Absolutelyofftopic -- Casey Anthony not guilty - Discuss

Parents who kill their children rarely report them missing.....she told so many lies about the child's where abouts.  Why would she do that if she were not covering up?

I think there was enough evidence to convict her, maybe not of pre meditated murder.  

At any rate, she's a skank and will probably get out of life what she deserves one way or another.

I do think that making this a capital case was a mistake on the prosecution's part.  Jurors with an ounce of intelligence will want 100% evidence if they are, in essence, going to be sentencing someone to the death penalty!   This was never the case, and so I think they shot themselves in the foot ...

I think there probably was enough cir****tantial evidence to find her guilty of a lesser charge, even if the physical evidence was no longer there in the neat package we all expect now!

Anyone that has ever served on a jury has a tale to tell - some of my fellow jurors were complete fruitcakes - I wouldn't have let them decide what to have for lunch let alone decide on someone's guilt or innocence!!!!!!

Yes, she is a skank...and yes, I THINK she had something to do with the death of the baby.  Again, its not what you think, its what you can prove.  How did the baby die?  When did the baby die?  Who put the baby in the woods?  There was no witnesses, not DNA evidence..nothing.  After watching 6 weeks of the trail, I still know about as much as I did 3 yrs ago.  The system worked.

When I served, we were told to use our life experiences to determine the defendent's actions.  Would we do what they did under the cir****tances, were their actions what we would deem right or proper - that is cir****tantial evidence and CAN be used to determine someone's guilt or innocence!    There is nothing that says that DNA evidence or fingerprint evidence are the only evidence that can be used to convict ...

Maybe the US legal system is different, but if cir****tantial evidence were not allowable this case should never have been brought against this defendant!

ETA:  Clearly the jury didn't believe the cir****tances of her actions were enough - hence NOT GUILTY!   If only this were practised equally across all socio economic/race/ethnic groups - I am sure there are lots of people who are convicted with far less cir****tances than Casey A!

Wow ! So U were told in effect to JUDGE the defendant based on whether U would make the same DECISIONS in similar cir****tances .. not based on whether the defendants actions were LEGAL ?!!! And whether the prosecution had PROVED illegality ... that they had actually COMMITTED the crime and beyond the standard of reasonable doubt ?!!

HUH ?!!! if thats not the law applied wild west style what is ?

I'd be interested to hear how you think a juror JUDGES cir****tantial or witness evidence?  They JUDGE it according to their morals and life's experiences.  It's the premise of a defendent being JUDGED by a jury of their peers.   The only irrefutable evidence (as I see it) is DNA and there are lawyers that try to muddy the waters on that one too!

Evidence is not usually considered in a vacuum but is put together in a whole scenario - one side put by the prosecution and one by the defence and then the jury decide which one sounds more plausible - unfortunately it's not nearly as black and white as you seem to believe it should be ...

I was a juror on a case in which three policeman gave witness accounts and we, the jury, still found the defendant NOT GUILTY because we didn't believe them!!!   I'm sure everyone thought that was a slam dunk case, with credible witnesses but we all thought they were covering their asses ...

A jury is very much a crap shoot - not all jurors take their responsibilities seriously and most just want to get it over and done with - I sat with a woman who was happy to change her verdict from not guilty to guilty because she had a date that night and was worried she wouldn't get off in time -  I doubt this is a one off!   (The defendant got 15 years in that case, BTW!)

Oh, and there was never a WILD WEST in England, but I do believe that a lot of country's legal systems are based on the English model!

No evidence?  Whatever, I'm not going to debate that.

I would rather see a guilty person go free than the other way around, so the silver lining in this is we have a justice system where we are indeed innocent until proven guilty.  And the evidence wasnt enough in this case.

I live in Central Florida...ALL, and I mean ALL, news outlets have been all Anthony all day. I'm glad its over. The most memorable point to me so far was her mother commiting purgery, her father being accused of adultery, and her brother of sexually molesting her....In other words, the media will have to find someone else to crucify.. Each station has their own blow hard attorney on retainer and NONE of them predicted a NOT guilty..

If you'd like to see a human being spontaneously combust, tune in to Nancy Grace tonight!

She already combusted. She degraded the jurors when she said three of them only had 11th grade educations, she said the prosecution wasn't allowed to put on all their evidence, she had all kinds of excuses and complaints.

All of these anchors and talking heads are disgusting bottom feeders who wanted to take a real tragedy and pimp it out for all the air time they could get. Shame on all of them.