Guilty verdict - there was ENOUGH evidence!

[Beatles123]

Noy Bucs related. Save that for the 'Cove!

[Benchwarmer#1]

i find the obsession with Casey Anthony rather disturbing

Unhealthy as it is for them, I understand the hate for the lady. (I kind of look at it through the looking glass so it won't affect me quite as much).

She was the last one who saw her alive and the public saw those cute pictures of the little girl (once alive) and went enraged for blood. SOMEONE had to pay and she was the most likely to have done it.

She should have paid, but the prosecution was horribly lacking. If anyone wants to hate on anyone out of this whole mess, it should be them now.



One thing that should make everyone very happy to know though... She's NOT going to make a good life here in the states, she has nothing and owes everything, and/or someone will probably come along and make it "look like an accident." If Doctors at abortion clinics are getting threats and violence against them, imagine what her life is now.

She's public enemy No. 1 for sickos hunting sickos right now. If you think the hate and obsession spewed on-line is bad, imagine what the crazy skinhead child molester killers think of her. Of course, like you, I'm not worried about her. I'm more worried about the people getting to entrenched in this horrible situation that really don't have to be.

I agree with Blaze too. The media would not have cared much at all if she wasn't young and hot.

[Chief Joseph]

She has the exact brand of duct tape in her house - a brand that is uncommon.

And what is this "uncommon" brand of duct tape?

[dbucfan]

She has the exact brand of duct tape in her house - a brand that is uncommon.

And what is this "uncommon" brand of duct tape?

Not Home Depot - maybe Lowe's  - you know - the silver one.....

[ALong13]

Wrong board, but personally I think the prosecutors were idiots for even trying to get 1st degree murder on her. I'm not convinced she even committed the murder, but I definitely believe she knows who did and what happen. I was shocked she got out of the manslaughter charge, but the murder charge wasn't surprising to me. Had she been charged with 2nd degree murder, I think she could have been found guilty, but to give someone a life sentence or the death penalty when you are not 100% that she did is ridiculous. I don't fault the jury for the ruling of first degree murder, based on what I heard, I think they made the right decision for THAT charge giving the evidence that was there. The prosecutors should take the blame for trying to get more than they could get in her punishment. Instead of seeing maybe 20 years with a murder 2, she gets out this weekend...

And yes, I agree, this wouldn't be as big of a story if she was a 40 or 50 year old hag. The fact that she's likes to party and is hot (and probably a freak in the sheets) gives the case so much more publicity

[OneTruth]

if you read the OP's link with the Judge who wrote the article state the prosecution did a GREAT job. The defense was - whatever, and the jury had theri heads up their (u know what)!
Those are my words - but basically that is what he said. There was PLENTY of evidence for a conviction. Unfortunately no - one told the jury that circumstantial evidence is just as good as an eyewitness. Of course no one should have to be told this - but seeing the people who sided with the verdict posting here - i guess they DO really need to be told...
Circumstantial evidence is very good evidence if there is a lot of it. U do not need any direct evidence if there is enough indirect evidence...

[Chief Joseph]

Well, if I wasn't convinced before, I certainly am now.

[Chief Joseph]

Thomas, you have a bad habit of picking and choosing which parts you find to be of relevance and ignoring the parts you don't like.

"Although many, if not most disagree with the verdict (myself included), neither the jury nor the court can be faulted. The jury followed the law as given, and the judge instructed the jury as required."

[Beatles123]

and again, WHY are we discussing this here? We have more pressing matters (As far as THIS SECTION's material) at hand, the lockout's end is near!

I know how important it is, but it's not meant to be in this section.

[dbucfan]

I suspected that would provide the needed clarity

[ryan24]

It's a bit bewildering why this thread hasn't been moved.

[cyberdude558]

Having been, sadly, forced to get way, way more up on this than I ever wanted it is hard to fathom a scenario that is "reasonable.". The one the defense gave isn't for example. I think people have a bad, and this seems to be true from my time on JD, understanding of what "reasonable" is when it comes to reasonable doubt it isn't that you can create any other story because if you get Joe around it could be aliens and bigfoot that did it.

