Casey Anthony found Not Guilty.

[WaterBomb]

My sister texted me yesterday saying "they found Casey Anthony not guilty" and my response was, no lie, "who is Casey Anthony?"

Needless to say I never followed the trial, and when I found out why people were all crazy over it, I asked them how they would feel if they were convicted of murder because they SEEMED suspicious? Our justice system works the way it does for a REASON, and the number of guilty people that walk free because of its flaws is far less than the number of innocent people that would be in prison if it worked the other way.

No system is going to be perfect, and no amount of bitching is going to make this otherwise.

 

[Team Amon Amarth]

What has a child ever done to deserve to die? Sure there's been many innocent murder victims in the past, but a child hasn't done anything wrong to anyone. The acts of adults are what shape children into whatever they are today. If a child was molested as a kid by someone then (s)he's going to have anger issues throughout life. There's just no damn good reason to harm a kid. :c

This. This. And This. I've met four sisters who were raped by their older brother for a span of 8 years before that sick fucker was caught. The youngest would've been only 4 when it started; they are now 18, 16, 15, and 13, and the effects are... things you would expect only from a child. Whatever the reason, when terrible things happen to children they will probably never grow out of it.

Whether you believe in Karma or God or what have you, there had better be justice. The mother in this case was very likely guilty, and even though she got off "innocent", I have a feeling it's not going to be all peachy for Casey Anthony, if she has the blood of an innocent on her hands.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Based on the evidence, what possible alternate explanation could have fit the evidence?

There were only 4 people who reasonably can be determined to have killed the child - the grandparents, the brother, and Casey.

You have to prove that the defendant did it. You can't use a process of elimination. Saying "these three people didn't do it" is not even close to saying "the fourth one did".

I admittedly didn't even know about the trial until the verdict but the posts condemning this woman to death disgust me. If you are so damn sure she did it, then you should have testified with all of your evidence in the courtroom. It shows a lack of willingness to treat others fairly at best, and a complete disregard for human life at worst.

 

[shin-eh MEW]

i know there no real evidence but im pretty sure she did kill her daughter like the first post says she dident even call the cops or anybody when she went missing i think it was about 2 weeks. parents would search forever to find there kids even when theres no hope. i hope that bitch dies.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

i know there no real evidence but im pretty sure she did kill her daughter like the first post says she dident even call the cops or anybody when she went missing i think it was about 2 weeks. parents would search forever to find there kids even when theres no hope. i hope that bitch dies.

 

[WaterBomb]

Casey Anthony be climbin in yo windows and snatchin yo babies people up

 

[Chill Murray]

babies don't count as people

 

[Ancien Régime]

You have to prove that the defendant did it. You can't use a process of elimination. Saying "these three people didn't do it" is not even close to saying "the fourth one did".

The problem is that you're taking all the evidence in a vacuum piece by piece, rather than looking it as an overall whole (and i'll say that florida did a poor job at presenting it as such)

Is the 31 days of partying enough to convict? Maybe not, though I think, as you said, if you replace "Casey Anthony" with "Bubba McHardhat" then Bubba is on death row atm. That is essentially the same kind of evidence that has Scott Peterson on death row.
Is the constant lying enough to convict? No.
Is the chroroform and other searches (or even the searches in conjunction with the amounts of it in the car)? No, though a tentative yes if there was more of it (also the idea that Cindy made those searches was pretty conclusively exploded, and Cindy couldn't give a straight answer as to why her work PC was logged in while they were being made)
Is the duct tape and the other missing items from the Anthony home enough to convict? No.
Is the smell of decomposition and Caylee's hair enough to convict? No, because it is true that Caylee could have deposited that hair while she was alive, and hair-banding is really new forensic science that can be questioned by a determined defense. However, NORMALLY cadaver dogs have a near 100% hit rate.

But all of this evidence taken as a whole implicates Casey, probably beyond reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt does not mean "every shred of evidence is air-tight and irrefutable", it means "based on the evidence, why would we not conclude the prosecution's argument was true?" There is simply no reasonable examination of the evidence that can produce an explanation of Caylee's death other than "Casey Anthony murdered her". The best the evidence can produce is "it's theoretically possible something else happened because all the evidence for the prosecution was not rock solid, but there's little/no evidence suggesting that something else happened other than pure speculation". And that's what the defense was - various speculation as to why a given piece of evidence might not be that strong or might not offer conclusive proof, while ignoring the various "coincidences" that all centered around Casey Anthony.

btw, you don't need cause of death to prove murder by any means, you don't need fingerprint or DNA evidence to prove murder, you don't need eye-witness evidence to prove murder (and eye-witness evidence is honestly unreliable compared to most circumstancial evidence).

 

[mattj]

Bro. I agree with you that she acted absolutely suspicious. And I agree with you that all of that evidence taken together convinces me personally that she had at least something to do with it. But in the end, it doesn't matter if you and I are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that she did it. The prosecutors did not do a good enough job of convincing the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that she did it. That's the way our justice system works (thankfully), and that's all that matters.

 

[Umbreon Dan]

becuse these babby cant frigth back? my pary are with the father who lost his chrilden ; i am truley sorry for your lots

 

[Johann]

 

[Fatecrashers]

and hide yo husband

 

[Zacchaeus]

(Directed to the people who think that she did it:) You know the expression "Innocent until proven guilty"? Yeah, deductive reasoning and inferences might suggest an answer but they don't prove anything.

More interesting: Will Casey Anthony take up the porn offers?

