I Know Longer Believe

[goofy!]

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.

This. The system worked exactly like it should.

The prosecution failed to do their job.

You can't convict on a hunch, on "well, I think she did it". Otherwise we would have a bunch of innocent people in jail too.

The fault lays completely on the prosecution for not proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Anthony is a child murderer.

 

[Planogirl]

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. The burden of proof includes the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" and obviously the prosecution failed to meet that standard.

 

[Missy1961]

You also have to remember that the jury did not get to hear all the same things we have been seeing and watching on the news. It is tOUGH being on a jury. All of these people said they could listen to the evidence and make their decision based on that. I am sure many of them had a pre-conceived notion that Casey is guilty but they did their part and gave their verdict based on the evidence.

I would also bet that most of them FEEL she did it but that is NOT what this court system is based on. A person on the jury is supposed to take their personal feelings out of it and judge on the evidence that they are allowed to know about.


How many of us have been on a jury before??? I have. I have served MANY times and I have always had to put personal feelings aside. I have been selected for everything from Murder, child abuse, drugs, theft, death, you name it.... As a juror you take an oath that you will listen to the evidence and to put aside your personal feelings.

For those of you that feel the system is flawed... How many of you have thought of every excuse in the book to get out of jury duty???

Yes... I feel a murder will be set free and I am not happy about it but you can not blame the justice system. Be thankful that we live in a country where we HAVE a justice system. Think about people in other countries that do not even have the priviledge of a trial by jury of their peers. Think about the countries where no questions asked..the accused are tortured...killed.....hands chopped off. Think about those countries where if you are a woman you are killed for not even wearing a head covering.

You should be thankful you live in America.

You make some excellent points.

 

[Toad_Passenger]

I haven't followed this case closely because we do not have cable television either. However, it sounds to me as though the prosecution failed to present a strong enough case, and the jury did what it was legally bound to do by admitting that and declining to convict. It's a shame, then, that the prosecution didn't take the time to build their case before they filed charges. There is no statute of limitation on murder, so they had all the time in the world to make sure it was a rock solid case before they proceeded. There's no excuse for letting the media attention and emotion of the situation rush a case to court. This is what happens when you do. Do I know for sure that that's what happened here? No, of course I don't. But clearly for whatever reason the charges were filed before enough evidence was there to prove them, and that was a mistake. You hear people yowling and carrying on all the time about why someone isn't being arrested and prosecuted, when "everybody knows they did it." Well, this is why. What "everybody knows" ---or thinks they know---and what can be proven are two entirely different things, and it is certainly the prosecutor's job to know that.

If there was in fact a juror who stated that she "didn't like to judge people," then the prosecution dropped the ball there too. There is no limit to how many people you can toss off a jury for cause, and an unwillingness to "judge someone" is a big bright glaring cause.

FWIW, I would love to have seen that woman go down for whatever her role was in the loss of this beautiful, innocent child. I wish the prosecution had waited until they knew and could prove exactly what that role was.

Bolded by me.

I've watched, read, investigated this case since Day 1. During jury selection the sides were limited to 10 peremptory challenges/strikes each. The State attempted to use one on this juror, however, due to Batson vs. Kentucky, the judge would not allow them to automatically strike this juror because of her being a minority.

Juror #4 was going to be on that jury, no matter what. I thought she was going to be the one to hang this jury...little did I know that they all would vote Not Guilty. In fact, the one alternate I've heard interviewed, so far, also said he would have voted Not Guilty, based on what the State presented.

 

[Toad_Passenger]

I agree. The burden of proof includes the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" and obviously the prosecution failed to meet that standard.

As I stated above, I was actively involved in looking through and documenting the cellphone "pings" way back in 2008, trying to help find areas to search for Caylee. I've read every piece of discovery that's come down the trail, and watched every second of every hearing that was streamed.

That being said, I agree with you that the State's case left me wondering how, with all of this evidence, did their presentation seem so weak? I felt like they left so many things out that I had read and seen over the past 3 years.

