Casey Anthony not guilty

Rune Beast0 · **Posted:** July 5th, 2011, 11:30 am

Oh boy, here we go.

While the evidence might have been circumstantial, I definitely didn't expect her to be acquitted.

also, since some of you might not care to read the article or might not know anything about the case:
Casey Anthony - mother of Caylee Anthony
Caylee Anthony - girl found dead in a swamp, not reported missing until a month after she disappeared
Casey Anthony's defense strategy - throw out a million different excuses (childhood abuse, a fictional nanny, an evil meter man) and hope one sticks
Evidence - Google searches on chloroform and injuries that corresponded with Caylee's, a trunk that "smelled like a dead body" despite multiple professional cleanings, Casey Anthony's carefree partying after the disappearance of her child
Jury's decision - WELL SHE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A BAD MOTHER AND WE KNOW SHE LIED ABOUT STUFF BUT WE CAN'T SAY SHE'S THE KILLER FOR SURE.

Adbot · **Posted:** July 5th, 2011, 11:30 am

Ranging God · **Posted:** July 5th, 2011, 12:37 pm

Yeah, this is ridiculous... It is this decades Simpson case...

I hope she burns in hell, if she is in fact guilty.

Warren · **Posted:** July 5th, 2011, 7:38 pm

I don't know anything about the case so whatever but I was in grade 11 law so I am a lawyer and we were taught:

1. For a serious crime (like murder) a jury cannot find someone guilty if there is not 100% absolutely no doubt whatsoever (even a little) that they committed the crime and that they had a guilty mind. These two thingies: actus reus and mens rea
2. How to be objective if you weren't even at the trials and if you don't know what went on in the jury meeting thingies

The way you put it and most people seem to show obvious guilt so I guess it's a good thing you aren't tried on public opinion. Enough people plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit to get plea bargains because of overwhelming evidence against them already. Not saying anything about this "person" cuz I don't know much about it.
I know this other story about this wife killed her two children and then her husband killed her because of it and he got off so that's pretty cool though. I probably know less about that though XD

trekkie · **Posted:** July 6th, 2011, 10:53 am

hell if i was the prosecute, i would charge her with negligence and child endangerment.

maybe failing to file a police report.

Lord Rickles · **Posted:** July 6th, 2011, 2:46 pm

A very interesting case to follow, with an even more interesting verdict.

Though there was no physical evidence, we all know it would not be the first time someone has been convicted merely on circumstantial evidence. The lack of physical evidence is actually more compelling. There is no trace of her on her own child? Not a hair, not a fiber, not anything? That seems to be the most condemning evidence to me!

She will forever be haunted by this, though, so there is some justice. She will be denied service, disrespected, and prejudiced against her whole life, so that is worst than life in jail. The civil suit for defamation of character from the woman she said had the child will put major hurt on her as well. There is some justice behind it all, folks.

trekkie · **Posted:** July 6th, 2011, 11:14 pm

being realistic, everybody that did not know her personally, will forget about her in 3 months.

Adbot · **Posted:** July 6th, 2011, 11:14 pm

Pennstate315 · Runite Member 5-25-10

The mainstream media painted it to seem like she was guilty and the jurors are evil. At first, I too thought she was guilty but as the bizarre story unfolded i changed my mind because even if she did lie to police, and didn't report her child missing dosen't mean she actually killed her child. For all we know she could be mentally unstable or has gone through things in life we don't know. There is no direct evidence she did it and I think the jury probably did the right thing.

Duke Juker · RSBandB Donor since 07/01/2010

Warren wrote:

I don't know anything about the case so whatever but I was in grade 11 law so I am a lawyer and we were taught:

1. For a serious crime (like murder) a jury cannot find someone guilty if there is not 100% absolutely no doubt whatsoever (even a little) that they committed the crime and that they had a guilty mind. These two thingies: actus reus and mens rea
2. How to be objective if you weren't even at the trials and if you don't know what went on in the jury meeting thingies

The way you put it and most people seem to show obvious guilt so I guess it's a good thing you aren't tried on public opinion. Enough people plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit to get plea bargains because of overwhelming evidence against them already. Not saying anything about this "person" cuz I don't know much about it.
I know this other story about this wife killed her two children and then her husband killed her because of it and he got off so that's pretty cool though. I probably know less about that though XD

I actually agree with Warren for once.

Frankly, there were too many holes in the prosecutor's case. Her defense doesn't matter as much as what the prosecutor's had to prove in their case. A murder conviction has to be absolutly, 100% believed and agreed upon by the jurors. Also, you know how hard it is for 12 people to agree on anything? While I, too, am not happy to see Casey get off for this, I think she will be much worse off without the conviction. As Lord Rickles said, she's going to have to carry that case on her neck wherever she goes and I don't think most employers are going to even consider her just because of who she is, regardless of being found innocent. People are still going to hate her, she's just on the street rather than in jail.

trekkie · **Posted:** July 8th, 2011, 10:24 am

hell i honestly would charge her with everything i can. from child abuse to tax evasion. who knows what she has done.

This case does remind me of a story in hong kong about a year ago.

there was this lady, who liked to sleep around and kept getting pregnant with random people. i think she ended up having 7 children by different men.
well one day, some garbage collector people found a dead baby in the can. when police came and found out it was hers.

She was such a terrible person. none of the kids ever went to school, they honestly all just stayed home and watch tv all day.
she didn't even give them any names, they were all numbered. #1 son, #2 daughter etc etc

food was basically whatever fast food in the area was. she went to jail so fast.

Ranging God · **Posted:** July 8th, 2011, 10:27 am

trekkie wrote:

being realistic, everybody that did not know her personally, will forget about her in 3 months.

Until a few years from now when she pulls a Simpson, and right a book about how she would have done it, IF she did it...

trekkie · **Posted:** July 9th, 2011, 1:27 am

Anthony was acquitted of murder charges on July 5, 2011 but will serve four, one-year sentences on her conviction of lying to a law enforcement officer. She will be credited for the nearly three-years of time served and good behavior and will reportedly be released in late July or early August.

Warren · **Posted:** July 9th, 2011, 7:34 am

I forgot to say in my other post, which besides joking is why I brought up grade 11 law and there was something in it on the OJ Simpson case was that he couldn't be found guilty for the serious case since it wasn't absolute 100% no doubt he did it but the other case he was in it was easier to guilt him because it wasn't as serious as murder.

Duke Juker · RSBandB Donor since 07/01/2010

Yes. The criminal trial for murder failed, but the wrongful death civil trial was successful. Simpson was ordered to pay $33.5 million in damages. So he really didn't escape completely.

Italy4life · **Posted:** July 9th, 2011, 9:00 pm

Not sure if this was posted yet but... i believe she was charged with 4 counts of false information to the police so im not sure what time she will get for that if any.