• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Casey Anthony Trial: Jury Reaches Verdict

tessaesque said:
Well, ya know...surprised by this, but here's the thing...The evidence provided didn't remove all "reasonable doubt". The jury did the best they could with what was provided. It's a shame there wasn't more solid evidence available.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's hard to make a black and white decision based on gray evidence.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Curious, here - just what evidence would have had to be present for her case to have gone 'guilty' ?

What could be missing?

I know there's really no point in debating it more - but still - what more evidence was necessary in this case? We all know what WAS presented as evidence - are people really saying that because there was no discernable wounded flesh on the bones of this dead child or no bugs that there's a complete lack of evidence? Because her mother didn't beat her in public there's just no way she didn't get rid of her because she was in the way? Becaue a roll of ductape was thrown away in the garbage - and a roll of garbage bags was used up - that casts sufficient doubt?

Look - if she didn't kill this child then someone did. I'm still disgusted that this is where it ends for this poor child who was just thrown out.

If all this actual evidence was 'insufficient' then how on earth do completely innocent people get sentenced to life in prison and even death row? Hundreds every year are released due to absolute innocents - btw . . . just what sense does this make to anyone?

I'm more so just disgusted more and more by our horrid judicial system and it's complete inefficiency.
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know, proof that she actually killed the child, maybe? The smell in the car, the duct tape, all of the circumstantial evidence was just that, fluff. It proved nothing more than the child was dead. But death, in and of itself, doesn't mean murder.

There was no smoking gun. Someone heard a shot and that's about it. No one could find the gun.

Completely innocent people are sentenced because of people like you, who "feel" that someone is guilty without truly looking at the evidence.
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
Moderator's Warning:
Wake and TheDemSocialist, please no more death threats and tone it down a bit. I understand that this is a very passionate court ruling, but let's keep it civil.
Click to expand...

I hope Wake is trolling... If not, he is displaying warning signs that are concerning.
 
Originally Posted by digsbe
This ruling infuriates me. It's almost like there is no sense of justice anymore. She was clearly guilty and I don't see how those idiots could find her innocent.
Click to expand...


Because she is innocent. ;) (and attractive)
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Good mothers don't end up partying while their child is missing and sitting on their asses before they tell someone - eventually.

I understand the dynamics of abuse as I was abused by many people - but if I offed my kids right now that wouldn't remotely be an excuse.

If my kids went missing and I didn't report it for a month that sure as hell wouldnt' be explained away by who fingered me when I was 5.

I don't give a **** about this whole 'daddy touched me' crap. . . it has no place in this.
Click to expand...

But the trail wasn't about judging if she was a good mother or not. The purpose of the trial was to judge weather or not she murdered her daughter. Using her behavior against her isn't enough. It's just circumstantial and opinionated.. that's not a good mother, that's a bad mother. There needs to be hard evidence that she murdered Caylee, and I think that's why the jury voted how they did. Yeah, Casey's behavior is strange but it was strange way before her daughter was missing.
 
SgtRock said:
the counts she was convicted of were misdemeaners. She has already served 3 years. She will walk out of jail thursday a free woman.
Click to expand...

So all this started 3 year ago... wow, I didn't realized time went by that fast. :(

What did they initially put her in jail for?
 
krickitt said:
Holy sheet!!! O'Reilly is blowing a gasket!!!! FIGHTING with Geraldo. WOWWWWWW!! Never cared that much for O'Reilly, even on the radio. He is so mememe.. Get over it, Bill. The case stunk, they went over the top on charges, they lost.
Click to expand...

Geraldo seems the more emotional of the two.

 
dontworrybehappy said:
Oh, I don't know, proof that she actually killed the child, maybe? The smell in the car, the duct tape, all of the circumstantial evidence was just that, fluff. It proved nothing more than the child was dead. But death, in and of itself, doesn't mean murder.

There was no smoking gun. Someone heard a shot and that's about it. No one could find the gun.

Completely innocent people are sentenced because of people like you, who "feel" that someone is guilty without truly looking at the evidence.
Click to expand...

No - you and I both are looking at all the evidence and we interpret it to MEAN different things because we have different background knowledge that we're looking to and relying on.

I see everything that's been brought to light since the beginning and it points to her being guilty as sin. Quite identical to many cases in which the murderer has confessed . . . but before hand they lied, snuck around, made up stories in an endless effort to mislead. . . and eventually truth was drawn out of them like poison from a wound.

