Their job is to judge whether the state proved that she was guilty of the charges, not that she was "innocent" of them. That's why they say "Not Guilty". They did their jobs correctly.

 

To a lot of you, I say a lot of the lawyers heard all the evidence every day and said she was guilty.

If I'm on that jury, I make sure those bastards sit there several days before I let that b**** go free. They deliberated long enough to eat a few ham sandwiches.

GUILTY!

I wish I could be a juror, but it would take a really stupid attorney to give me that opportunity.

 

I watched the prosection's closing statement on replay last night.

I thought he did a very good job. I don't see what more he could have done. I forget his name. The salt and pepper haired guy.

He laid it out there pretty well.

 

I turned it off and didn't want to watch Baez's closing.

I truly feel he was representing a murderer and didn't want to hear it.

 

Of this whole case one of the most bizarre things is how the police wouldn't go check for the remains of the baby when that guy told them 3 times there was a body in the swamp.

Very bizarre.

 

I do have a comment:

Everybody talks about Casey Anthony making money soon off interviews.

I was thinking. If the interviewer does a good job, she will really be earning that money.

Because her defense was that there was an accident and her dad did the duct tape, etc.

She is going to have to talk about that A LOT and anything she says will be very morbid and accusatory toward dad, who probably will be able to sue his own daughter.

I mean any interviewer is going to ask some tough questions (unless they agree just to talk about her future, and make her a movie star type celebrity about 'how did the trial make you feel?'

I can't imagine a real interviewer agreeing to just to puff piece questions.

 

How can she face a real interviewer and not look horrible?

I mean THEY HAVE TO ASK HER ABOUT THE ACCIDENT IN THE POOL, one that never happened.

Some thoughts on the trial and the media circus via Andrew Sullivan

 

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/20...able-ctd-1.html

Could Casey be tried in federal court since she lied to an FBI agent?

 

Is this gaining steam?

If this is true, that's pretty f'n sad.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-20...-fear-life.html

If this is true, that's pretty f'n sad.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-20...-fear-life.html

 

f***ing disgusting. That woman holding the sign about the jurors being guilty of murder makes me just wish I could dropkick her in the face. I hate ignorant people.

 

In fact, ignorant people are probably the thing I hate the most, as they are usually willfully ignorant and they always think they're right.

wtf is wrong with people?

wtf is wrong with people?

 

It's entirely mob mentality. One or two people become irate over the situation (spurred on to a great extent by the media portrayal) and they spread the anger to the people around them and the ignorance of the entire situation and trial. I have no doubt that this person's life is literally in danger.

The jury did exactly what I would have done in the same situation, because I pretty much echoed the same exact thoughts before the trial ever concluded.

 

Did Casey kill her daughter? I'm 99.99% sure she did, but the prosecution has to prove that, and they did a pretty damn shameful job of just that. If people want to be pissed off, they need to be pissed off at the prosecution with their all or nothing mentality of the presentation of the case.

If this is true, that's pretty f'n sad.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-20...-fear-life.html

 

I'll never understand the automatic lynchmob mentality that forms in some people's heads.

The jury did exactly what I would have done in the same situation, because I pretty much echoed the same exact thoughts before the trial ever concluded.

 

Did Casey kill her daughter? I'm 99.99% sure she did, but the prosecution has to prove that, and they did a pretty damn shameful job of just that. If people want to be pissed off, they need to be pissed off at the prosecution with their all or nothing mentality of the presentation of the case.

 

I disagree.

I think the prosecution did enough to get a conviction.

Have you heard the tapes of Anthony lying, lying, lying?

For 31 days she didn't give a s*** about finding her kid. They tied in the chloroform well enough and the duct tape. Accidents don't end up getting hidden like this. She was lucky the body was so decomposed that there was hardly anything left in the poor girl.

The people who say she was 99 percent guilty but couldn't convict her slay me? Why not? A lot of experts who saw every day of the trial were "shocked" at the verdict. Just convict her to life. Weren't those 2nd and 3rd charges something like "abuse and neglect" and manslaughter or something? I wouldn't have let her walk.

 

As far as people threatening jury members, stupid.