 

[Mosoh]

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?

She was a nurse, 6 others with experience also smelled the "death"
After two years the defense witness also testified to the smell of a decaying corps.

 

[mhsjax]

Bolded by me.

I've watched, read, investigated this case since Day 1. During jury selection the sides were limited to 10 peremptory challenges/strikes each. The State attempted to use one on this juror, however, due to Batson vs. Kentucky, the judge would not allow them to automatically strike this juror because of her being a minority.

Juror #4 was going to be on that jury, no matter what. I thought she was going to be the one to hang this jury...little did I know that they all would vote Not Guilty. In fact, the one alternate I've heard interviewed, so far, also said he would have voted Not Guilty, based on what the State presented.

Exactly, makes you wonder when people say the prosecution dropped the ball, when people are stating facts that aren't true.

 

[princessmom29]

Sorry, but I think the prosecution did it's job. She should have been convicted. I think the problem here, and with a lot of high profile trials was jury selection. The defese manages to exclude those too smart to be minpulated into believing whatever bull they are spinning and everyone with enough guts to be responsible for saying, "yes, she killed her kid". If they can get a jury full of those unwilling to take a stand and easily minuplated there is never a guilty verdict.

 

[Toad_Passenger]

She was a nurse, 6 others with experience also smelled the "death"
After two years the defense witness also testified to the smell of a decaying corps.

The alternate juror who was interviewed by Vinnie Politan spoke to the whole "smell" thing. He said that, as a juror, he was stunned that so many people who were experienced with the smell didn't do anything about it. George drove the car home, KNOWING what the smell was. Several Police Officers were at the house on the night of the 16th, with the doors to the Pontiac wide open, but NONE of them mention the smell?

This was just one of the things, I think, that made the jury think twice about the investigation as a whole.

 

[disney1990]

We may not always like the results of our system, but I know I can't think of a better one.

What country do you think has a better system?

 

[mhsjax]

Nancy Grace just talked to an attorney, I believe, and they said that somehow Florida managed to find the only 12 people left that probably still thought the world was flat. I think there is a reason those jurors, don't want to talk to anyone. I believe 100% that they didn't want to spend any more time in deliberations so they just gave in to the not guilty verdict and they know that most people out there would love to harass them, not that I condone that,k but I do believe they are afraid of the outcome and with good reason.

 

[princessmom29]

nancy grace just talked to an attorney, i believe, and they said that somehow florida managed to find the only 12 people left that probably still thought the world was flat.

ita.

 

[mhsjax]

I agree. The burden of proof includes the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" and obviously the prosecution failed to meet that standard.

Some of the defense attorneys and prosecutors and saying the the juries are sometimes confuse reasonable doubt with possible doubt. I don't think for one minute the prosecution failed to meet that standard. There are very few cases that can absolutely be proven without a reasonable doubt. It hasn't been all that recent that we started using DNA, now it seems without it, (they call this CSi effect) you can't PROVE anything.

 

[Mosoh]

This. The system worked exactly like it should.

The prosecution failed to do their job.

You can't convict on a hunch, on "well, I think she did it". Otherwise we would have a bunch of innocent people in jail too.

The fault lays completely on the prosecution for not proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Anthony is a child murderer.

They provided it. It has already come to light and will as the days unfold this jury was not following the letter of the law as the deliberated.

There was absolutely no proof of abuse yet the alternate who spoke said they bought that story over what George claimed. Also, they were not supposed to discuss the case until deliberation - unless he is lying they clearly did.

She was convicted of lying to LE but they decided her lie had nothing to do with why she lied??

 

[tvguy]

Nancy Grace just talked to an attorney, I believe, and they said that somehow Florida managed to find the only 12 people left that probably still thought the world was flat. I think there is a reason those jurors, don't want to talk to anyone. I believe 100% that they didn't want to spend any more time in deliberations so they just gave in to the not guilty verdict and they know that most people out there would love to harass them, not that I condone that,k but I do believe they are afraid of the outcome and with good reason.