So - you're actually asking me to toss out everything I do know about countless other cases and even criminal psychology and somehow believe that all this bizarre deranged behavior happend because *nothing wrong happened.*
 
digsbe said:
This ruling infuriates me. It's almost like there is no sense of justice anymore. She was clearly guilty and I don't see how those idiots could find her innocent.
Click to expand...

The jury saw the evidence and listened to every word spoken in the trial. Yes outsiders may see this as a miscarriage of justice but we were not privy to all that was said and done word for word at the trial at best we had sound bites that always present a slant. Twelve people agreed it would be difficult to say that they were all idiots. Who knows what they saw that the general public did not see.
 
digsbe said:
This ruling infuriates me. It's almost like there is no sense of justice anymore. She was clearly guilty and I don't see how those idiots could find her innocent.
Click to expand...

I think the bitch is guilty as hell of...something. i have no doubt that she's not coming clean with all the facts and she damn well knows. But, the state didn't prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

I mean, let's summarize the states argument: Casey's a liar and Kali is dead.
 
liblady said:
any thinking person knows that the casey anthony killed her daughter, purposely, imo. then, she partied. i hope both she and her parents are harrassed unrelentingly.
Click to expand...

As you say that is your opinion. I think she was guilty as well but all we have are opinions and the jury of twelve people had all the evidence day in and out. They agreed.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
The jury saw the evidence and listened to every word spoken in the trial. Yes outsiders may see this as a miscarriage of justice but we were not privy to all that was said and done word for word at the trial at best we had sound bites that always present a slant. Twelve people agreed it would be difficult to say that they were all idiots. Who knows what they saw that the general public did not see.
Click to expand...

Agreed and well stated
 
katiegrrl0 said:
As you say that is your opinion. I think she was guilty as well but all we have are opinions and the jury of twelve people had all the evidence day in and out. They agreed.
Click to expand...

Oddly - just as many have agreed that someone was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - and turns out they were completely innocent and let loose from death row years later.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Oddly - just as many have agreed that someone was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - and turns out they were completely innocent and let loose from death row years later.
Click to expand...

That is true but the jury is assigned with the responsibility to decide. The catch are the words reasonable doubt. They can turn either way. To vote guilty you have to have no reasonable doubt. If the state failed in that task the jury had no other option but to call her innocent. By the same token if the state proves beyond doubt that an innocent person appears guilty the jury has no other option. It is not the juries fault if she is guilty and set free. It is the failure of the state to make a decent case against her.
 
I didn't follow the trial closely but from what I saw I thought for sure she would be found guilty.

I guess she will go free now with time served on the minor charges.
 
tessaesque said:
Unfortunately, the duct tape doesn't prove anything. It was found in position over what would have been the child's mouth. The bones had been moved, scattered, jostled, and manipulated by animals. The tape could also have been moved. it wasn't attached to the skull when found, and no DNA, skin fragments, or other materials related to the body (expect a patch of hair) were found on the tape. Even the heart sticker wasn't actually on the tape...there was an impression of a heart and a sticker found a few feet away in debris.
Click to expand...

WOW. You are a defense attorney's DREAM juror.

God I can't believe some of the **** you are excusing in these posts.

You are failing to understand the term...... its very popular in our criminal law procedure....

R-E-A-S-O-N-A-B-L-E.



You In the Future said:
Its very possible that the duct tape was placed there by alien space invaders out to get Casey.... My gosh, its no wonder the jury found her not guilty!
Click to expand...
 
digsbe said:
This is why I could never be a lawyer. It's so incredibly frustrating to see injustice prevail as a sly witch can get away with murdering her child.
Click to expand...

Thats why I could never be a defense attorney in a capital crime case......

There is absolutely no ****ing way I could assist someone in getting away with murder only to feed my own selfish bastard desires (money).
 
katiegrrl0 said:
That is true but the jury is assigned with the responsibility to decide. The catch are the words reasonable doubt. They can turn either way. To vote guilty you have to have no reasonable doubt. If the state failed in that task the jury had no other option but to call her innocent. By the same token if the state proves beyond doubt that an innocent person appears guilty the jury has no other option. It is not the juries fault if she is guilty and set free. It is the failure of the state to make a decent case against her.
Click to expand...

