home

Casey Anthony Verdict In

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 12:42:48 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The jury has reached a verdict. It will be read at 2:15 ET. I'll be offline but here's a place to discuss it.

Sounds like the jury knew yesterday as news reports today say the jurors arrived in nicer clothes this morning.

< Dominique Strauss-Kahn: Countdown to Dismissal | So Many Ignorant Reactions to Casey Anthony Acquittal >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Casey Anthony Verdict In | 129 comments (129 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Rest assured... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Addison on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 01:24:49 PM EST
    Casey Anthony will be tried again in civil court for causing Nancy Grace to explode in disbelief and blustering rage.

    One of her earrings... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Dadler on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 01:28:07 PM EST
    ...just touched down in California.

    Parent
    Hers ain't the only one... (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 01:41:10 PM EST
    I'm hearing heads pop in surrounding cubes.

    Reasonably intelligent people so ignorant of how our criminal justice system is designed to work...it's sad.  The big picture is lost on them.  Me...I'm shocked the system worked, I thought for sure the jury would ignore the reasonable doubts.  Kudos to the jury box.

    Parent

    I find it interesting that they can have (none / 0) (#12)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 01:44:26 PM EST
    a murder trial when they can't even prove the victim was murdered . . .

    Parent
    Really??!! (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by mm on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:03:37 PM EST
    Why, do you stumble across dead children with duct tape across their mouths and nose, stuffed in laundry bags, and dumped in swamps all the time?  

    Parent
    duct tape was not found around the (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 03:43:37 PM EST
    mouth and nose. It was just proposed that it could have been there at one time.

    Parent
    +1 Ruffian (none / 0) (#86)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 04:22:05 PM EST
    And no DNA on the tape pretty much sealed the deal with me.  I have had duct tape on my skin, and it had a lot of DNA when removed.

    I never really understood the angle, a grown woman needs duct tape to administer chloroform to a child.  Like nearly all the evidence, it didn't pass the smell test IMO.

    I think the jury got it right, she lied and was convicted of it.

    And the empty jar smell test years later ?  All I could think of was Cartman farting a jar and how that non-sense had no place in a court of law.

    Parent

    Me too (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 04:34:43 PM EST
    I did not follow it closely and until this weekend did not realize how much speculation was involved in the 'duct tape and chloroform as murder weapons' theory. I thought they at least had evidence that someone in the house had actually bought chloroform. And I just can't imagine anyone killing a child using duct tape as a suffocation technique. Does not make sense.

    I don't claim to know what happened, but there is too much reasonable doubt in the prosecution theory for me.

    Parent

    Nobody bought chloroform, but (none / 0) (#114)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 12:14:53 AM EST
    somebody did spend time on the computer looking up how to make it out of household chemicals, which apparently you can do fairly easily.

    Parent
    Really? Even after (none / 0) (#113)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 12:12:30 AM EST
    your body had decomposed into a skeleton?  Why would DNA be present on your duct tape if there wasn't even enough tissue on your body to have DNA?  DNA is biological. It decomposes rapidly.

    Lack of DNA on the tape is entirely expected.  It would have been outrageous if they'd said they'd found some after all those months.

    Parent

    Well, if it was so cut and dried (none / 0) (#34)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:15:27 PM EST
    why couldn't they prove she was murdered before they went to trial?

    Parent
    Pay no mind stray... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:22:10 PM EST
    sounds like the prosecution should have called mm as a witness...he/she must have a crystal ball.

    I guess if you still believe in the bedrock of our system of justice you're a child-murderer apologist...who knew?

    Parent

    A skeleton (none / 0) (#36)
    by Towanda on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:18:30 PM EST
    which was all that was left after months of lies, allows the defense to claim accidental drowning, as that no longer could be determined.

    One can only hope that this does not become a how-to manual -- how to get away with . . . whatever happened to that poor little girl.