 

[Ancien Régime]

So what do you need to prove the case? Are you essentially proposing that you can't prove guilt without obvious physical evidence? If so, are you not effectively rewarding criminals for being better criminals?

Also, we can question the verdict of a jury, precisely because they're a jury of our peers too.

 

[Zacchaeus]

So what do you need to prove the case? Are you essentially proposing that you can't prove guilt without obvious physical evidence?

It doesn't have to be obvious but it has to be concrete, it can't be based on a hunch

If so, are you not effectively rewarding criminals for being better criminals?

No. Some get away with their crimes, that's generally why they do the crimes to begin with. It's not like we can just convict every single person we think might have done a crime in an effort to catch all of the "good criminals"

Also, we can question the verdict of a jury, precisely because they're a jury of our peers too.

It's not like it matters if you do, they have a position of power in the decision that you don't

 

[Iamslow]

Will Casey Anthony take up the porn offers?

At least one of those was apparently withdrawn on account of the big deal people are making out of the verdict. Have you seen Nancy Grace she is being terribly unprofessional about all this.

 

[Ancien Régime]

It doesn't have to be obvious but it has to be concrete, it can't be based on a hunch

Sigh, again with the whole meme that "the prosecutors were proceeding based on hunches and public outrages" while handwaving the very compelling evidence against Anthony.

Compelling evidence doesn't have to be irrefutable or unquestionable, but it has to be very difficult to explain away. And when there's a lot of compelling or near-compelling evidence, it becomes pretty hard to dismiss it as a "hunch".

For whatever reason, the media has decided to do a 180 and simply declare the mountain of evidence the prosecution had "weak" just because there was no DNA or fingerprints, and the body was too decomposed to determine a cause of death.


Circumstantial evidence is the basis of nearly all criminal convictions, especially murder convictions and people seem to just ignore this. And people are just getting silly ideas about the case, such as there not being a clear motive (so my baby goes missing, the first thing i do is start partying lol, maybe said baby was keeping me from partying? i dunno lol)

I will say, pretty much the entire investigation itself was botched. Caylee's body should have been found in August, and the autopsy was botched. The prosecution PROBABLY rushed the case and should have gathered more evidence. And maybe they should have played it safe and gone for manslaughter.

 

[FlareBlitz]

I am glad this woman was let go. Our justice system worked exactly as it should - in the absence of overwhelming evidence, innocence is the default position.

People calling for her head are quite frankly acting barbarous. Remember that this woman would have received the death penalty if convicted. I personally would not have been comfortable with a conviction unless she could be proven to be the criminal beyond any doubt.

Edit @ above: You do not decide what evidence is "compelling". The judge does. The jury does. To claim they were wrong when you do not have nearly as much information as they do is incredibly presumptuous.

 

[Ancien Régime]

Juries can be wrong, and they can misinterpret information. Furthermore, they can be biased, and they can act on emotion as much as reason. Just like all humans, they can be wrong. In this case, it is very likely that they were wrong.

I have no problem with the idea of innocent until proven guilty. None at all, whatsoever. But to me, and to many others, the evidence proved Casey Anthony guilty, at least of manslaughter, and at the very least, of child abuse. No the jury did not concur, but the jury did not think OJ was guilty, and the jury did not think James Bain was innocent. Juries can be wrong. And because they can be wrong, it is fair to judge their verdicts, because they are a jury of our peers.

Furthermore, not having access to every shred of evidence presented in court does not deprive people in the public of the ability to make informed analyses. Most, if not all evidence in a criminal trial is public record. So what is your point here? What gamebreaking piece of evidence did the jury have that the public didn't? What makes a randomly selected sample of jurors more (or less) qualified to judge the quality of evidence than you or me?

Would you be making the same argument if the jury had come back with guilty?

I do not support the State imprisoning and killing innocent people by any means. I do support the State killing guilty ones though. Most of the evidence in the case suggested Anthony was guilty. If you think that a person should not be convicted unless you have photographic evidence, clear DNA evidence, or fingerprints, regardless of the actual nature of the crime scene or the circumstances of the case, then you'd have to throw out 90% or more of the cases actually adjucated, and pretty much every death penalty case, because you're asking for evidence not only beyond reasonable doubt, but into the realm of absolute doubt. In that case, you might as well close down any semblance of a justice system, because you'd never indict anyone, let alone convict them.

 

[PK Gaming]

Assist!!!

 

[mattj]

Juries can be wrong, and they can misinterpret information. Furthermore, they can be biased, and they can act on emotion as much as reason. Just like all humans, they can be wrong. In this case, it is very likely that they were wrong.

so can you

 

[popemobile]

so can you

but he can't be wrong because he's writing the most words

 

[Ancien Régime]

Did I ever say that I was presenting my thoughts as indisputable fact? I'm just responding to the idea that the jurors were automatically right.

 

[verbatim]

I haven't followed the trial, and have refused to come to my own decisions until I've seen all the data but from what I have been hearing this does bear some similarities to the case against Cameron Todd Willingham.

He was executed AFTER a top expert proved that the fire that killed his children was caused by an electrical problem. They went through with the execution because he displayed traits similar with that of someone who murdered their child (he was out partying). The big thing was, no crime had been committed, the house had burned down in an electrical accident.

I don't know what the information is, but unless we have proof, doing things similar to what a murderer would do in said situation is (should) not be usable as evidence in a court of law.

 

[Ancien Régime]

I've heard of the case, but the thing is, there wasn't a compelling alternative explanation for Caylee's murder. The drowning thesis has literally zero evidence or proof behind it, and was just something that the defense apparently made up.