What a "reasonable doubt" is these days, Im not sure.
 
I am going to start out by stating a few facts.. (If anyone here was a member of the jury then please disregard this post..)

Nobody here was on the jury..
Nobody here saw the evidence they saw..
Nobody here actually has to live with thisd verdict..

Having that.. I think the people here that claim she is guilty is showing their ignorance.. You can't judgment on someone based on the tid bits the press choose to show us for ratings.. All the coverage that I saw potrayed her to be guilty..

Since nobody here actually has the burdon of living with this verdict.. I don't see how any of us could or would dare to question thier judgement.. We don't have the insight they have nor the knowlege on the case.. 12 people voted unaminously that she was innocent.. It wasn't a hung jury, and they didn't deliberate that long..

Reasonable doubt is simply any definable fact that says the accused could or might be innocent.. Nobody should be sentenced to life or death unless you are absolutey sure without any doubts..

It is one thing to discuss this case, the evidence, who might have killed this little girl other than her mother..

I am making no claim to her innocense or guilt.. I was not a jurist.. I respect the findings of the jury.. As I said in my last post.. I would rather a murderer be set free than someone who is innocent be wrongfully convicted..

Typed on my phone.. Excuse typos..
 
apdst said:
I think the bitch is guilty as hell of...something. i have no doubt that she's not coming clean with all the facts and she damn well knows. But, the state didn't prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

I mean, let's summarize the states argument: Casey's a liar and Kali is dead.
Click to expand...




Could have been an accident, with a fear of charges of criminal negligence, then a cover-up? If Caylee drowned in the pool, getting up early in the morning, and climbed into the swimming pool unsupervised, because Cindy had left the ladder up, and doors unlocked, could it have been feared by family members, that Cindy would be guilty of negligent homicide?

If Caylee had drowned, and spent several hours in the pool before being found, could decomposition have started? If Caylee was found in the backyard swimming pool by a family member, wouldn't the family member pull the body out of the pool? Wouldn't the family member try to revive Caylee on the grass? Is there evidence of a decomposing body laid on the grass in the Anthony's back yard? Two cadaver dogs found a scent of human decomposition in the Anthony's back yard. I did not hear the Defense point out the evidence that Caylee drowned, in closing.

Why couldn't Caylee have died by accident? Why do so many people seem convinced that someone had to have murdered Caylee? Didn't the cadaver dogs confirm Jose Baez's opening statement that Caylee drowned in the pool?

Sometimes there is no way to protect your privacy, unless you tell a lie. All the Anthony family members seemed to be trying to protect the family honor, and privacy of each other, to some extent. The laws of perjury are often in conflict with the interests of personal, and family, privacy.





//
 
Last edited:
Mr. Invisible said:
This... I was not expecting. I don't know that much about the case, but I do know the basics. Its pretty obvious that Casey Anthony killed her kid.
Click to expand...

Other than the press that essentially convicted her without seeing or knowing all the evidence.. What do you know that makes you think she is guilty??

I mean seriously?? The press played you all like a well tuned guitar.. Guilty equals ratings.. Everyone wants to hear how this poor mom killed her kid.. So they can sit back and say how horrible it was.. Call the mom names and hope she is convicted.. That is what you all want to hear.. That is ratings.. If a news show called her innocent, nobody would watch it..

So congratulations to all the people that are dumb enough to call her guilty.. You just showed us all the exact reason the jury isn't allowed to watch the news or read the paper..

It is pathetic to know that so many people can be snowed and brainwashed by the press..
 
katiegrrl0 said:
The jury saw the evidence and listened to every word spoken in the trial. Yes outsiders may see this as a miscarriage of justice but we were not privy to all that was said and done word for word at the trial at best we had sound bites that always present a slant. Twelve people agreed it would be difficult to say that they were all idiots. Who knows what they saw that the general public did not see.
Click to expand...

the jury did their job and they are being persecuted for it. Casey may well have committed this crime, but the State didn't prove their case. period. the jury made their decision based on the evidence they heard and not on their emotions. isn't that the sort of jury everyone would want if they were ever in a situation that required juror involvement? of course it is.

i feel for all the jurors. what a ****ty position for them to be in. they must be wondering if justice will ever be served for little Caylee too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom