Casey Anthony NOT GUILTY & Sentencing Thread 6

[Mosoh]

The biggest problem with this case is they were trying for 1st degree murder. If they would have gone with a lesser charge like at least 2nd degree or criminally negligent homicide or even wreckless endangerment they would have had a better shot at a conviction. No evidence was presented that didn't have reasonable doubt. The coroner could not determine cause of death. CA offered a story of accidental death. Doubt was created. The jury cannot base their conviction on what they feel really happened. They have to base it on actual evidence and that was lacking. I absolutely believe that whole family was involved. Is there physical proof of it? No- and that is why they cannot convict her. They have to follow the law.

For the trillionth time there were lesser charges too.

Second Degree Murder
Aggravated Child Abuse
Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child

 

[JaneBanks]

The biggest problem with this case is they were trying for 1st degree murder. If they would have gone with a lesser charge like at least 2nd degree or criminally negligent homicide or even wreckless endangerment they would have had a better shot at a conviction. No evidence was presented that didn't have reasonable doubt. The coroner could not determine cause of death. CA offered a story of accidental death. Doubt was created. The jury cannot base their conviction on what they feel really happened. They have to base it on actual evidence and that was lacking. I absolutely believe that whole family was involved. Is there physical proof of it? No- and that is why they cannot convict her. They have to follow the law.

They had the choice of what to charge her with.

 

[mickeyboat]

(bolded) Does that even make any sense?

Of course. Why would they have to go over all the evidence again if they all had reasonable doubt. They heard all the evidence already. Nothing they reviewed was going to change their minds. Not one juror felt differently, otherwise they would have reviewed more evidence and woul dhave discussed it further. There does not need to be one shred of evidence presented for there to be reasonable doubt. The absence of evidence might create reasonable doubt.

And as I said before. They must have been pretty convinced of their decision, because they knew darn well that a lot of people were going to be furious with them.

 

[LisaR]

For the trillionth time the were lesser charges too.

Second Degree Murder
Aggravated Child Abuse
Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child

Let me bump this and make it a trillion and one times!


I'm starting to think maybe the jury missed this fact, as well. Everyone seems to think they only had one choice and one choice only. Why do people think that? Did the jury really understand what they were doing?

 

[mickeyboat]

Just got back home. While driving around, I was listening to all the talking heads between multiple radio stations. The consensus seems to be (and the alternative juror confirmed) that their minds were made up with the opening statements. There was a seed of doubt that she could have drowned and the prosecution didn't prove otherwise. They were very stuck on the drowning, it seems.

That is all well and good. I may not like it and I don't believe they followed the orders that opening and closing statements are not evidence but it is what it is. What I will never understand is why they didn't convict her for child abuse/neglect. Even if Caylee did drown accidentally, isn't it neglect if you don't call 9-11 and try to get help? Isn't it neglect if you don't report that your father did it or helped cover it up? Isn't it neglect if you go out and party instead of reporting a death? Isn't it neglect if you desecrate human remains? How on this earth did 12 people not see any neglect?

But the prosecutor did not present any evidence to prove that she drowned.

 

[Halloweenqueen]

Since the verdict I have stayed away from all tv and internet discussions on this topic.

I can't describe how heavy my heart is over this injustice.

I will urge everyone to be outspoken when Casey does that first interview. We need to have a strong voice and threaten any media outlet with product boycotts.

I was appalled to see on my browser homepage that Casey will expect at least a 1.5 million + dollars for her first interview.

I've come to grips that this woman will be free soon, but I am sickened that she will become rich from it.

I've said from the beginning that I feared the jurors would jump on the River Cruz bandwagon and sell their story. I see this has come to pass since they refused to give free interviews. Please do not buy any rag that pays these greedy, ignorant idiots.

 

[The_Alice]

But the prosecutor did not present any evidence to prove that she drowned.

I think you meant to say defense attorney.

 

[Mouse House Mama]

For the trillionth time there were lesser charges too.

Second Degree Murder
Aggravated Child Abuse
Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child

No need to be so rude.

They had the choice of what to charge her with.

Then I stand corrected. I still think that there was reasonable doubt and that is what caused them not to convict her. I think they know she did it but it wasn't proven.
I think CA is a disgusting human being. I also do not care for her lawyer. He all but giggled with glee at being on TV with his press interview yesterday.

 

[sbtrfly74]

That's because they didn't. They didn't take one piece of evidence back to the room.

They had all the evidence back in the room except the video's and audio recordings in which they would have had to go back out to the court room to view. Now if they actually looked at any of the evidence is another story.

 

[Mouse House Mama]

Since the verdict I have stayed away from all tv and internet discussions on this topic.

I can't describe how heavy my heart is over this injustice.

I will urge everyone to be outspoken when Casey does that first interview. We need to have a strong voice and threaten any media outlet with product boycotts.

I was appalled to see on my browser homepage that Casey will expect at least a 1.5 million + dollars for her first interview.

I've come to grips that this woman will be free soon, but I am sickened that she will become rich from it.

I've said from the beginning that I feared the jurors would jump on the River Cruz bandwagon and sell their story. I see this has come to pass since they refused to give free interviews. Please do not buy any rag that pays these greedy, ignorant idiots.

I agree. Filthy animals. Anyone who would profit off the death of a child is disgusting.

 

[Mosoh]

Of course. Why would they have to go over all the evidence again if they all had reasonable doubt. They heard all the evidence already. Nothing they reviewed was going to change their minds. Not one juror felt differently, otherwise they would have reviewed more evidence and woul dhave discussed it further. There does not need to be one shred of evidence presented for there to be reasonable doubt. The absence of evidence might create reasonable doubt.

And as I said before. They must have been pretty convinced of their decision, because they knew darn well that a lot of people were going to be furious with them.

You said if one or two jurors hung the jury because of reasonable doubt, I might think those jurors didn't do their job. . A hung jury is part of the system. These two have the same duty as there rest to excerise their honest vote in the face of opposition.

No, they didn't - the claimed not to know the case, they could have as easily thought they would be heros. I think they were shocked at the outrage of their lazy and seemingly thoughtless verdict.

 

[Conservative Hippie]

The biggest problem with this case is they were trying for 1st degree murder. If they would have gone with a lesser charge like at least 2nd degree or criminally negligent homicide or even wreckless endangerment they would have had a better shot at a conviction. No evidence was presented that didn't have reasonable doubt. The coroner could not determine cause of death. CA offered a story of accidental death. Doubt was created. The jury cannot base their conviction on what they feel really happened. They have to base it on actual evidence and that was lacking. I absolutely believe that whole family was involved. Is there physical proof of it? No- and that is why they cannot convict her. They have to follow the law.

Again....the choices were 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, or 3rd degree felony murder for the first count; aggravated child abuse or child abuse for the second count; and manslaughter of a child or manslaughter for the third count. The jury found her not guilty of anything except having imaginary friends.

Edit: Sorry, I didn't mean to beat a dead horse. I started typing before the other replies were posted, just took a while.

 

[MusiqChic99]

Since the verdict I have stayed away from all tv and internet discussions on this topic.

I can't describe how heavy my heart is over this injustice.

I will urge everyone to be outspoken when Casey does that first interview. We need to have a strong voice and threaten any media outlet with product boycotts.

I was appalled to see on my browser homepage that Casey will expect at least a 1.5 million + dollars for her first interview.

I've come to grips that this woman will be free soon, but I am sickened that she will become rich from it.

I've said from the beginning that I feared the jurors would jump on the River Cruz bandwagon and sell their story. I see this has come to pass since they refused to give free interviews. Please do not buy any rag that pays these greedy, ignorant idiots.

I definitely agree. I also hope that any interview she has will only make her look worse then people already see her...because people will watch and buy things based on her even if some of us will not.

And yes she will benefit with riches of money but I'm pretty confident that she will never have a true blessing in life. Ones that most of us have and should be thankful for. Worldly riches are nothing compared to the blessings she could have had from being a true mother.

Caylee

 

[ols386]

No need to be so rude.


Then I stand corrected. I still think that there was reasonable doubt and that is what caused them not to convict her. I think they know she did it but it wasn't proven.
I think CA is a disgusting human being. I also do not care for her lawyer. He all but giggled with glee at being on TV with his press interview yesterday.

Yep. And then went and had a celebration party, toasting and sipping champaign.

 

[kidshop]

Just got back home. While driving around, I was listening to all the talking heads between multiple radio stations. The consensus seems to be (and the alternative juror confirmed) that their minds were made up with the opening statements. There was a seed of doubt that she could have drowned and the prosecution didn't prove otherwise. They were very stuck on the drowning, it seems.

That is all well and good. I may not like it and I don't believe they followed the orders that opening and closing statements are not evidence but it is what it is. What I will never understand is why they didn't convict her for child abuse/neglect. Even if Caylee did drown accidentally, isn't it neglect if you don't call 9-11 and try to get help? Isn't it neglect if you don't report that your father did it or helped cover it up? Isn't it neglect if you go out and party instead of reporting a death? Isn't it neglect if you desecrate human remains? How on this earth did 12 people not see any neglect?