Well actually from what a few jurors said, they didnt even get that far....

Juror #3 said you could go around the room and ask each juror how they thought the child died and there would be 12 different answers. Now how the hell are you going to arrive at a conviction in a capital case when 12 people are looking at this in such different ways? Not many bought the defense theory, but they also didn't buy the prosecution's theory either.

I thought the prosecution was over-reaching with the aggravated child abuse. The problem is they never once at any time during this trial presented any evidence that the child was abused. In fact, even the state's own witnesses said it appeared to them as if Casey was a loving mother. They couldn't find a single person that would testify that Casey ever hit, yelled at, or neglected Caylee in any way. Now maybe they could have got her on child neglect (because of the 31 days) or child endangerment.. but the reason they wanted specifically aggravated child abuse is because they wanted a death penalty conviction. In Florida law, aggravated manslaughter of a child PLUS aggravated child abuse is considered first-degree murder. So even if the jury convicted her on just manslaughter and child abuse, the law considers that equal to first degree murder.

Proving premeditation, motive, or cause of death is NOT legally required to get a conviction. This is true. However most juries simply wont convict on first-degree murder unless they see motive, pre-meditation, opportunity, and the cause of death. It's a psychological thing with a lot of juries. They want to see the whole picture. In this case, the prosecution was simply asking the jury to make too many assumptions. They could have convicted her. No one is saying that they could not legally do so. But they also didnt have to. That is the jury's job. The defense says there isnt enough evidence. The prosecution says there is plenty of evidence. We use a jury to settle the dispute. That's our justice system.

[dalbuc]

Well actually from what a few jurors said, they didnt even get that far....

Juror #3 said you could go around the room and ask each juror how they thought the child died and there would be 12 different answers. Now how the hell are you going to arrive at a conviction in a capital case when 12 people are looking at this in such different ways? Not many bought the defense theory, but they also didn't buy the prosecution's theory either.

I thought the prosecution was over-reaching with the aggravated child abuse. The problem is they never once at any time during this trial presented any evidence that the child was abused. In fact, even the state's own witnesses said it appeared to them as if Casey was a loving mother. They couldn't find a single person that would testify that Casey ever hit, yelled at, or neglected Caylee in any way. Now maybe they could have got her on child neglect (because of the 31 days) or child endangerment.. but the reason they wanted specifically aggravated child abuse is because they wanted a death penalty conviction. In Florida law, aggravated manslaughter of a child PLUS aggravated child abuse is considered first-degree murder. So even if the jury convicted her on just manslaughter and child abuse, the law considers that equal to first degree murder.

Proving premeditation, motive, or cause of death is NOT legally required to get a conviction. This is true. However most juries simply wont convict on first-degree murder unless they see motive, pre-meditation, opportunity, and the cause of death. It's a psychological thing with a lot of juries.

I agree the case was sub-optimal in a ton of ways but most of it doesn't much matter. The means of death doesn't matter. She's dead. Who did it? There is no reasonable explanation for the massive lag between vanishing and reporting and the lies the mother told other than malfeasance. I can't even begin to come up with one that is semi-credible so accidental or 3rd party doesn't even come close to working.

[OneTruth]

well stated.

which was my exact point to begin with, and the 17 year Judge in the article. This evidence is circumstantial - but is still very GOOD evidence. Mom waited 31 days to report her missing, lied about where she was, lied about everything, and the child was found dead - that is enough, however also during the time mom was lying to the authorities mom was out partying and having a ball at hot body contsests. That is more than enough to convict...and the Judge agrees with me...so do most sensible people.

[dbucfan]

I agree the case was sub-optimal in a ton of ways but most of it doesn't much matter. The means of death doesn't matter. She's dead. Who did it? There is no reasonable explanation for the massive lag between vanishing and reporting and the lies the mother told other than malfeasance. I can't even begin to come up with one that is semi-credible so accidental or 3rd party doesn't even come close to working.

Dal - when the case is 1st degree murder with the death penalty lying in wait - and the case is sub-optimal - the prosecutor's office needs to re-think their approach and charges.