Absolutelyofftopic -- Casey Anthony not guilty - Discuss

I agree 150%  The prosecution may have proved that she was a horrible, promiscuous, narcissistic mother, but they did not prove that she is a murderer.  Horrible case all the way around. 

 If guys got  jail terms for being horrible ,selfish , narcissistic   and promiscuous ...   boy  would we have overcrowding !    Why doesn't anyone talk about the  horrible double standard for  women -  the fact that women do  over THREE  TIMES  the  jail time for the sam e crimes that men do  while  the factual standards for  conviction  are  usually FAR  FAR lower  for women ?  

( find me a GUY  thats doing ten years because he answered the phone  on a drug deal ..... womens jails are FULL  of such cases .... MEN have to  commit REAL CRIMES ....., making REAL MONEY  , WITH REAL GUNS....endangering  or even killing and maiming  real peopel   to get the same kind of time     ....  U watch  Casey Anthony  will end up doing more time for simply lying  than U r average male murderer  ... ( which I believe is  under seven years average nationally ) ...

My wife followed it closely, so I will get an earful tonight.  My opinion is I would rather have 10 guilty go free than one innocent be wrongly convicted.

Steve

 me  too !! 

No justice for Caylee.  I just hope that Caylee is playing happily in heaven with Jon Benet carefree forever.

~Becky

Me too, poor babies.

 My heart is broken.  Poor baby Caylee.  You deserved so much better.

Baez will be the "star" he thinks he is!

Sad day because there'll be no justice for Caylee ...

Her parents, particularly her mother, disgust me!

I followed the trial closely.  I used to live in Orlando, not far from them.

Yes, I personally think she is guilty based on the evidence, but the burden of proof is with the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did it.  In this case there was no "smoking gun".

My personal opinion is that we live in a world of forensics - with DNA evidence and with shows like CSI, we come to look that one indisputable piece of evidence connecting the person to the crime.  In this case it wasn't there.  I think that in another time, 10-20 years ago, she would have been convicted on the evidence presented...but in these times we have redefined 'reasonable doubt" to mean "no doubt", based on our expectations of DNA and other forensics available.

What evidence are you talking about?  There wasn't any evidence...there was a lot of assumptions and guessing.  Thank goodness its not 10-20 yrs ago and that we do have the ability to use DNA evidence.  There used to be an awful lot of innocent people sent to jail and death.  They had 3 yrs to find one piece of substantial evidence....The prosecutors where asking the jury to put her to death because the "thought" she did it....
We all know in our gut that she had something to do with it...but you can't convict someone to die because we "think" she did it.