I Know Longer Believe

[rie'smom]

I know longer believe in our court system.
I used to believe the the rich and famous got off without paying for crimes but now I think different.

The day a mother that kills her child walks free is the day that makes me feel our system is broken.


Waiting for this "mother" to stand at the gates......

You no longer believe in our court system. I do.

Can you tell me how she wasn't found guilty of child neglect for not reporting her own daughter missing for nearly a month. I think the prosecution did there job quite well, You can lead the horse to water but can't make them drink,

Honestly, this verdict makes me believe in the justice system even more. It would have been so much easier for those jurors to find her guilty but they didn't. They followed the rules and came to the only conclusion they could.

What evidence was there that Casey ACTUALLY killed Caylee? There was nothing concrete. The prosecution pieced together their case, defense shot holes in it, and the jury had to make the decision. Was I surprised at the verdict? Of course! But in looking at the facts, what proof was there?

I've been saying for about a week that I expected a not guilty verdict. The prosecution had the burden too prove her guilt and they failed. If people have to blame anyone for the verdict, they should start with the prosecutorial team.

But you better not get caught with a pound+ of marijuana

Kill your child

Drugs for recreation:

So messed up.

We had a mother murder her 2 children about 15 miles from our house. The prosecution was able to prove her guilt and she was convicted. There are hundreds of convictions every year. Just because Casey was found innocent doesn't mean that others are not convicted when the prosecution proves their guilt.

I agree with the majority of thoughts spoken so far on this thread, the system does work. Innocent until proven guilty. If prosecution does not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a defendant is guilty, that defendant is innocent. And it must be unanimous. It is one of the foundations of our country, one that I would hope be there for me if I was ever put on trial.

I have not followed the crime nor trial one bit. I am aware of it and have a 'working' knowledge of it from regular news programs. My opinion? I think she probably committed the crime, but that this prosecution did not prove to this jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did do the greater crimes she was accused of. The fact that the jury did find her guilty of the lesser charges would indicate to me that the jury thought the defendant was lying. But, in the end, the prosecution did not prove, again, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did the greater charges of which she was accused of.

I do think the system works.

The fact that most people, including me, believe Casey is guilty does not mean that the prosecution proved their case. When deciding the guilt or innocence of a person, personal feelings are supposed to be left at the door. This jury did the right thing. It's what we would want if either we or someone we loved was accused of a crime.

 

[Minnie_me]

I Know Longer Believe
I know longer believe in our court system.

Seriously?

I *NO* longer believe in our educational system. Good grief.

 

[NikitaZee]

I agree with the majority of thoughts spoken so far on this thread, the system does work. Innocent until proven guilty. If prosecution does not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a defendant is guilty, that defendant is innocent. And it must be unanimous. It is one of the foundations of our country, one that I would hope be there for me if I was ever put on trial.

I have not followed the crime nor trial one bit. I am aware of it and have a 'working' knowledge of it from regular news programs. My opinion? I think she probably committed the crime, but that this prosecution did not prove to this jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did do the greater crimes she was accused of. The fact that the jury did find her guilty of the lesser charges would indicate to me that the jury thought the defendant was lying. But, in the end, the prosecution did not prove, again, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did the greater charges of which she was accused of.

I do think the system works.

^ This is exactly how I feel. I believe that Casey Anthony, in some manner, caused the death of her little girl. The prosecution didn't present anything that was concrete enough for me to decide how it may have happened. Murder? Possibly. Aggravated manslaughter? Possibly. But which? I have served on a jury, and it is hard to keep your emotions out of it (at least for me it was). It must have been a difficult decision for the jury to make.

 

[happygirl]

Seriously?

I *NO* longer believe in our educational system. Good grief.

really we are talking about the death of a 2 year old, and you are worried about spelling good grief

 

[mhsjax]

Ah yes, guilt by association. That is fine, until someone judges you negatively by someone you associate with.

The issue with this sort of sentence is, you dont hold the cards for the barometer of judgement. Someone can dislike someone you associate with for their reasons, wheter you agree with them or not.

WEll just make it a point to not hang around with druggies and rapists and murderers and anyone with run ins with the law. YOu can't be put on trial for hanging out with someone that another person doesn't like. Being judged negatively isn't the same thing as being prosecuted for a major crime now is it?

 

[TheRatPack]

I must admit I have not followed the case too closely. But wasn't it Casey's mother who called the cops sayiing the car smelled like death? I wonder what she based the claim on? I personally would not know what a decomposing body smells like, although I am sure it is not pleasant. But since we don't have trash pickup, unfortunately I do know what a bag of trash left in a hot car trunk smells like and how long it can take to get the odor out of the car.

How did the mother know it smelled like death?

Well, we didn't follow the case at all...we don't have cable LOL Still, had to comment on this. Maybe she was a nurse or something, maybe her husband hunted for deer...etc and so she's smelled dead animal before ? My husband knows what death (and many variations of it) smells like from being a first responder/firefighter. So maybe the mother had previous experience? Or maybe it's like the majority of us when we eat something bad and say it taste like crap....I've never actually eaten crap but it's a general comparison/simile.

My garbage can smelled like death last week.....our power had been out for a day after a storm and we had a lot of meat to throw away. The flies found it before the garbage men did (a couple of days before the garbage ran) and YUCK YUCK YUCK. I would imagine that is what death smells like. I think I might have even uttered the words...that smells like something dead, which in reality it was, cow.

 

[mhsjax]

Perhaps the Bella Vita tattoo refers to her daughter's beautiful life? I could picture a parent having a tat like that done as a memorial. I really do believe that the system worked in this case - especially with the death penalty possible. Reasonable doubt and you have to find not guilty.

Yes, but if I remember correctly, the tattoo was done before she was found dead. So I don't think you could argue that point, unless you were trying to prove that she did it.

 

[luvmy3]

Seriously?

I *NO* longer believe in our educational system. Good grief.

I guess I no longer believe in good manners, seriously

 

[joviroxx]

What concerns me is that here we have someone who is obviously guilty of at least taking part in her daughter's death but it's ok she's free because there was no concrete evidence. So what does this mean, that without concrete evidence people should go free? We always need smoking gun? What happens to evaluating evidence? What happens to common sense (which is in ALL jury instructions and manuals)? Are we telling folks that as long as you throw the body away and not get caught until there is nothing left its ok?

If this is the case, then our system does NOT work. We are human beings and its more than just concrete proof. It is shocking that this woman didn't get charged without at least 3rd degree murder. Logic and common sense need to come into it when evaluating and assessing evidence. If it doesn't, our system does not work.

Circumstantial cases exist every single day. So we don't prosecute?

I would like to talk to the jurors to see why they couldn't find guilty of even a charge of child abuse.

Is there anyone on here that does not believe Casey Anthony is guilty? So, tell me, what do we do to convict ? What could have been done? We just accept our system and let her go? Because she was lucky enough that a tropical storm and heat came through to further decompose that poor child?

Vinnie Politano just mentioned the CSI affect. I agree. We've lost the idea that juries are supposed to be human so they can use common sense. We've lost the understanding of reasonable doubt vs possible doubt. If this is the case, we don't need juries. If it must be concrete, why even need a jury?

 

[Cinderella94]

What concerns me is that here we have someone who is obviously guilty of at least taking part in her daughter's death but it's ok she's free because there was no concrete evidence. So what does this mean, that without concrete evidence people should go free? We always need smoking gun? What happens to evaluating evidence? What happens to common sense (which is in ALL jury instructions and manuals)? Are we telling folks that as long as you throw the body away and not get caught until there is nothing left its ok?

