Casey Anthony found not guilty.. Wait what?

[EricHill78]

She was not convicted of murder like I expected but was found guilty of providing false information to cops. Woopdie freakin do. This is OJ Simpson all over again. Well in consideration say if she is not guilty she should at least get a life sentence for being a horrible mother. Dancing around like a goofy bitch while your daughter is missing. She's a horrible excuse for a human being.

Dance Bitch Dance!

and after you are done.. rot in hell.

[ABW]

Disgusting....

[chadizzy1]

I'll put it like this.

People ask me how I'm so sure she's guilty and I'll say this. I have a beautiful 4 year old daughter who I love more than anything in the world. The mere thought of her being out of the picture is terrifying. She's gone for the summer to visit her mother and I feel lost now as it is, and I know the date and time she's coming back. But her not being in my life? I wouldn't be able to leave the house, I would be SHATTERED.

Casey Anthony. Enters hot body contests, gets tattoo, borrows shovel from neighbor, and shows no remorse or sadness when her daughter is missing (not dead at this point, just missing). Her actions after her daughter went "missing" and her lack of any sadness or remorse show me without any doubt (I don't need evidence for that one) that she's guilty.

Period.

[Bigblue1]

Beyond a reasonable Doubt. The system worked how it's supposed to. A defendant is cloaked in innocence until proven guilty by a jury of their peers. No evidence, no discernible motive, No guilty....... It's that simple folks.

[Owens187]

I'll put it like this.

People ask me how I'm so sure she's guilty and I'll say this. I have a beautiful 4 year old daughter who I love more than anything in the world. The mere thought of her being out of the picture is terrifying. She's gone for the summer to visit her mother and I feel lost now as it is, and I know the date and time she's coming back. But her not being in my life? I wouldn't be able to leave the house, I would be SHATTERED.

Casey Anthony. Enters hot body contests, gets tattoo, borrows shovel from neighbor, and shows no remorse or sadness when her daughter is missing (not dead at this point, just missing). Her actions after her daughter went "missing" and her lack of any sadness or remorse show me without any doubt (I don't need evidence for that one) that she's guilty.

Period.

This is bullshit. I too cannot be convinced she is innocent. For the exact same reasons Chad states above. I have two daughters, and can hardly stomach not seeing them for a single day. The mere thought of them missing and not knowing where they are is absolutely bone chilling, I'd be so beside myself I doubt I'd even be able to dress myself, let alone go out and party and shit.

I hope the bitch rots in hell.

No, I take that back - I sincerely hope she slides under a gas truck and tastes her own blood.....

[Premium Parrots]

I'm pretty sure that Caley was getting old enough to realize what kind of family she was born in to. Then she comitted suicide to get away from them.

just sayin

[Ease]

She may have done it, but there was no concrete evidence, no proof. That's why we have trials, you must be proven guilty, not just assumed guilty.

[c.nash]

I said it from the beginning that she would get off.
Honestly, she probably did it. But the evidence sucked against her. It wasn't concrete enough, just speculation. Which in the end sucks, because there isn't any justice for this little girl. This is how our system works, without the hard factual evidence you can walk.

Remember people go down for crimes they didn't commit just as well as some people get off for the ones they actually did.

[RobsanX]

until proven guilty by a jury of their peers.

I will agree that she definitely got a jury of her peers. Now her daughter who was wrapped in garbage bags and tossed into a swamp will never have justice.

[jmdkodiak]

I live in Florida so Facebook was filled with outrage yesterday.

But honestly? It doesn't matter what people or the media think, or the fact that people can be blinded by the rage of a tragedy such as this. The fact is We will never know who really killed her. I do think that she definitely had something to do with it, though. And I don't doubt the father did too. To what extent that is, no one will know. But that is exactly the reason she was not convicted with a guilty charge. The jury, and us, cannot be SURE without a doubt that she did in fact kill her daughter. Therefore, you cannot convict someone to death for that. You can only convict based on facts and evidence.

