Casey Anthony found Not Guilty

[Andara Bledin]

Overwhelming evidence of guilt, yet the defendant gets off scott-free with a not guilty verdict and acquittal.

Overwhelming evidence of not bloody much. To return with a guilty verdict based on what was available would have been a travesty of the American justice system. Trial by media with the outcome decided based on speculation and hyperbole.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

I've always believed she was guilty . . . but since the state couldn't prove it, the question now is: who killed Caylee if it wasn't Casey (supposedly?)

Why does it have to be murder? Accidents never happen or something?

Overwhelming evidence of guilt, yet the defendant gets off scott-free with a not guilty verdict and acquittal.

Wow, I really must have missed something because for such a huge amount of evidence that proved she killed her daughter, I didn't see any of it somehow.

[Eisa]

I DO think she is guilty of something. Blatant stupidity if nothing else.

However, they didn't have the evidence to prove murder. So as frustrating as the verdict is, they really did make the correct choice. The prosecution couldn't PROVE the poor child was even murdered.

[Jester]

I am going to play Devil's Advocate here. But first I want to say that I believe that Casey Anthony did, in fact, kill her child. Do I believe the prosecution proved it beyond a reasonable doubt? No. Do I believe the jury probably came to the right verdict based upon the case and evidence they were presented with? Yes. Do I still believe that she's guilty as all hell? Yes...but we don't send people to jail to life, or execute them, for merely believing they are guilty.

Anyway, as I said, I am going to play Devil's Advocate here and present potential answers to some questions raised.

...now it's being said that Casey wants more children, or possibly adopt one.

If she did not in fact kill her child, but is merely the victim of a horrible tragedy followed by mistakes and misunderstandings, then sure, of course she would want more children. If your child was killed, wouldn't you?

With her noteriety and the fact that one child of hers is dead, what agency would in their right mind would let her adopt a child?

She can still give birth, and there's not much anyone can do to stop her.

As for adoption, I doubt she would be allowed to adopt, but not because of the possible murder; more so for the fact that it's been well-documented that her first child stressed her out way beyond normal. Also, the accusations of child abuse and/or neglect, also well-documented (if unproven) wouldn't sit too well with the average adoption agency.

Then again, with Florida's child welfare system being the pathetic joke that it is, anything is possible.

who killed Caylee if it wasn't Casey (supposedly?)

Excellent question. There are three possibilities I can think of:

1. As has been suggested by the defense, Caylee drowned accidentally, and then Casey, not being the best suited for handling such a tragedy, hid the body and covered things up, and then only reported her missing 30 some days later. Stupid, sure, but if this is what actually happened, her only crimes are stupidity (not yet punishable by the law) and lying to investigators.

2. Someone who no one has mentioned or suggested. Since the family seems to all suggest that Caylee was not murdered at all, I tend to highly doubt this possibility. After all, if someone other than Casey killed Caylee, don't you think the defense team and/or her family would be screaming it from the tops of sand dunes? (Florida doesn't have any mountains....) Unless.....

3. Someone else from the Anthony family killed Caylee, either intentionally or accidentally, and then the family covered it up a la #1, but the coverup backfired badly on to Casey.

Personally, I believe the most likely scenario is that Casey killed her. Barring that, the next most likely in my mind is #1. Those are really the only two possibilties that really fit all the evidence.

Even though the grandparents claimed the child drowned in the pool . . . if that were the case, then why didn't they call 911 when it happened?

From what I understand, Casey was the only one that knew that Caylee had drowned, and the grandparents didn't find this out later. So that would explain why they didn't call the authorities. Of course, I could be wrong, and perhaps they did know from the beginning, but maybe they thought Casey could somehow be implicated for neglect. If, of course, it was the case that Caylee drowned.

The whole Anthony family is dysfunctional as hell . . .every last one of them. They've lied to everyone about everything and changed their stories so many times one doesn't know what to believe any more.

From what I've seen, this is all true. But dysfunction and lies do not murder make. They certainly do not make a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt in a capital murder case.

