Child Killer

[redfsr]

Can you believe Casey Anthony [edited as to not offend anyone] was acquitted?

Edited July 6, 2011 by redfsr

[Guest bkelm18]

Reasonable doubt.

[Guest clownsdd]

Reasonable doubt.

and unreasonable jury

[G27]

Whatever, easy to say when everything you know about the case came filtered through the media. Everything.

The jury heard nothing from the media, heard the entire prosecutor's case and 12 people agreed there wasn't enough evidence.

Do I think she killed her child? Yah, probably. But if you want to be pissed at the outcome, look to the detectives and the prosecutor, not the jury.

[Daniel]

The case was circumstancial.

[Links2k]

According to the media she is as guilty as OJ. Jury just did not see it that way.

[MacGyver]

Can you believe that *unt was acquitted?

Fortunately the same presumption of innocence that protected her, continues to protect you as well.

I've not kept up with the case. I find it kind it obscene frankly. If the child wasn't so cute, or if the mom wasn't good looking - then you wouldn't know a thing about this case. The media wants her to be guilty. So does a dirty laundry loving public. Luckily, neither of those things matter. If an all star prosecution can't prove their case, she deserves to walk.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I'm just glad the trial is mostly over and the media can finally move on to some new boring inconsequential scandal.

[Guest UberDuper]

There really was no evidence other then her being a lying loon.

Did she do it? Probably. If I were on that jury would I have reasonable doubt? Probably.

[mav]

The thing I find amazing is all of the people who have convicted her, and haven't spent day one in the courtroom. I have no idea whether she is guilty or not, and I will never know. I am in agreement with MacGyver's comments.

[Guest WyattEarp]

Can you believe that *unt was acquitted?

judge not lest ye be judged. Do you really need to call her that? Does it really make you feel better? do you feel like a big man because you did? did it make your balls feel a little bigger in the process? She had her day in court, she was found not guilty, have a little respect. I'm certainly hope you're never on a jury, I'd be afraid you'd have reached some pre-determined conclusion as to someone's guilt without ever having heard any evidence based on what you heard, saw or read in the media.

if you're basing her guilt on the garbage that you heard in the media, let me say this and I say this from a personal experience with the law and the media, the media DOESN'T EVER REPORT ALL OF THE FACTS. They report what they think is relevant. I promise you, the media doesn't know even half of what went on in that case.

They're a bunch of vultures only out for a story, and out for ratings, and they paint people in a bad light, they misrepresent the facts, they misrepresent the evidence, they leave out important details, and the media and all who work for them are just plain trash.

After my experience, I will never EVER agree to talk to a reporter, newswriter or any other PIECE OF **** that works for any newspaper, tv news station, or online news publication. Sports writers are the only ones I hold in any regard, kinda hard to screw up a synopsis of a football or baseball game, even if a writer were to inject his opinion into the article.

The prosecutor brought a bull**** case, with circumstantial evidence to high profile murder trial, and walked away with 4 convictions of lying. The Boss will not be happy tomorrow morning. They couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt she did it, they couldn't provide solid evidence to back it up, therefore, there was reasonable doubt, which is why she was acquitted.

Whatever, easy to say when everything you know about the case came filtered through the media. Everything.

The jury heard nothing from the media, heard the entire prosecutor's case and 12 people agreed there wasn't enough evidence.

Do I think she killed her child? Yah, probably. But if you want to be pissed at the outcome, look to the detectives and the prosecutor, not the jury.

The jury was brought in from Tampa Bay, but it's almost a given that most if not all of that jury knew at least some details of the case before charges were filed. All of it was highly publicized, and I know if I saw it on the news when it all first started happening, so did the jurors. After the jury was selected, they were sequestered, which means no tv, no newspapers, no internet, etc, so after they were selected until now, they would have had no knowledge of what was happening with the case from the media.

Personally I don't think she killed her kid, I think the kid drowned in the pool like they say, and she just panicked. But we'll never know.

[Guest db99wj]

Prosecution couldn't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, defense picked at that, helped create and maintain that doubt. Not Guilty.

