee. The partying. Hiding your daughters "disappearance" for 31 days, and again, etc. etc.

What happened to Caylee if she wasn't killed by Casey?

Anyone have a reasonable explanation that disputes the prosecutions case? Because if you don't, there's no reasonable doubt!

[Alty]

Altenweg - I think we were posting at the same time. Some duplication, but not a problem.

LOL!

Athos, I think this entire thread is a duplication, you and I pointing out why a Guilty verdict should have been rendered. I feel like we're repeating ourselves over and over again, but only a few people are listening.

I really want to know what explanation the "not guilty" posters have for all that happened to Caylee. So far not one of them has come up with a "reasonable" scenario, other then murder.

[smoothy]

Greenie!

I wish I could give you a real one.

I agree. There's rarely hard evidence, but the circumstantial evidence in this case was overwhelming.

Again I ask, and please, feel free to answer. If Caylee wasn't killed by her mother, then how did she die? What other scenario (keeping in mind the chloroform, the duct tape, the garbage bags, the laundry bags, the smell of decomposition in the trunk of Casey's car, the hair found in Casey's car, belonging to Caylee, with post mortem banding on the root, etc. etc.) makes sense? Drowning doesn't make sense. Also, keep in mind the lies about a nanny kidnapping Caylee. The partying. Hiding your daughters "disappearance" for 31 days, and again, etc. etc.

What happened to Caylee if she wasn't killed by Casey?

Anyone have a reasonable explanation that disputes the prosecutions case? Because if you don't, there's no reasonable doubt!

None here that I have seen... I'm thoroughly convinced Casey did it. Based on what I have heard on the case. Since I wasn't actually on the jury... I can present my opinion based on what I have heard thus far.

And the really sad thing is... there are hundreds of similar cases a year we DON'T hear about. That was hardly a rare or special case... just one the media decided to focus in on.

[Alty]

None here that I have seen.....I'm thoroughly convinced Casey did it. Based on what I have heard on the case. Since I wasn't actually on the jury....I can present my opinion based on what I have heard thus far.

And the really sad thing is....there are hundreds of of similar cases a year we DON'T hear about. That was hardly a rare or special case....just one the media decided to focus in on.

There have been a few posters, people that admitted they didn't follow the case, posting that she may not be guilty. I don't mind a difference of opinion, as long at the opinion is educated. It makes me mad when people that don't know about the case, have no idea what evidence there was, post that the verdict was just.

I'm not talking about you Smoothy, but read the entire thread, you'll see what I'm talking about.

I'm just upset because I did my homework. I watched this case unfold for 3 years. I watched every second of the case, every day in court, every person that was brought to the witness stand, all the evidence. I watched it all, and I'm still watching the after math.

My belief is that the jury wasn't well educated in "reasonable doubt". Most of them said they thought Casey was guilty, but wanted a "smoking gun", or DNA evidence, or a clear motive, or witness. That makes me mad. This is real life, not TV or the movies. The body was under water for months. NO DNA! I've never seen a case that actually has video tape of the crime being committed. Motive, that's easy, Casey wanted freedom. The jury wanted too much. They weren't smart enough to realize that the things they wanted, in real life, aren't always possible. There was enough circumstantial evidence to prove the case. IMO. :)

[Wondergirl]

reasonable doubt

reasonable scenario

You have mentioned the two stated scenarios over and over again. Since no one (except Casey) knows and can prove exactly what happened, there is reasonable doubt. A second scenario is that something else could have happened that caused Caylee's death, and Casey took it and ran with it.

Alty, I am 95% certain she killed her daughter, but there is no hard evidence, just circumstantial evidence. Yes, she surfed for chlorophyll/chloroform information. Yes, she partied during those 31 days Caylee was "missing." Yes, there was tons of other circumstantial evidence.

All through this thread, I have never said she did not kill her daughter; I have never said she was innocent. The prosecution did not prove their case -- "not guilty," i.e. "not proven." That is what all of the jurors brought in as a verdict. Meanwhile, the public judged Casey as guilty beginning on Day One of the trial.