Overwhelming evidence of guilt, yet the defendant gets off scott-free with a not guilty verdict and acquittal.

As has been pointed out, the evidence of guilt was not overwhelming. Almost all of the evidence against Casey was circumstantial, with just the thinnest of physical evidence.

That being said, if it is the case that Casey did not kill Caylee, she hardly got off scot free. Not only has she spent 3 years in jail, but her reputation was destroyed on national television. If you did not kill your child but were tried for it, and most of the country knew about the case and felt you were guilty, do you think you'd be getting off scot free? I don't.

All that being said, I believe both that Casey killed her daughter, and that despite that, the jury came to the correct verdict, based upon the case they were given.

[guywithashovel]

People on my Facebook list are whipped into a frenzy over this. It has got me to wondering: Is Casey Anthony going to survive in the outside world? Given how angry so many people are and how sure of her guilt so many people seem to be, I'm wondering if a lynch mob will come after her after she is released.

[Imprl59]

While I don't think she should have been charged with murder 1 or anything...I am DUMBFOUNDED that she was found not guilty on ANYTHING to do with it. I mean...child endangerment? Neglect? SOMETHING?!

They can't find her guilty of child endangerment or neglect because she wasn't charged with those crimes. The prosecution "went for the gold" and didn't have the case to back it up. The jury is left with the choice of guilty or not guilty of the charges presented, they cant pick new charges and decide she is guilty of those.

Personally I think she did it but I think the case has been handled very poorly. The fact is she has been found inocent of the most serious charges by a jury of her peers. What is she going to do now? After this media circus where is she going to get a job? Where is she going to live? In the end her life is effectively ruined even though she was found innocent. All for a few months of entertainment for the American public.

[Kimmik]

Personally I think she did it but I think the case has been handled very poorly. The fact is she has been found inocent of the most serious charges by a jury of her peers. What is she going to do now? After this media circus where is she going to get a job? Where is she going to live? In the end her life is effectively ruined even though she was found innocent. All for a few months of entertainment for the American public.

I have been watching this circus with a feeling of great sadness. We want to lynch anyone suspected of harming a child. now this poor woman.. has no chance at life. She was found not guilty based on a trial of her peers, but no one will care about that... "we know" she did it so she is guilty.

I wish media circuses were against the law as they serve no purpose other then to whip the masses into a lynch mob.

[Shangri-laschild]

It is called "a cute little blonde white girl who lived in subrubia was killed" syndrome.

And when you add in "parent(s) are suspected" it amps it up even more. + 20 if you can question their parenting skills even if it didn't lead to the death.


Have to agree though that the prosecution seemed to have nothing other than "look, she did a lot of suspicious stuff, she must have done it!" which means the fault in her not being found guilty lies with the prosecutors rather than the jury or the legal system.

Was confused by this quote from the article though:

State Attorney Lamar Lawson thanked the prosecutors from his office who tried the case, and he said the case was never about the defendant.

"It has always been about seeking justice for Caylee and speaking on her behalf," he told reporters.

Does that mean that the trial was never about proving her guilty or was he trying to shift focus from what the mom did onto the tragedy of the death? Or something else?

[IDrinkaRum]

Should the prosecution have waited a few more years before bringing a trial? To find some more substantial evidence?

From what I've heard, the defense brought in experts that were engaged by the prosecution, but were never questioned because their experiments didn't come to the conclusions the prosecution wanted. So the defense used them to say that even the prosecution's own experts couldn't agree on how Caylee was killed.

And because they went ahead, had this trial and she was found not guilty, even if they found out Casey really did kill Caylee, there is nothing they can do due to double jeopardy.

[guywithashovel]

If new evidence arises that points to Casey, there definitely is the issue of double jeopardy. However, it is sometimes possible to find loopholes that allow you to get around that.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/04/...death-for.html

The above link is an example of such a case. This is the case of Tim Hennis, which was a pretty popular case back in the 1980s. There was even a movie made about the murders and the resulting trials. It is called "Innocent Victims."