I think we need to see to a new law that makes it a felony to hide a death of a child for any amount of time. That is a crime in and of itself, pretending a dead child is alive. Why is that not a chargeable offense?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Very sad.

Jose was right...everyone was looking to profit. Includif his buddy, Geraldo who gets to say he was right--even though he wasn't! (recall he kept whining she would get odd due to a Miranda rights violation.)


I am not a boycotter...I am too nosy for my own good and I am a total news/current events junkie.

I have not been able to watch anything since the defense press conference yesterday.

It just breaks my heart.


I just hope she doesn't harm anyone again and keeps her nose clean.


Who knows--maybe she will flop like Kate Gosselin did eventually. But now Kate Gosselin doesn't look all that bad anymore.

 

[walden]

I don't believe so. I sound like a broken record but it will go down in history like OJ as Jury nullification - a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the judge's instructions as to the law

It already is. The Boston Herald had an article this am that said the Casey Anthony case "refined the concept of jury nullification" begun in the OJ case. I'd try to find it but I have a meeting coming up soon.

Yep -I was 30 and into the Cure and bagless vacuume cleaners
The jurors in that case believed the police and prosecution tampered with evidence, had racist motivations and other reasons notwithstanding. This case was the mother of all jury nullification.

Oh! That reminds me . . . the Herald article was called the "Mother of all Lies."

Let me bump this and make it a trillion and one times!


I'm starting to think maybe the jury missed this fact, as well. Everyone seems to think they only had one choice and one choice only. Why do people think that? Did the jury really understand what they were doing?

You know, that was noticable in most of the polls I saw here and elsewhere before the verdict. There was a poll (not started by MAre) where people were oversimplifying and I did one of my all too long-winded posts detailing all the different charges in boring detail.

Gotta run!

 

[joviroxx]

Let me bump this and make it a trillion and one times!


I'm starting to think maybe the jury missed this fact, as well. Everyone seems to think they only had one choice and one choice only. Why do people think that? Did the jury really understand what they were doing?

As well as all the folks claiming that the State did not prove their case when 1) They have no idea what evidence was introduced and 2) barely watched the trial!

 

[mickeyboat]

I think you meant to say defense attorney.

No, I meant prosecutor. The entire burden of proof, for whatever she was convicted of, was on the state. The defense did not have to prove anything.

 

[Halloweenqueen]

I've broken my promise and looked through this thread briefly.

I am not putting down any of my fellow Disers, but I do see a pattern in the people who have voiced that justice was served. It seems that many/most did not follow the case closely or even knew what Casey's charges were. How can you form an opinion then?

I think there are many factors in play here, but the worst is the CSI approach. People think there must be huge amounts of DNA evidence to convict. This is not true. Most cases are nothing more that witness testimony and circumstantial evidence. A juror is supposed to take the evidence and use common sense in forming a verdict.

People are saying, well if they had found Caylee in August, maybe there would have been a conviction. Why? We know it's Caylee...period.

Should any murderer go free because there is no body...or only a skeleton?

Another factor is how social media played a part in this. The case became too well known. People like River Cruz became to crawl up from the sludge. The jurors heard firsthand during the trial how people made money off of this tragedy. Cindy...$100,000+, Casey $200,000+, River Cruz $4,000, etc. What is the lesson there? That the jurors would make money off their story.

For the people who didn't follow the case.....River Cruz (aka Crystal Holloway) became a volunteer during the search for Caylee. She formed a friendship with George Anthony (Caylee's grandfather). He says they were friends, she said to the National Enquirer that they were lovers. She told police they were never romantically involved. She saved every text message, etc from her relationship with the Anthonys. Why would anyone do that? Only someone who wanted a little of the fame and money the Anthony's were attracting.

River Cruz admitted that her story was more attractive to rags like the National Enquirer because of the sexual relationship. Would the NE be interested in a story how a volunteer was friends with George and Cindy? Hardly.

Now we have 12 River Cruzs. If they believed in their verdict they would have come to the free press conference and told their story for FREE. Instead they are interviewing agents and managers and entertaining offers.

Casey going free is a lot more profitable for them then Casey rotting in jail. Had they done the right thing and sent her to prison the story would have died quickly. I doubt many people would want to talk to them past the initial sentencing phase. Now they can talk for weeks, even years about their experience. Everytime Casey does or says something they will be asked to comment. Everytime Casey sells her story...maybe wedding photos, baby pictures...they will be asked their opinions. And everytime they will be paid. Casey is their new cash cow.