It has been interesting watching the "expert" lawyers dissect the verdict. CNN just had a Prosecutor on saying in his opinion, based on the evidence they had, that Orlando Prosecutors overcharged her.

 

[mhsjax]

It has been interesting watching the "expert" lawyers dissect the verdict. CNN just had a Prosecutor on saying in his opinion, based on the evidence they had, that Orlando Prosecutors overcharged her.

I think that is probably true, although I do believe that she did murder her child, I think with lesser charges she would have been convicted.

 

[Karibeth19]

Some of the defense attorneys and prosecutors and saying the the juries are sometimes confuse reasonable doubt with possible doubt. I don't think for one minute the prosecution failed to meet that standard. There are very few cases that can absolutely be proven without a reasonable doubt. It hasn't been all that recent that we started using DNA, now it seems without it, (they call this CSi effect) you can't PROVE anything.

Exactly! It's beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond a shadow of a doubt. The only one who could walk away from a case without even a slight amount of doubt would be someone who actually witnessed the crime.

I have to say what concerns me is the amount of time the jurors took to deliberate. Only 10 hours for a complicated trial that lasted six weeks, with absolutely no questions, requests for clarification or re-reading of transcripts... nothing! I find it hard to believe that after all that testimony and all the evidence that was presented, there wouldn't have been a few things that needed to be clarified, regardless of how well they may have taken notes. I'm sure they took their roles as jurors seriously, but I also can't help but feel they were tired and ready to go home, and perhaps weren't motivated to deliberate the details as meticulously as perhaps they should have.

 

[mhsjax]

Exactly! It's beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond a shadow of a doubt. The only one who could walk away from a case without even a slight amount of doubt would be someone who actually witnessed the crime.

I have to say what concerns me is the amount of time the jurors took to deliberate. Only 10 hours for a complicated trial that lasted six weeks, with absolutely no questions, requests for clarification or re-reading of transcripts... nothing! I find it hard to believe that after all that testimony and all the evidence that was presented, there wouldn't have been a few things that needed to be clarified, regardless of how well they may have taken notes. I'm sure they took their roles as jurors seriously, but I also can't help but feel they were tired and ready to go home, and perhaps weren't motivated to deliberate the details as meticulously as perhaps they should have.

Yep, we were just talking about that here at home. NOt one request for a read back or examination of any testimony. Those jurors just wanted out. I think they had a few that thought she was innocent , probably one was the juror that didn't like to judge anyone, and instead of spending possible days or weeks more, they just gave up. I don't know about out you guys, but I have a hard time remembering what I ate last week, much less details about a murder trail. Also noted was one of the jurors, did even bother to take any notes, also the jurors left their notebooks in the court room and the judge had to take them to the jurors. Not the brightest bunch if you ask me.

 

[Michelle67]

Bolded by me.

I've watched, read, investigated this case since Day 1. During jury selection the sides were limited to 10 peremptory challenges/strikes each. The State attempted to use one on this juror, however, due to Batson vs. Kentucky, the judge would not allow them to automatically strike this juror because of her being a minority.

Juror #4 was going to be on that jury, no matter what. I thought she was going to be the one to hang this jury...little did I know that they all would vote Not Guilty. In fact, the one alternate I've heard interviewed, so far, also said he would have voted Not Guilty, based on what the State presented.

Peremptory means a challenge that you do NOT have to give a cause for. Challenging for cause is different, and a juror who does not "like to judge" has cause to be dismissed.

 

[Minnesota!]

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?

Vinnie Politano just said it. According to her story, she knew Caylee was dead. She let that poor child rot and get eaten animals! Even if she didn't kill her like she claims, to let her daughter rot away in a swamp is inexcusable! She should be found guilty of something!!

I am sorely disappointed in the outcome of this trial. Loss of common sense is what saddens me most. Caylee didn't tape and bag herself. Someone had a hand in it. She is found dead + smell of death in Casey's car + Casey not reporting anything. At minimum she needed to be charged with abuse. It just completely sickens me.