Basically, a woman and her two children were murdered in their home, and Tim Hennis became the prime suspect. He was put on trial, convicted, and sentenced to death. He spent three years on North Carolina's death row appealing his conviction, and the state supreme court eventually awarded him a second trial. He was acquitted at this second trial.

Years later, some DNA from a vaginal swab on the murdered woman was tested (she was raped before being murdered), and the DNA was proven to belong to Tim Hennis.

The family of the murder victims wanted to go after him, but weren't sure if there was anything they could do since Hennis had been acquitted and trying him again would amount to double jeopardy.

However, Hennis was in the army at the time the murders were committed, so they found a loophole that allowed them to try him in military court. Hennis was called back into military duty to face trial on the rape and triple murder. This time, he was convicted and sentenced to death once again.

[AdminAssistant]

I post something about this on Facebook a while back, basically saying that this is how our legal system works. Although it isn't perfect, it's actually a pretty damn good system with lots of protections for the accused that aren't granted in other countries. That the 'court of public opinion' shouldn't have any legal standing. Something like that.

Last night I got a message from my BIL saying that my attitude toward the case bothered him, and he gave a strange hypothetical situation..."What if that were your nephew?" Which is just ridiculous. So, I had to come up with a defusing reply. But still....really?

[blas87]

We just had a local murder case with the same "Not Guilty" verdict, soley based on there not being "enough evidence" to get a guilty verdict.

Granted, it was a much, much different situation, but it irritates me nonetheless. The local one is about two guys, both were really drunk at a college bar last year, one started a fight with the other, the other tried to leave and escape but was found and followed, and the first guy smashed his head against a brick wall and killed him.

Two jurors now in the Anthony case have come out and said that they felt she truly was guilty, but couldn't prove it. Many people in this local case in my neck of the woods are saying that they have no doubt the guy in question INTENDED to kill the other guy, but couldn't prove it.

It's still not right. Perhaps it shouldn't be murder in the first degree. But is there NOTHING we can do about people who lie and change their stories, like Casey, or people who were obviously intending to cause harm, like the guy in my local news? Just let them go free? Really?

[Andara Bledin]

Perhaps it shouldn't be murder in the first degree. But is there NOTHING we can do about people who lie and change their stories, like Casey, or people who were obviously intending to cause harm, like the guy in my local news? Just let them go free? Really?

If the prosecutors hadn't pinned all their hopes on a charge they couldn't possibly support, then perhaps they'd have gotten a conviction on some lesser charge that was legitimately provable.

The fault of the defendant "getting away with it" (which is bullshit, anyway, so put your pitchforks down... we're not a bunch of bloodthirsty savages), is entirely the fault of the prosecution and no one else.

^-.-^

[IDrinkaRum]

What I'm wondering is, did the prosecutors think they had enough evidence to actually convict her of 1st degree murder and get her sent to death row?

Sure, the media had convicted her, and there really couldn't have been people who hadn't at least heard the barest bones of the case out there.

And was there really a woman on the jury who said she couldn't judge anyone as that was God's prerogative? (Or something like that?)

I know they had to put together a trial after she was in jail/watched/investigated for 3 years, but really ....

[Andara Bledin]

Actually, yes. It happens all the time that prosecutors think they have a lot more case than they really do. It sucks that there are people who end up not being punished for the things they actually can be proved to have done.

In this particularly case, because of the state of the body when found, there was no way to prove there had even been negligence, much less murder, so taking it to trial for that was a very poor decision, particularly since it frees Anthony from being tried again unless the known facts change drastically enough that they can get around double jeopardy. They should have just gone after her for the shit about lying and obstructing, which she was actually guilty of, and tried for something less likely for a jury to balk at, despite the lack of evidence, like child endangerment or similar.

Of course, it's possible that they figured that they'd never have a case to get her even for something as relatively minor as that, so they threw in the top dog charge so that they wouldn't have to fight to prove the lesser charges because everybody was distracted with the big ones. Plus, nobody would have paid the least bit of attention had they just gone for the lying and obstructing, so that's something else to think about.

^-.-^