    Parent

    Exactly Towanda.... (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:27:31 PM EST
    "whatever happened"...we simply can not go and convict and cage people over "whatever happened"'s...not while calling ourselves a free country where one is innocent until proven guilty anyway.

    Parent
    Agreed, kdog (none / 0) (#55)
    by Towanda on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:59:07 PM EST
    -- but then, having had my encounters with the so-called justice system, I share some of your lack of confidence that it can be counted on to achieve justice.  

    Verdicts, yes, the system can achieve those.

    Parent

    Life ain't fair, (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 03:06:20 PM EST
    and life ain't just, I hear ya...we can only hope to keep the stench down.  And nothing smells worse than inncocent souls rotting in cages.

    Parent
    um, juries do it all the time: (none / 0) (#91)
    by cpinva on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 05:06:32 PM EST
    see: peterson, scott
    see: all those who have been exonerated by the innocence project.

    in this particular case, the prosecution wasn't corrupt enough to figure out how to keep mitigating evidence out of the hands of the defense:

    see: connick, harry sr., DA, New Orleans

    and a host of others to be named in future trades.

    Parent

    Duct tape (none / 0) (#44)
    by mm on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:33:04 PM EST
    Hey, what can you say.  Ce Bella Vita!!

    Parent
    They did? (none / 0) (#40)
    by mm on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:25:47 PM EST
    Give me another plausible explanation for dumping a child in a swamp with duct tape wrapped across the child's mouth and nose.  Go ahead.

    Parent
    No one has that burden (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:28:29 PM EST


    Parent
    The jury (none / 0) (#45)
    by mm on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:33:53 PM EST
    had that burden.  To use common sense.  Too much to ask.

    Parent
    The jury's burden... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:41:33 PM EST
    is to weigh evidence and testimony and come to an unbiased decision on a verdict...the burden to prove a murder was committed, and by whom, rests solely with the prosecution.

    If you have any beef mm, it is with the prosecutor for failing to prove the case...or bringing the case to court before it could be proven.

    Parent

    You said it kdog. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 03:48:49 PM EST
    I've read posts all over the webosphere railing against the jury. They anger is misplaced. If they have a beef, it's with the prosecution. They presented a lame case, overcharged, and went too far in seeking death. They didn't have a case that warranted a death penalty.

    Parent
    QED (none / 0) (#47)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:39:18 PM EST
    Thanks for playing.

    Parent
    The only thing one can assert about (none / 0) (#49)
    by Radix on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:43:29 PM EST
    "common sense", is that it is common. Science has been refuting common sense for centuries.

    Parent
    From reading your posts, it seems to me... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Romberry on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 05:27:31 PM EST
    ...that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how our jury system is supposed to work. In this case, it seems that it worked as it should. A verdict of not guilty is not the same thing as a finding of factual innocence. It just means that the state did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

    In this trial, the prosecution was able to make Casey Anthony look really bad. Doing that wasn't hard because from all info, she was in many ways really bad, at least as a mother. Too often, that tactic works and juries find defendants guilty for no real reason other than how bad they have been made to look. But making someone look bad is not proof of guilt.

    I'll give you another example of a jury that got it right where the verdict resulted in public outrage. Of course I am talking about the murder trial of OJ Simpson. I believe OJ committed the murders with which he was charged, but I also believe the jury returned the right verdict in finding him not guilty. That's kind of where I am with the Casey Anthony case. I think she killed her daughter, but I think today's verdict, given what I know of the trial, was the correct one.

    Parent

    if "plausible" (none / 0) (#92)
    by cpinva on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 05:10:34 PM EST
    was the only basis required for conviction, we'd not have nearly enough jail cells. the authors of the constitution recognized the burden this would place on state & federal budgets, and decided to make it just a wee bit harder to convict, requiring actual evidence and all that nonsense.

    clearly, they had no idea you and your crystal ball would be along in the future, to remove all doubt.

    Parent

    Nope, but (none / 0) (#112)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 12:08:34 AM EST
    the fact that the child was dead does not mean somebody intentionally murdered them.

    Parent
    Interestingly insane... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 01:59:40 PM EST
    you said it sister.

    Parent
    FWIW, they thought (none / 0) (#111)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 12:07:33 AM EST
    they'd proved murder because of the duct tape around the head.  Never seems to have occurred to them that there are, indeed, reasons to wrap the jaw of a dead person closed.

    I nearly did it when I had to bury my second dead cat.  I'll skip the details, but if you have an emotional attachment to the dead one, it is something that occurs to you.

    Parent

    No pets (none / 0) (#129)
    by loveed on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 08:28:51 PM EST
    I always thought the tape was on the bag. Interesting.

     Did you know the Anthony buried a lot of pets? The vet prepared the first 2 or3. Cindy and George prepared and buried about 12 pets.

    Parent

    Just more clouds of smoke (none / 0) (#131)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 12:45:48 AM EST
    thrown up by Jose Baez.  It has nothing to do with anything.  Most people have buried pets in their lives, and doing it the way the Anthonys have done it is probably the most common way.  


    Parent
    More often than not, kdog (none / 0) (#14)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 01:46:36 PM EST
    I think that the justice system actually works. I still believe, y'know. And, I believe that the jury is always right.

    Parent
    Surely you don't really believe (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Peter G on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:56:41 PM EST
    that juries are always right, Christine!  Haven't we learned from the DNA cases, from studies of eyewitness misidentification, and from revelations of withholding of favorable evidence and of phony crime lab reports, that the jury is quite often wrong ... probably between five and ten percent of the time, in fact?

    Parent
    As soon as I wrote that, Peter, (none / 0) (#80)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 03:51:08 PM EST
    I realized that some 'splaining would be required. Briefly: Most of my background has been as an advocate for the government--as an attorney, as a manager, and in general. Note also: Almost always, my enforcement background has been on the civil side of the aisle. That leads me to view the sphere os things through the proponent (or prosecution) lenspiece. At least, initially...because I do recognize my built-in "bias."  

    In the course of it all, an almost proverb-like phrase was used as a reminder: The jury is always right. The meaning was given & taken to be something like "When the results come in, don't whine, don't complain, etc." Of course, in certain civil actions with which I was involved, we didn't whine or complain (not aloud, anyway)...we appealed.  In a broader light--and apart from evidence of improper actions within the entity--I was taught not to beat up on the jury. You stand for the judge; you accept the jury's authority in their duty.

    Kindly excuse then my earlier unexplained statement (which kdog caught right away.) FWIW, the relatively few clips of the case I've seen caused me to remark the other night to my husband: The defense team did a great job of poking holes and pulling at the strands of the prosecution's case. It worked the way it is supposed to work.

    Parent

    clearly, you've not worked any case (none / 0) (#96)
    by cpinva on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 05:53:28 PM EST
    requiring the jury to be able to successfully add 2+2, and come anywhere close to 4. i deal with complex tax law. most cases get settled well before a jury is even a gleam in counsel's eye, "hazards of litigation" (read: this needs people who can think on the jury, let's settle) and all that.

    for the most part, cases are nearly cut-and-dry, so it's only the very few that actually end up in front of a judge-n-jury to begin with. of those, i'm guessing at least 50% of them should have been pled out, and received poor advice from their attorney.

    Parent

    cheap shot, cpinva (none / 0) (#104)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 07:57:13 PM EST
    since you do not know what cases I have worked since the 1970s.

    I congratulate you for being able to deal with tax cases...an area that has always eluded me. Once I saw that, I knew of your ability to handle complexity. But, indulge me: My primary area has been environmental; and, let me just assert that complex environmental cases touch on everything from deterrence to rehabilitation of respondent to societal values to ideologies to complex calculations in terms of $$ valuation (including tax consequences.) Yep, we settle the vast majority of cases; but, some we could not.