[Alty]

Yes, she surfed for chlorophyll/chloroform information.

Have to correct this. Cindy (Casey's mother) said she searched for chlorophyll. Not Casey. Casey searched "how to make chloroform" and visited one particular website with that info 84 times!

Since no one (except Casey) knows and can prove exactly what happened, there is reasonable doubt.

So, any case where the defendant claims innocence means a not guilty verdict? Of course Casey isn't going to admit she killed her child. The prosecution did prove reasonable doubt. They went past reasonable doubt. There was no other scenario because of the evidence.

I have never said she did not kill her daughter; I have never said she was innocent.

WG, this is what doesn't make sense to me. So, are you saying you believe she killed her daughter? If so, why? You never said she was innocent. So, does that mean you believe she's guilty? What part of all of this made you come to that conclusion? Do you have a reason to believe in her guilt? If so, then obviously something in all of this proved that to you. So again, where's the reasonable doubt?

I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just very passionate about this case. I have yet to hear one person say she's innocent, so I have to ask, why do you not believe in her innocence? And, if you don't believe, then why did the jury find her not guilty?

Reasonable doubt? There doesn't seem to be any. Not for anyone.

[smoothy]

There have been a few posters, people that admitted they didn't follow the case, posting that she may not be guilty. I don't mind a difference of opinion, as long at the opinion is educated. It makes me mad when people that don't know about the case, have no idea what evidence there was, post that the verdict was just.

I'm not talking about you Smoothy, but read the entire thread, you'll see what I'm talking about.

I'm just upset because I did my homework. I watched this case unfold for 3 years. I watched every second of the case, every day in court, every person that was brought to the witness stand, all the evidence. I watched it all, and I'm still watching the after math.

My belief is that the jury wasn't well educated in "reasonable doubt". Most of them said they thought Casey was guilty, but wanted a "smoking gun", or DNA evidence, or a clear motive, or witness. That makes me mad. This is real life, not TV or the movies. The body was under water for months. NO DNA! I've never seen a case that actually has video tape of the crime being committed. Motive, that's easy, Casey wanted freedom. The jury wanted too much. They weren't smart enough to realize that the things they wanted, in real life, aren't always possible. There was enough circumstantial evidence to prove the case. IMO. :)

As I have heard described elsewhere... the problem is the legal definition of "Beyond a REASONABLE doubt" has some taken the meaning in far too many peoples minds to mean " Beyond ANY doubt". And those two things mean very different things.

And no... I didn't think you directed that at me.

[Wondergirl]

I'm just upset because I did my homework. I watched this case unfold for 3 years. I watched every second of the case, every day in court, every person that was brought to the witness stand, all the evidence. I watched it all, and I'm still watching the after math.

Did you sequester yourself and not read magazine and newspaper articles about the trial? Did you refuse to listen to anything on TV about it? Did you avoid any real-life or online chats about the trial during the trial? That's what the jury had to do.

Her suspicious behavior persuaded me, just like it persuaded you. Fortunately, the U.S. justice system requires more than suspicious behavior to win a conviction. In a courtroom contest between dueling narratives, our system grants an advantage to the defense. It puts the burden on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Caylee's body was so badly decomposed that the cause of death could not be established. It is much more difficult to prove why somebody died when it can't be proven how that person died. In order to win the case, the defense had to provide a second scenario plausible enough to cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution's version of events. They did that.

[Wondergirl]

Casey searched "how to make chloroform" and visited one particular website with that info 84 times!

Why was her mother checking out chlorophyll information?

And maybe before the 85th search, Caylee accidentally drowned and solved Casey's problem.

So, any case where the defendant claims innocence means a not guilty verdict?

Apparently, you haven't been reading what I have been writing.

You never said she was innocent. So, does that mean you believe she's guilty?

Her actual guilt or innocence wasn't the point of what I have ever written in this thread.