All that will do is ultimately get them thrown in jail. People should be ashamed of themselves. Get fired up about other issues in the case like passing a new law.

And when she gets paid to do a long interview, I sure hope it's with a legitimate interviewer who will ask her about the "accident" and how her dad was freaking out saying it was her fault, then he went and threw the baby in a swamp in a bag. Sure, dad did that, sure he did.

Edited July 13, 201114 yr by greg775

I disagree.

I think the prosecution did enough to get a conviction.

Have you heard the tapes of Anthony lying, lying, lying?

For 31 days she didn't give a s*** about finding her kid. They tied in the chloroform well enough and the duct tape. Accidents don't end up getting hidden like this. She was lucky the body was so decomposed that there was hardly anything left in the poor girl.

The people who say she was 99 percent guilty but couldn't convict her slay me? Why not? A lot of experts who saw every day of the trial were "shocked" at the verdict. Just convict her to life.

 

As far as people threatening jury members, stupid.

All that will do is ultimately get them thrown in jail. People should be ashamed of themselves. Get fired up about other issues in the case like passing a new law.

 

None of those things are actual evidence of the crime. None.

Why not? A lot of experts who saw every day of the trial were "shocked" at the verdict. Just convict her to life.

Are these the same talking-head idiots that overhyped this whole trial every night for months, insisting on her guilt from the start?

None of those things are actual evidence of the crime. None.

 

Part of the problem, a big part, was actually proving that a crime was committed instead of just an accident. The prosecution apparently failed to show that.

Are these the same talking-head idiots that overhyped this whole trial every night for months, insisting on her guilt from the start?

 

The trial wouldn't have been rated nearly as highly if they didn't, which is why everyone was so shocked at the end. they listened to the Nancy Grace's of the world, instead of the trail itself.

passing a new law.

 

An awful lot of legal experts have been pretty adamant about why the proposed "Caylee's Laws" would be pretty bad law and why most laws that are made like this are bad.

An awful lot of legal experts have been pretty adamant about why the proposed "Caylee's Laws" would be pretty bad law and why most laws that are made like this are bad.

 

Honestly the people who wouldn't report disappearances without a law, are probably they same people who wouldn't report them with a law. At the end of the day, it isn't going to save the kids, which is the most important thing.

Just convict her to life. Weren't those 2nd and 3rd charges something like "abuse and neglect" and manslaughter or something? I wouldn't have let her walk.

 

You don't convict people of lesser charges because you just "know" she did it even if the prosecution failed to do its job.

The trial wouldn't have been rated nearly as highly if they didn't, which is why everyone was so shocked at the end. they listened to the Nancy Grace's of the world, instead of the trail itself.

 

I love when you read the various message boards on the internet or comments in stories where people add their opinion. A lot start with "Now, I didn't watch the entire trial, BUT..."

Honestly the people who wouldn't report disappearances without a law, are probably they same people who wouldn't report them with a law. At the end of the day, it isn't going to save the kids, which is the most important thing.

 

Right, we're talking about making a law to fix a very rare situation which will likely have many unintended consequences and turn devastated families of accident victims into criminals.

 

eta speaking of direct democracy being a bad idea....

Edited July 13, 201114 yr by StrangeSox

None of those things are actual evidence of the crime. None.

 

Some juror said at one point it was 6-6 to convict of murder.

So the jurors bought the prosecution's case. They just chickened out. I wouldn't have. I'd have convicted her.

She says her dad did it. Well she takes it for the family team if I'm on the jury. Guilty.

She says her dad did it. Well she takes it for the family team if I'm on the jury. Guilty.

 

You don't understand how the criminal justice system works, then.

She says her dad did it. Well she takes it for the family team if I'm on the jury. Guilty.

Your dad kills someone, you get death for it? Sounds reasonable.

Some juror said at one point it was 6-6 to convict of murder.

So the jurors bought the prosecution's case. They just chickened out. I wouldn't have. I'd have convicted her.

She says her dad did it. Well she takes it for the family team if I'm on the jury. Guilty.

 

Obviously they didn't or she wouldn't have walked.