[twinkiedooter]

Who in their right mind does the types of things that Casey Anthony did after her child went missing and then later found dead? Partying, making up stories that nanny kidnapped child, etc, storing dead body in trunk of car for that long?

Even if she accidentally killed the little girl she should have gotten charged with manslaughter.

Now it looks like this party girl is going free to probably kill again.

What was the jury thinking when they didn't convict her of murder?

I'm still scratching my head on that story.

[Wondergirl]

Now it looks like this party girl is going free to probably kill again.

Kill again? She's not a serial killer.

What was the jury thinking when they didn't convict her of murder?

Even the jury alternates are saying today the prosecution failed to make a case "beyond reasonable doubt."

Russell Huekler, one of five alternate jurors: "The prosecution failed to prove their case and there was reasonable doubt. Again, they didn't show us how Caylee died. They didn't show us a motive. I'm sorry people feel that way. ... These were 17 total jurors. They really listened to this case and kept an open mind."

[speechlesstx]

That's the system, the jury found what they found and that's that.

[twinkiedooter]

I know she's not a serial killer but she does appear to be a mental case. Which leads me to think since she got away with it this time she may try again on another family member. Who knows what goes on in her mind.

[excon]

Hello twink:

Maybe the jury didn't believe a forensics expert could bottle the odor of death so the jury could smell it. That he said he could, stretches the bounds of credulity.

excon

[Wondergirl]

I know she's not a serial killer but she does appear to be a mental case. Which leads me to think since she got away with it this time she may try again on another family member. Who knows what goes on in her mind.

It's every bit as likely that Caylee accidentally drowned, Casey panicked, and, in her dysfunctional and immature way, didn't say anything to anyone. Casey decided since the little girl was dead, nothing could be done but get herself in trouble by telling someone who would have reams of questions.

[Athos]

Kill again? She's not a serial killer.

Russell Huekler, one of five alternate jurors: "The prosecution failed to prove their case and there was reasonable doubt. Again, they didn't show us how Caylee died. They didn't show us a motive. I'm sorry people feel that way. ... These were 17 total jurors. They really listened to this case and kept an open mind."

! - You don't have to be a serial killer to kill again.

2 - It wasn't necessary to show HOW the little girl died. It was only necessary to show that she DID die as a victim of foul play. That was done.

3 - The jury did not understand the concept of reasonable doubt in a US court. This is partly the fault of the Judge who failed to properly explain the concept. This is not uncommon in American trials.

4 - It's not necessary to show a motive. This comment clearly shows that the jury was not up to understanding its job.

[Athos]

It's every bit as likely that Caylee accidentally drowned, Casey panicked, and, in her dysfunctional and immature way, didn't say anything to anyone. Casey decided since the little girl was dead, nothing could be done but get herself in trouble by telling someone who would have reams of questions.

1 - It's not REMOTELY likely that Caylee accidentally drowned. To say "every bit as likely" was nowhere near even what the defense offered, and ignores the chloroform, the duct tape, and the body thrown in a swamp.

2 - Again, it's not REMOTELY likely that the mother, due to immaturity and dysfunctionality, didn't say anything. According to the State's expert witness, 100% - that's ONE-HUNDRED-PERCENT - of accidental deaths of children 5 years or younger ARE reported. 100%!!

3 - There would be absolutely NO problem with "reams of questions". The death, if accidental, is easily explained. All the immaturity/dysfunction in the world could never explain Casey's actions as you suggest.

Reasonable doubt does NOT mean that ANY possible scenario can be suggested, and therefore constitutes reasonable doubt. No. The doubt must be reasonable - not an easy concept to convey here, but the Judge is responsible for explaining it to the jurors. I don't believe he did.

This jury threw out its common sense in the belief they were doing the right thing. This is clear in the alternate's comments. Common sense is an integral part of "reasonable doubt". That was not explained to the jurors.