It does bring up a very important question though; if she didn't kill her daughter, then WHO did?

[lxskllr]

Beyond a reasonable Doubt. The system worked how it's supposed to. A defendant is cloaked in innocence until proven guilty by a jury of their peers. No evidence, no discernible motive, No guilty....... It's that simple folks.

^^^

When you're sitting on a jury, you're not being paid to think, you're being paid to weigh evidence, and rule accordingly. Independent thinking has no place in the jury box, and to do otherwise is to wipe your ass with the Constitution.

Edit:

It does bring up a very important question though; if she didn't kill her daughter, then WHO did?

I haven't been following this at all; only the last couple days. From what I've read, I /think/ she killed the girl, but what I, or anyone else thinks doesn't matter. It has to be proven, and near as I can tell, the prosecutor failed to do that.

[RobsanX]

It does bring up a very important question though; if she didn't kill her daughter, then WHO did?

Not to belabor this point, but I have been following this case since the beginning. I can think of at least four people, real and imaginary that she has tried to blame for this. If in fact someone else had killed Caylee, she would have thrown that person under the bus so fast your head would spin. If this was not her fault, she would have come clean in a heartbeat, and not lied for 31 days while Caylee was "missing", and lied up and down to the police after they were called.

There is no doubt in my mind that if she had a quick way to get out of this, she would have taken it. That's just the kind of person she is...

[devilock76]

I have been shocked by the outrage comments on this I have seen on Facebook. We truly are a blood thirsty species. People seemed pissed the public stoning was canceled. On top of that I heard eugenics like remarks from people in my state of NC that were even more shocking as this state is going through debates on reparations to eugenics victims.

The prosecutor was hoping to play the public outrage card in spite of the lack of evidence and failed at that. For that it is his fault. Now don't get me wrong something is rotten in the state of Denmark and she should have been tried as an accessory. Her stories aided and abetted whoever did it, possibly her, to allow this to carry to the point that there is little chance that current technology will ever find the truth. If they had prosecuted it that way and later found something that sealed the case she could have later been tried for murder. A junior prosecutor could have won the accessory case easily.

Ken

[CoderGuy]

^^^

When you're sitting on a jury, you're not being paid to think, you're being paid to weigh evidence, and rule accordingly. Independent thinking has no place in the jury box, and to do otherwise is to wipe your ass with the Constitution.

Edit:

I haven't been following this at all; only the last couple days. From what I've read, I /think/ she killed the girl, but what I, or anyone else thinks doesn't matter. It has to be proven, and near as I can tell, the prosecutor failed to do that.

Exactly. I sat on a jury for a 2 week trial a couple years ago and more important than the evidence are the instructions we got for deliberation. They were worded in such a way where regardless of what we thought based on evidence, we had to find not guilty as we couldn't satisfy the instructions. It sux, but it's all a manipulation game. We found out information after the trial that was conveniently not presented to us in court that would have definitely made a difference. Both the prosecution and defense lawyers are playing a game of "who can confuse you the most". On some court drama I was watching the other night one of the new lawyers asked a seasoned attorney, "Do you think she did it?" and he replied, "I don't care about the truth, I care about winning." We definitely saw that in action.

[lxskllr]

On some court drama I was watching the other night one of the new lawyers asked a seasoned attorney, "Do you think she did it?" and he replied, "I don't care about the truth, I care about winning." We definitely saw that in action.

I'm conflicted on the whole lawyer thing. I really dislike lawyers, and have little respect for the profession, but I expect a defense attorney to do everything in his power for the client, including misdirection, inference, and lies. You're paying an attorney to be your advocate, and anything less than absolute advocacy is failure. I hold prosecuting attorneys to higher standards. In my mind, it's worse to go after someone you don't legitimately believe is guilty, than it is to defend someone you do believe is guilty.