If this is the case, then our system does NOT work. We are human beings and its more than just concrete proof. It is shocking that this woman didn't get charged without at least 3rd degree murder. Logic and common sense need to come into it when evaluating and assessing evidence. If it doesn't, our system does not work.

Circumstantial cases exist every single day. So we don't prosecute?

I would like to talk to the jurors to see why they couldn't find guilty of even a charge of child abuse.

Is there anyone on here that does not believe Casey Anthony is guilty? So, tell me, what do we do to convict ? What could have been done? We just accept our system and let her go? Because she was lucky enough that a tropical storm and heat came through to further decompose that poor child?

Vinnie Politano just mentioned the CSI affect. I agree. We've lost the idea that juries are supposed to be human so they can use common sense. We've lost the understanding of reasonable doubt vs possible doubt. If this is the case, we don't need juries. If it must be concrete, why even need a jury?

You've been able to put in words what I've been thinking this whole time.

 

[mhsjax]

Everyone posting about how the prosecution didn't prove anything. I just saw an attorney and law professor and she said that unfortunately, and we have said it here may times, that common sense isn't common anymore and that jurors have the CSI affect.

It appears these days that you need a video tape of the murder to be convicted. Scott Peterson was convicted on circumstantial evidence, but now the standard has changed and now it looks like you can indeed "get away with murder"

 

[jodifla]

WEll just make it a point to not hang around with druggies and rapists and murderers and anyone with run ins with the law. YOu can't be put on trial for hanging out with someone that another person doesn't like. Being judged negatively isn't the same thing as being prosecuted for a major crime now is it?

This is pretty naive. Yes, people are falsely accused, arrested, prosecuted and convicted all the time.

In fact, there have been 272 post conviction DNA exonerations, and 17 of those were on death row:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php

And here's a 6-part series on a father wrong arrested for sexual assault of his daughter....with literally no reliable proof:

http://www.freep.com/article/20110628/NEWS03/110628030?odyssey=mod|dnmiss|umbrella|2

The police department's insurance company is giving the family $1.8M with lawsuits to come.

 

[robinb]

Seriously?

I *NO* longer believe in our educational system. Good grief.

Holy cow! I don't believe I missed that .

 

[NikitaZee]

What concerns me is that here we have someone who is obviously guilty of at least taking part in her daughter's death but it's ok she's free because there was no concrete evidence. So what does this mean, that without concrete evidence people should go free? We always need smoking gun? What happens to evaluating evidence? What happens to common sense (which is in ALL jury instructions and manuals)? Are we telling folks that as long as you throw the body away and not get caught until there is nothing left its ok?

If this is the case, then our system does NOT work. We are human beings and its more than just concrete proof. It is shocking that this woman didn't get charged without at least 3rd degree murder. Logic and common sense need to come into it when evaluating and assessing evidence. If it doesn't, our system does not work.

Circumstantial cases exist every single day. So we don't prosecute?

I would like to talk to the jurors to see why they couldn't find guilty of even a charge of child abuse.

Is there anyone on here that does not believe Casey Anthony is guilty? So, tell me, what do we do to convict ? What could have been done? We just accept our system and let her go? Because she was lucky enough that a tropical storm and heat came through to further decompose that poor child?

Vinnie Politano just mentioned the CSI affect. I agree. We've lost the idea that juries are supposed to be human so they can use common sense. We've lost the understanding of reasonable doubt vs possible doubt. If this is the case, we don't need juries. If it must be concrete, why even need a jury?

For me personally, in response to your question - I need some kind is physical evidence to to decide what the charge would be (murder, manslaughter, etc). For example - does anyone remember the case, quite a few months back - where the parents duct-taped their child to a high chair? The thought crossed my mind that perhaps Casey did that to Caylee - used duct tape on her - during a tantrum. After a couple of minutes, if the tape was not pulled off In time - the child would suffocate. Is that murder? First degree? Manslaughter? That is just one possibility, among many. I would personally need more physical evidence than what was presented in this case. The Scott Peterson case as well - I was surprised that the jury convicted him - and surprised that he is on death row. Even though, in my heart, I believe he did it.