I've been on a sequestered jury on a murder trial, it is the prosecutions job to take those facts and make them indisputable so that there is no doubt, with good facts, that is not that difficult, ask the guy we convicted, without good facts, and not just a couple, all the facts need to add up and be proved, there is reasonable doubt.

And absolutely what Mac said.

Personally I think she did it, or it was a horrific accident and covered it up, or a family member did it or saw it, that whole family is a bit sketchy, but I can't prove anything, and apparently the prosecution couldn't either.

Edited July 5, 2011 by db99wj

[G27]

The jury was brought in from Tampa Bay, but it's almost a given that most if not all of that jury knew at least some details of the case before charges were filed. All of it was highly publicized, and I know if I saw it on the news when it all first started happening, so did the jurors.

I doubt it - I imagine anyone who had even heard of the case was dismissed during voir dire - believe it or not there are TONS of folks out there who pay zero attention to the news or other current events if they aren't related to a reality show...

[DaveTN]

According to the media she is as guilty as OJ. Jury just did not see it that way.

Appears to me that’s exactly how the jury saw it.

[Guest RobThatsMe]

Fortunately the same presumption of innocence that protected her, continues to protect you as well.

I've not kept up with the case. I find it kind it obscene frankly. If the child wasn't so cute, or if the mom wasn't good looking - then you wouldn't know a thing about this case. The media wants her to be guilty. So does a dirty laundry loving public. Luckily, neither of those things matter. If an all star prosecution can't prove their case, she deserves to walk.

Tons of circumstancial evidence... but nothing that directly tied her to the crime, as in fingerprints, etc.

She will be the new OJ Simpson of the decade.

[Guest bkelm18]

and unreasonable jury

It's quite easy to say that sitting at home and watching the media bonanza surrounding her case and not having actually sat in the courtroom. In sports I believe they call that armchair quarterbacking.

[dralarms]

Well, I don't know if she actually did it or not, but IF she did she will face the judgement even if she got away with it here on this old crusty earth.

[Guest UberDuper]

The entire trial was streaming online. Just cause you didn't see it doesn't mean nobody else did. My wife was obsessed with it and watched every minute.

[RobertNashville]

Our system of justice is not perfect; just the most perfect in the world. I can't say I followed the case that closely but from what I do know about, it seemed to me that the prosecution had a lot of theory and not much evidence - certainly not evidence that actually connected the women to her child's death. Above that, when I listened to some of the prosecution's case it seemed they couldn't even decide on any "one" theory about what happened or why.

Bottom line is, the jury heard all the evidence without the media telling them what they should think and all 12 agreed that the prosecution didn't prove her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt...I can live with that and in any case, I'd rather see a guilty person go free than an innocent person spend the rest of his/her life in a jail cell (or worse).

[Dad03]

No direct evidence, the whole thing was a circus. Pretty easy to create doubt. We can't rule by emotion. I think she knows exactly what happened if not a hand in it.

Greater travisty is they will all get paid for interviews, books and movie deals.

[Guest clownsdd]

Whatever, easy to say when everything you know about the case came filtered through the media. Everything.

The jury heard nothing from the media, heard the entire prosecutor's case and 12 people agreed there wasn't enough evidence.

Do I think she killed her child? Yah, probably. But if you want to be pissed at the outcome, look to the detectives and the prosecutor, not the jury.

Not necessarily, don't take but one.

[mav]

There is one thing that I did gather from this entire process. It strengthened my utter contempt of the media.

[laktrash]

Greater travisty is they will all get paid for interviews, books and movie deals.

And she'll be the one that gets the big buck deal so she can party on with no remorse

[G27]

Not necessarily, don't take but one.

Nope, if the jury didn't unanimously agree it would be a mistrial. Acquittal works the same as being found guilty - all 12 had to agree she was not guilty.

[Jasongar8]

Meh, she will be partying before the weeks out. Just what she wanted. Maybe someone will Dexter her ass. If you don't watch that show google it.