Not Guilty??? WTH???
 

How could those jurors find her innocent of all charges except lying to the police?

If my kid goes missing and I don't notify ANYONE for 30 days, is that not child abuse?

The prosecution completely dropped the ball. They did not tie her actions and the crime together at all. It's kinda like the O.J. trial, I think she's guilty as sin but the prosecution didn't meet their burden and, in our justice system, that means an acquittal every time.

Vomit.
Now she is going to be a celebrity, do the tours, publish a book, movie rights etc.
She will be out clubbing all night while baby girl rots as sure as her soul is rotting.
Vomit.

Should be stoned to death

I lived about 3 miles from where this happened in Orlando. When I was back there in Jan this year a friend of mine said people were saying she's going to walk. I thought you cannot be serious. Obviously he was. If you actually read the stories she told the police and how she led them a merry dance thru the streets of Orlando the whole thing defies belief. I don't think the prosecution dropped the ball but rather the lazy ass cop who couldn't be bothered to investigate when told there was something in a black bag in the bushes. As it is the guy had to practically lie across the road for them to eventually stop and take notice.By then it was too late to determine the cause of death. As for Casey Anthony she has finally decided the child drowned and her dad covered it up to look like a murder???? Who tries to turn an accidental death into a murder?? Also accused the dad of sexually abusing her. Basically threw her entire family to the wolves. The same family that virtually bankrupted themselves trying to keep her out of the death cell. What a sham. Check out this article and see the behaviour of the defense team. How's the lawyer flipping off the press. Champagne all round?? A CHILD IS DEAD!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...pson-case.html

She drown, so I duct taped her mouth closed.....

I was trying to chloroform her to sleep so I could go party but she accidently died, so I duct taped her mouth closed....


I don't get it. This is what happens when a jury knows someone is guilty, but the prosecution drops the ball on reasonable doubt and the judge lets the defense go on a dog and pony show.

I never even heard about this until yesterday so i may not have all the details. The defense is saying she is admitting to an accidental drowning and then covering it up to look like a murder. Should there be some greater ramifications then just "lying to police". Even if she was found innocent of murder should there be something about improper disposal of a body or something like child neglect/abuse?

Tings, the story is even crazier than that. In the beginning the first lie was a nanny stole the child. When that story went bust she went mum and wouldn't say anything. It wasn't until years later (how long has this been?) when the trial started that the drowning story was presented.

Even though I live in Orlando I didn't watch a minute of the trial. The media circus and people stalking her parents house actually made me sympathetic to the idea of her getting off. I think I just lost my motive to care after watching the town villagers act like they were lynching Frankenstien.

This one definitely rivals OJ and we can't even pin it on a racially biased jury. The jury's rationale is just as mysterious as the crime itself.

thats crazy. So what are the admitted facts by the defense then? Is she denying putting the kid in the woods or just blaming it all on her parents. Somebody should be in trouble for something here even if they really didnt murder the girl right?

I'm a broken record, I already know that, but for those that are interested in the Criminal Justice System, I would like to recommend this book:

Resist Not Evil
by Clarence Darrow

It is free and won't cost you a dime. The author is basically the guy responsible for public schools not having to teach creationism (and subsequently teaching Darwinism or evolution), he was the first guy to test the Butler Act of 1925.

or

I am not really sure how the prosecution expected to prove murder without being able to prove manner of death (or time of death, or motive, etc.). The fact that a child died does not mean that the child was murdered. The proof just wasn't there.

I don't know why she wasn't charged with neglect.
There have been numerous cases of children found/hurt/drowned that have wandered away from the house while under the care a parent/guardian/sitter who have fallen asleep or whatnot.
And that's for only a few hours.
But 31 days and it would have been even longer had her Mother not tracked her down & pitched a fit.

It was a good verdict. There was no proof. No sense ruining someone's life if you can't prove it. You can 't lock someone up because you don't like them or their lifestyle, or because they're just irresponsible. So I commend the jury for doing the right thing.

What I don't understand is why this case was such a big deal and all over the media. I don't understand the big deal or relevance for this to be anything other than something mentioned briefly as it progressed.

^Uhhh, she didn't report her daughter "missing" for 30 days, and even then, if the mother hadn't tracked Casey down, no telling how long it would have went unreported. If that doesn't constitute abuse, I don't know what does. She was found Not Guilty, it doesn't mean she didn't murder that little girl. What about her life?

Jeremy, inaction is not abuse. It's a parents decision when to involve police or even if they should be involved at all. While most normal people would have reported their child missing pretty quickly (at that age I would think hours, after doing your own search, asking neighbors and friends, etc.). She may well have murdered the kid, just as likely she may just be a really crappy parent who doesn't give a damn. Either way I don't like her, I think she's a dispicable person... But I'm damn glad she walked away without being found guilty, since there was no proof.

What about her life? I don't get it. It's irrelevant. There was no evidence or proof, there was a reaonable doubt as to her guilt... Thus she walks free. Than goodness for that.

It was a huge story, because people still will never understand how a mother can kill her own child. It happens all the time, yet we never fully come to grips thata mother could do this. Do i think she killed her kid? Yes. Was there enough evidence to prove this? No. The jury made the right call, based on the evidence that was presented to them. The outcome sucks, but this bitch will get hers eventually.

There is only one way she should be found "not guilty" and that is if she took the stand and then if the jury found found her not guilty , fine, so be it. She is the only one that knows how she killed her kid(whether it be by neglect or by duct tape) and how many of you believe the defense attorney? drowned in the pool and then covered up like a murder? I would not have given her a not guilty vote unless she took the stand.

Oh come on! There wasn't enough proof! :rolleyes:

She will be naked in Penthouse or Hustler before the end of August.

What's sad by comparison is that they just convicted a couple (15 to 45 years) because their snake killed their child. IMO these people where clearly too stupid to anticipate what happened.

I heard she will be taking a job at the Waffle House......Tiger will be prowling.......:D

Dr G medical examiner also dropped the ball for the prosecution. All they had to was watch her show and they would have known to go with someone else. The skull had ducttape flush on it. Dr G said someone put it on the baby so it would be quiet. the only problem is that if you put the tape on skin and then the body decomposed, the tape would simply fall off. there was also zero of caylees DNA on the back of the tape. The other issue was the guy who found the body. he called the police on 3 other instances telling them he knew where she was. he took the cops on 3 wild goose chases before he was correct. The mother lying on the stand also was a big hit because you have to be taking what she is saying as the truth. To say with sn unreadable doubt that she was guilty of first degree murder and should get the death penalty possibly was just too much to ask. The prosecution or DA whoever determines what charge to go for was asking for an outcome