[Athos]

Hello twink:

Maybe the jury didn't believe a forensics expert could bottle the odor of death so the jury could smell it. That he said he could, stretches the bounds of credulity.

excon

Smells/odors consist of molecular particles. It is relatively easy to analyze the particles to determine what they are. In this case, according to the expert, chloroform was present in enormously high parts per million - much more than would have been expected in a corpse's decomposition.

You're right that the bounds of credulity were stretched, but not because this is "freak science". What it is, is "new science" and, as testified (and not challenged by the defense), it has been accepted in other courts.

In my opinion, what hurt this expert was an unfortunate speech impediment. His inability to pronounce "R" (he made it "W") made him sound like Elmer Fudd and almost a comic figure.

[tomder55]

I put my opinion in another op on a different board. This is a classic case of prosecutorial over-reach. Like Excon said ;they based their case on a preponderence of lame circumstantial evidence including in my view pseudo-science(the car smelled like there was a dead boby in it... air samples taken... the use of psychic detectives ).

It is my guess that the prosecutors could've gotten a conviction on a lesser charge than 1st degree murder... and I think the only reason they put that card on the table was to bully the defense into taking a plea deal .

[Athos]

I put my opinion in another op on a different board. This is a classic case of prosecutorial over-reach. Like Excon said ;they based their case on a preponderence of lame circumstantial evidence including in my view pseudo-science(the car smelled like there was a dead boby in it....air samples taken...the use of psychic detectives ).

It is my guess that the prosecutors could've gotten a conviction on a lesser charge than 1st degree murder....and I think the only reason they put that card on the table was to bully the defense into taking a plea deal .

1 - Circumstantial evidence is perfectly good evidence. The evidence in this case was hardly lame. It was pretty damn convincing. The State did not "over-reach". It was pretty much a slam-dunk case. Note that every lawyer on the planet (defense attorneys and prosecutors that commented on the trial) predicted a conviction. EVERY ONE!!

2 - See my above post to Excon for the "pseudo-science" business.

3 - The prosecutors NOWHERE used psychic detectives in the trial. Where did you get this from?

4 - They DID offer lesser charges. The jurors still returned NOT GUILTY. I don't deny a plea deal would have been entertained.

Now Tom, I've exchanged posts with you before. If you repeat yourself, I won't reply. If you have something other than what you posted above, I'll reply. Or a cogent argument against my post(s).

[Alty]

Let's look at this logically. There are only two options.

1. Caylee drowned in the family swimming pool, like Casey said, and George (Casey's dad, an ex cop) found the body, with Casey there, told Casey that she'd go to jail, put duct tape on Caylee, put her in two garbage bags, and a laundry bag, put her in the trunk of Casey's car, left her for days (in order for the smell of decomposition to be present), administered chloroform, then dumped the body of his beloved grandchild in the woods, and when his daughter was arrested, put on trial, faced the death penalty, he lied.

2. Casey searched the net on how to make chloroform, visited one particular website 84 times. Casey drugs her daughter with chloroform, kills her, puts duct tape and on Caylee's mouth, adds a heart sticker, puts her in two garbage bags and a laundry bag, wants to bury her in the yard, but for some reason can't (she borrowed the shovel from the neighbor). When the backyard burial can't be done, she puts Caylee in the trunk of her car, dumps her in the woods, goes out and parties like it's 1999, and 31 days later, when her mom Cindy finds her, lies, tells Cindy that Caylee was kidnapped by Zanny the nanny, a person that doesn't exist. She tells this story for 3 years while sitting in jail awaiting trial where she faces the death penalty, when all she had to do to make this go away was tell what she says is the truth, that Caylee drowned, it was an accident.

Which makes more sense?

[QLP]

I can see absolutely no reasonable grounds for doubt here but there are a couple of things that puzzle me.

Was there no clear cause of death ascertained at autopsy? Could the prosecution not do some kind of test that proved the pool drowning was a lie or was it impossible to refute since so much time lapsed before she made that claim?