 

[mhsjax]

This is pretty naive. Yes, people are falsely accused, arrested, prosecuted and convicted all the time.

In fact, there have been 272 post conviction DNA exonerations, and 17 of those were on death row:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php

And here's a 6-part series on a father wrong arrested for sexual assault of his daughter....with literally no reliable proof:

http://www.freep.com/article/20110628/NEWS03/110628030?odyssey=mod|dnmiss|umbrella|2

The police department's insurance company is giving the family $1.8M with lawsuits to come.

Again, I can almost guarantee you that this won't happen to me. I bet most of these people had priors for something, were int he wrong place at the wrong time, most likely in a high crime area. Maybe purchasing drugs, or trying to pick up a prostitute. I don't believe that any law abiding citizen that stays in an area that isn't know for crime or isn't hanging around with the wrong crowd or dong drugs will get arrested for any serious crime. I believe 100% that they put themselves in this position.

AS far as that family, I didn't read thw whole thing,d but this day in time,there is no way that I would put any child that is disabled in anyway alone with someone that I didn't know. AGain, they did something that put themselves in a position of question. YOu can't trust anyone these days.

 

[palmtreegirl]

Honestly, this verdict makes me believe in the justice system even more. It would have been so much easier for those jurors to find her guilty but they didn't. They followed the rules and came to the only conclusion they could.

I agree

 

[joviroxx]

For me personally, in response to your question - I need some kind is physical evidence to to decide what the charge would be (murder, manslaughter, etc). For example - does anyone remember the case, quite a few months back - where the parents duct-taped their child to a high chair? The thought crossed my mind that perhaps Casey did that to Caylee - used duct tape on her - during a tantrum. After a couple of minutes, if the tape was not pulled off In time - the child would suffocate. Is that murder? First degree? Manslaughter? That is just one possibility, among many. I would personally need more physical evidence than what was presented in this case. The Scott Peterson case as well - I was surprised that the jury convicted him - and surprised that he is on death row. Even though, in my heart, I believe he did it.

I would argue with you that there was physical evidence. Everything from smells, tape, location of bones, 31 days, lies, etc... If you want a smoking gun well then, most criminals will be out free. I would think you need to see a totality of the evidence and evaluate it. Like I said before, if you need one particular piece, such as a picture or video, you don't need a jury.

 

[katie26]

Again, I can almost guarantee you that this won't happen to me. I bet most of these people had priors for something, were int he wrong place at the wrong time, most likely in a high crime area. Maybe purchasing drugs, or trying to pick up a prostitute. I don't believe that any law abiding citizen that stays in an area that isn't know for crime or isn't hanging around with the wrong crowd or dong drugs will get arrested for any serious crime. I believe 100% that they put themselves in this position.

AS far as that family, I didn't read thw whole thing,d but this day in time,there is no way that I would put any child that is disabled in anyway alone with someone that I didn't know. AGain, they did something that put themselves in a position of question. YOu can't trust anyone these days.

You don't think that there are tons of totally innocent law-abiding people who live in high crime areas because they can't afford to live anywhere else? Seriously? So if you're poor and you live in the projects and you're walking from the corner store in a high crime area to your home in a high crime area, you must be guilty of something? Unbelievable.

 

[Poohforyou]

I did not watch this trial other than clips on CNN. Is it people's opinion that the prosecution did not make it's case because of sloppy work or because the evidence just wasn't there? I heard on the radio that the medical examiner couldn't even determine a cause of death.

OJ got off because of sloppy work by the police and prosecutor. I'm just wondering if the same is true for this case.

From the reports I have heard I do think Casey either killed her daughter outright or had a hand in doing so.

 

[brockash]

We have the best system in the world.

...if you're a criminal-absolutely! It's not just this case, things like this happen every day.