Absolutelyofftopic -- Casey Anthony not guilty - Discuss

She's a pathological liar...parents are not 100% responsible for the actions or even the emotional health of their children, that is just a rediculous thing to say.   Her parents and brother have been put through hell and lost their granddaughter and daughter (for all intents and purposes), isn't that enough?  
George Anthony was tested for paternity and it was negative.  The only reason was because Casey pointed the finger at them to draw attention away from herself.  Whether it was proven in a court of law or not, this girl's actions led to her daughter's death.  Her actions (lies) led to her body not being discovered for 5 months.  Her actions led to her parents and brother and many other people being defamed in a court of law.  Can you imagine how her father felt sitting there while the defense stated what Casey said was done to her and he never got the chance to face his accuser. 
I was molested as a child, I know how that feels and what signs there are that would indicate this might have happened,  She sacrificed everyone and everything to avoid being held accountable for her own actions and threw her entire family under the bus.  Being an actual child of abuse, I hate it when people use that as an excuse for their own poor behavior.
Don't bother replying to my this post unless you are willing to allow that there are other perspectives on this besides your own.  Your lead in (Do you realize) came across as a bit condescending to me.

Ah, yes, you appear to be correct, I did not know that her father had also been tested and excluded and I just confirmed that. Though the jury wasn't told that. Of course, that doesn't mean she wasn't sexually abused by her brother, father or both. You should ask yourself why there was a need for these two men to be tested for paternity in the first place.
I've responded to a lot of emotional and ridiculous responses on here. I am a Prosecuter and I have a background in psychology. I can tell you that 1) true psychopathy is extremely rare and cannot be diagnosed on the basis of observance alone and 'pathological liar' is not a meaningful psych diagnosis, nor is there any evidence that she has a history of lying other than to the investigators, and in this case there is a logical reason she did so, because she was afraid of the consequences, 2) most criminals have a background of abuse - no this does not mean that everyone who is abused becomes a criminal, but almost everyone who ends up in the criminal justice system has some form of abuse in their background. Healthy, well adjusted people simply don't often commit crimes. This isn't an 'excuse' as you put it, it's trauma that often affects people to their core for many, many years, especially if they didn't have any adults to help them through it. Congratulations on overcoming this is your case, but the reality is that very many do not. This is why there is (supposed) to be a focus on rehabilitation in the penal system, to help offenders overcome the cir****tances that lead to their criminal behaviour. Most criminal behaviour is not a moral failing, but driven by the criminal's cir****tances and choices, which are by definiton fluid.
Parents are absolutely responsible for the emotional and mental well being of their children. Children are a product of their genes and their environment, both of which are determined by the parents. Casey has clearly had issues for a while and her parents don't appear to have taken any action. This is similar to the Loughtner case, his parents should be ashamed of themselves for allowing his rampage to happen when he is clearly an untreated paranoid schizophrenic and had been living under their roof.
Looking at the matter purely from a statistical perspective, it is far more likely that Casey was sexually abused and acted out and made bad decisions than that she killed her own child. Women killing their children in the absence of post-partum depression/psychosis is extremely rare. Especially so with no motive (boyfriend didn't want to marry her with a child, life insurance policy, etc), which wasn't demonstrated in this case either. That's just pure statistics in the absence of any evidence, which is basically the cir****tances we have here. Whether Casey commited murder and got away with it, or whether Caylee died in an accident and Casey made the poor decision to cover it up, everyone in that very dysfunctional house bears some moral responsibility for this happening.
In terms of the law, since we'll never know the cause of death, the only person who will bear legal responsibility is Casey for lying to investigators (for which there was clearly sufficient evidence to convict her). For that she's already served 3 years and will probably be free tomorrow or very soon, though with a criminal record and permanent suspicion. She's not going to have any kind of a normal life ever.

This woman failed to report her missing child for over a month, lied and said the child was with a nanny that did not exist, went out partying while her daughter was what we know now murdered, lied to police, was incooperative with police, and the child's remains were found near her home with duct tape around the skull. 

She is if anything first a bad mother.  Second, the defense team was brilliant they knew how to win the case.  The prosecution just could not get enough evidence to prove to the jury that she is a murderer.

However, I believe she did kill her child.  I am outraged that this little girl will not get justice and this women is allowed to walk away free.  Oh yeah and probably profit off of killing her child.  I am angry at the jury evidence or no evidence she killed her daughter.    

No - we do not know that Caylee was murdered. The cause of death is unknown and it is therefore possible that she died of natural or accidental causes.
Why are you angry at the jury if they made a logical decision based on the evidence presented to them? If they had returned a guilty verdict on either the murder or manslaughter charge, the judge would have been obligated to ignore it and enter a not guilty finding due to the egregious lack of evidence in support of a conviction to either of those charges.

Hi mini me,

yes there was a brief piece on tv here about the acquittal, pretty much repeating all the american media hype about guilt by virtue of the media case. 

There was also a chance to see the mother, and I have to say, for what it was worth, that she struck me as a vulnerable and rather young girl, one who has been absolutely destroyed by the process she has been through.  I could see that her so-called imperviousness in court was the rigid holding-together of one under extreme stress.  I am not saying for a moment whether she is guilty or not, but this much on a personal aspect i could see for myself. 

I did wonder also, since it was mentioned that she claimed her father had sexually abused her as a child, and also supposedly that it was he who told her to make it look like an abduction and hide the body, if in fact the grandfather had abused the grandchild and then urged his daughter to cover it up? Or possibly it may have been simply a cot-death? Who knows, but the public certainly doesn't.  I agree with you about the media no longer having the christian to give to the lions, perhaps they will simply move on to the next victim of their relentless search for stories to flog.

Robyn