What was her excuse for the chloroform? Did she try and say it was some sort of cover up for the drowning? Couldn't the prosecution have compared the time of death to when the searches on making chloroform was done? What possible reason could she have had if it was before the death?

[tomder55]

Everyone here has their information from the cable providers who covered the trial .None sat on the jury . We aren't talking about a single holdout juror hanging the jury. We are talking about a rather quick jury decision which should lead you to conclude the prosecutors did not prove their case 'beyond a reasonable doubt' . This isn't jury nullification like the OJ case. This is in my view a case of prosecutorial over-reach.
Ps.Athos ;no need to reply .


"If you cannot prove what the crime was, then you cannot determine what the punishment should be."
http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/20...-over-verdict/

[tomder55]

Could the prosecution not do some kind of test that proved the pool drowning was a lie or was it impossible to refute since so much time lapsed before she made that claim?

It is my understanding that could've been tested for with the skeletal remains... something called a " diatome test " ?
Diatoms in forensic. Postmortem examination of drowing cases

[excon]

This isn't jury nullification like the OJ case. This is in my view a case of prosecutorial over-reach.

Hello again,

It IS prosecutorial over reach JUST LIKE the OJ trial was..

Tom would have you believe OJ was let off by a black jury BECAUSE he's black... I guess he FORGOT that when the prosecution put the HEAD cop on the stand, he LIED, and he LIED, and then he LIED some more..

Then the defense PROVED he lied... They PROVED it! Should I say it again? The HEAD COP LIED, and the defense PROVED it... Now, I guess you COULD ignore all of that and say the black jury let him go because he was black... But, that just wouldn't be true..

excon

[tomder55]

I am not arguing against the concept of jury nullification. I think it's an important aspect of our system.

In the OJ case ;his lawyer Johnny Cochran pled with the jury to do a jury nullification in his closing remarks :
And when you enter a not guilty plea, since the beginning of the time of this country, since the time of the magna carta, that sets the forces in motion and you have a trial.

This is what this is about. That is why we love what we do, an opportunity to come before people from the community, the consciences of the community. You are the consciences of the community. You set the standards. You tell us what is right and wrong. You set the standards. You use your common sense to do that.

Who then polices the Police? You[, the jury,] police the Police. You police them by your verdict. You are the ones to send the message. Nobody else is going to do it in this society. They don't have the courage. Nobody has the courage.

They have a bunch of people running around with no courage to do what is right, except individual citizens. You[, the jury,] are the ones in war, you are the ones who are on the front line.

These people set policies, these people talk all this stuff; you implement it. You are the people. You are what makes America great, and don't you forget it.

[speechlesstx]

If it's any comfort, the jurors didn't necessarily want to acquit.

Casey Anthony Juror: 'Sick to Our Stomachs' Over Not Guilty Verdict

[excon]

I am not arguing against the concept of jury nullification. I think it's an important aspect of our system.

Hello again, tom:

I, too, am supportive of jury nullification... And, I WOULD have believed it occurred in the OJ case, were it NOT for the lying cop. You can SAY they did what Cochran wanted them to do, or you can SAY they followed the law.

Since I don't think black people support murder any more than whites, I think they followed the law. You can think other thoughts about black people if you wish.

excon

[Synnen]

Karma works, people.

I believe in my heart she was guilty, but I do not believe the prosecution proved it beyond a reasonable doubt--I will always doubt which story is real at this point.

However--she's alienated her entire family by claiming abuse. She's alienated her friends. She's alienated the public in general who cannot believe she would party with a dead or missing child.

Who is going to date her, besides men looking to get into her pants because they're mentally disturbed? Who would marry her and start a family with her, knowing what she's done? Who would truly be her friend, knowing that she lies and lies and lies when put on the spot? Who would HIRE her?

She wasn't sentenced to death--she was sentence to a life that will make her wonder how every single person in her life will want to use her. She's been sentenced to loneliness and ostracism.

That's a better sentence than death.