Wow, I thought she was gonna hang for sure!
What about the duct tape? Is there any reason that a dead child (presumed drowning victim) should have duct-tape on her face? I have a problem with the jury in this one. This verdict does not pass the straight-face test for me. Someone killed that toddler IMO and someone covered it up.
Who is Casey Anthony and why should I care?
Oh great. There is going to be a circus in my state.
I was hoping that after the verdict, I'd quit hearing about it all the time. Guess I was wrong. :(
Someone definitely killed her. No reason to put duct tape on the face of a child that's already dead.
They were discussing it on the radio earlier. Basically the evidence was all circumstantial and the defense seems to have been able to spin that into reasonable doubt, at least in the minds of the jurors. There's no question that some crime was commit, just whether or not it was her.
A common theory is that it was an accident and they disposed of the body in such a fashion hoping to take the heat of themselves and make it look like some sort of kidnapping.
Reasonable doubt of who killed the child and when - maybe? But, it took 30 days for her to report the child missing, in the interim there is proof she was out partying, the mother called the police and said her car smelled like death, then the child is found in a swamp with duct tape about her mouth and head - (given this evidence) all the jury convicted her of was telling lies to the police - shame on the prosecution (again) - IMO.
Taking a month to let anyone know the child was missing is the most damning 'evidence' that was presented. That just didn't make sense.
But, there was just about no actual physical evidence. There wasn't enough physical evidence to prove the cause of death, let alone who did it.
Common sense tells you she knew the child was dead, how the child died, and was involved somehow, but everything else is just speculation (as is the idea that Casey knew Caylee was dead, to be honest, but come on). And the lack of evidence provides a pretty good reason for hiding the fact the child was dead for as long as possible - the older the evidence, the better the chance it would have disappeared.
I think it's hard to prove a case when you don't have physical evidence.
(By the way - have you considered just adding "IMO" to your signature line. :rofl:)
She never said that she would spend the rest of her life looking for the real killer. That's pretty suspicious to me.
It's just a travesty. Definitely one of those times that justice was not served.
Not surprised by the result, and I don't blame the jury at all. There are hundreds of cases every year where someone gets away with murder because of unsubstantial evidence. Our justice system is based on the idea that it is better to let a true criminal go free than to convict an innocent person. Even though justice was not served, the jury did as it was supposed to.
Having followed the trial, I do blame the jury, there was enough to convict, IMO.
What mother doesn't go nuts if their child that age is missing for even an hour? I'd go nuts after 10 minutes.
Definitely. Now OJ has dedicated himself to doing just that for the two people he didn't kill. Right now he's following up at a Nevada prison which he cleverly got himself into. The real killer is no doubt in there somewhere.
It keeps me out of the penalty box.
I didn't follow that closely, I just had heard that the evidence was underwhelming. Could you perhaps give us some info on what evidence was presented? I would appreciate hearing it from you more than a news website.
No, it would be better to list the actual evidence. I'd add bias as a mother. The evidence was rather overwhelming, especially the testimony from her father and his suicide note. She didn't report her daughter as missing. After her daughter was dead and no one knew it, she was out partying.
If she wasn't solely responsible for her daughters death, she was part of it and the coverup. That alone would put her behind bars for years.
People get convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence all the time. You don't even need to have the corpse to do it.
I have lost all faith in our present jury system. We either need professional jurors or we need to lower the standards of evidence to prove guilt.
I would rather send 10 innocent people to jail in order convict just one Casey Anthony. There will be more dead children at the hands of sociopaths like her who make the calculation that they'll only get a few years and no chair if they're caught.
I repeat; the jury system does not work and should be replaced by a jury of "engineers"; analytical, educated, well-paid professional jurors who rule based on common sense.
If I were the sole juror she'd be heading for the electric chair. Why? Because any fool can see she's a pathological liar and sociopath and that she deliberately killed her child. Any other conclusion flies in the face of all reason.
Separate names with a comma.