Absolutelyofftopic -- Casey Anthony not guilty - Discuss

 1.  She claims her daughter drowned, yet she put duct tape over her mouth before throwing her body in a field? Dead children do not need hushing-up.
Guilty
2. She took a month before reporting her daughter missing.
Guilty
3. She went out clubbing while the community searched for her daughter. 
Guilty
4.  She googled ways to break someones neck and how to kill with chloroform.
Guilty.
5. Car trunk had death smell. 
Guilty
6. Duct tape and garbage bag on the girl identified as from her home. 
Guilty

The jury must have needed video of the murder to serve the OBVIOUS, NO-BRAINER sentence  of guilty. This just ****** me off!!  Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

When did people quit using reason and become so gullible?

Justice Ignored!
Shameful.

1) Casey stated that she was acting on the advice of her father that she make Caylee's death look like she had been abducted and murdered, that is why she applied the tape. Her explanation provides a reason why it was done. There is no evidence that the tape was applied prior to Caylee's death.
2) Casey knew her daughter was never missing, so there was no need to make a report. Casey knew her daughter was dead which was why she didn't make a report, that would have been a criminal act - she was counting on the body beng found.
3) A woman clubbing after her daughter died may appear strange, but it does not indicate guilt. Grief drives people to many unusual behaviours and it would simply have been how she was dealing with the grief and guilt of the accidental death.
4) People cannot be convicted of crimes based on their curiosioty about them. I've read articles about how to get away with having an extra-marital affair, so according to you that is evidence that I've had one.
5) What does this even mean? It had particles associated with decomposition in a single test that could not be replicated and the maggots were determined to have been from trash.
6) Yes, Casey's defense team did not deny this - she admits to putting the body in the woods in a garbage bag - that does not make her responsible for the girl's death.

Every single item here is either cir****tantial (the weakest form of evidence) or requires assumptions of material facts that cannot be properly determined based on the available evidence. The correct verdict was rendered. This doesn't mean she is innocent, it means she has been determined not to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The people on the jury used reason rather than emotion. What you call guillible is the basis for our judicial system... innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution didn't even come close.

 I guess a "good" storyline can save anyone from getting the justice they deserve. 

Without video, I guess anyone could be innocent.
 
She is guilty.  Logic proves this. 

No, logic tells you it is quite likely that she is guilty. Logic helps to formulate hypotheses and motives which are helpful, but are not evidence. In a court of law, in order to be convicted, there must be convincing evidence against you. The prosecution couldn't even prove that a murder had taken place, nevermind who committed it! There is no evidence that Casey directly or indirectly caused the death through action or inaction. Period. She didn't get off the charges because her defence came up with a good story, she got off because the prosecution didn't prove its case.
Why are you going on about video? Video evidence of the actual offence is rare - the reason for this is if there is video, people rarely bother to plead not guilty, they take a plea deal. In this case, there were many, many types of evidence that would have been sufficient to justify a conviction. A witness would have done. Or a medical examiner determining a cause of death that couldn't have been or was unlikely to be accidental. Or forensic evidence in the home, car, clothing or on Casey's person that definitely proved she was involved in the death and not just hiding the body. The prosecution had none of this.
She plainly should not have been convicted - there is no evidence tying her to the death, again, not just to the hiding of the body, but the death. It might be 'logical' as you say to think she was involved, but a true definition of logic is valid inference and correct reasoning based on evidence. There is no evidence of her involvement in the death, of which the cause is unknown, therefore the evidence does not support guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of murder or manslaughter. If the prosecution had attempted to prosecute her for causing an indignity to a dead body, they would have had her - but their reach exceeded their grasp in trying for murder or manslaughter.

 yes that surprises  me too...  isnt that a crime they failed to charge her with  ?  Tampering with a corpse ? 

Yes, they could have - but that is usually charged against people who weren't responsible for the death, so it might have been perceived as showing weakness in their case to charge her with that offense along with all the others too... this was what you all a 'kitchen sink' prosecution, they just wanted to get her on something and didn't know and didn't much care what exactly.

 

1) Casey stated that she was acting on the advice of her father that she make Caylee's death look like she had been abducted and murdered, that is why she applied the tape. Her explanation provides a reason why it was done. There is no evidence that the tape was applied prior to Caylee's death.
 

If this is true, why didn't she report her daughter missing?  This makes absolutely no sense to make it look like an abduction and murder, then not report her missing.  That alone is some of the evidence you are asking about right there.  Here defense is a direct contradiction of her known actions.

Like I said previously, they picked the right jurors.

I seriously doubt shes gonna have a fun life now, I hope the parties she went to while her baby was missing were great because they might be the last she ever gets to enjoy.  Her life is over now, one way or another, I wouldn't be surprised if she gets knocked up again just to prove she can be a great mom to the next one.  Its a very sad day for her little girl.

"reasonable doubt" is way different than "possible doubt" - it is POSSIBLE to believe you will win the lottery but it is not reasonable to believe it.

Of course there is a difference, but in the absnce of convincing evidence, of which there was absolutely none in this trial that Casey was responsible for Caylee's death, the defence story doesn't even matter - the absence of evidence itself leads to the reasonable doubt.