    Parent

    I hope that you do not think (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Towanda on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 03:21:02 PM EST
    that judges also are always right.

    You can choose to believe that the justice system works in requiring evidence beyond grounds for reasonable doubt, etc., but that is far different.

    Parent

    Nobody is always right... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 01:58:59 PM EST
    especially juries.  Every drug conviction is getting it wrong:)  Nullification people!

    Parent
    I understand (none / 0) (#26)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:02:37 PM EST
    that particular area <to which you refer> has a lot of issues about society in general. On that you have a compelling ethical point...when not overstated :)

    Parent
    Me too. I thought she would be convicted (none / 0) (#51)
    by esmense on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:45:08 PM EST
    because people were offended by her strange, promiscuous behavior -- rather than on the basis of actual hard evidence of murder.  

    Parent
    I agree that I thought the jury would (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 03:12:15 PM EST
    convict her on first degree murder and it didn't seem acceptable considering the circumstances of it all.  However, she certainly seemed guilty of child endangerment if nothing else.  The fact that a mother gives her child to a baby sitter that doesn't exist and then has no idea where her child or the sitter are is guilty of some kind of criminal behavior.

    Parent
    Is she always this rabid? (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 01:47:28 PM EST
    I saw her last week (?) on a morning show and was kinda surprised anyone would pay her or listen to her. Calling CA 'tot-mom' and other comments really made her look pathetic and kinda desperate (for attention).

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by rdandrea on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 01:48:55 PM EST
    She sure is.

    Parent
    Scary. (none / 0) (#21)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 01:57:32 PM EST
     

    Parent
    The bubble. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Addison on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 01:54:17 PM EST
    It's like Glenn Beck's audience: to passersby it seems insane ("tot mom" doesn't even make sense, it's just like "fail whale" in its reptilian non sequitur repetition) and off-putting. But to those who've climbed the mountain of this case with her and had the same tokes on the rage pipe, it all makes sense and is emotionally resonant.

    Parent
    "Tot mom" equals (none / 0) (#116)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 12:19:51 AM EST
    "mom of a tot."  NG specializes in giving defendants shorthand names like that.  She uses a very tedious faux old-time newspaper reporter kind of telegraphic sentence structure that she apparently thinks lends urgency to her "Bombshell tonight!" declarations every single night of the week.

    Parent
    um, she is pathetic (none / 0) (#99)
    by cpinva on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 05:57:26 PM EST
    and desperate for attention, the good or bad kind. it's more or less her schtick. having been booted from her previous day job, as a prosecutor, because of her, shall we say, less than ethical professional behaviour, why would you expect any better from on tv, where there is no state bar association looking over her shoulder?

    of course, all her problems were other people's fault.

    Parent

    I didn't know anything about her (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 01:27:44 AM EST
    background. While I knew she existed and saw her from time to time on programs, I obviously never really listened to her. I was pretty taken back at her 'approach'. While I believe in free speech, must we always broadcast the rabid insanity of some at the expense of our intellect (and freedom)??

    Parent
    Yes, she is (none / 0) (#115)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 12:17:21 AM EST
    Anyone who's ever been charged with anything is always by definition guilty, in her book.  She has, unfortunately, an utterly devoted following.


    Parent
    Very sad. (none / 0) (#125)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 01:33:07 AM EST
    I will say, she did get a bit of a subtle smack down on a couple of programs I saw today. And her 'following'/ratings was mentioned as her motivation.  Ok, the local show here wasn't so subtle :P and I have to give them props for the framing of her actions. I wonder when she starts becoming unbelievable to her fans for getting them all foaming at the mouth and then being totally wrong . . . again.

    Parent
    Watching Nancy now (none / 0) (#11)
    by loveed on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 01:42:31 PM EST
    loving it. As she continue to misstate facts.

    Parent
    I couldn't take HLN any more (none / 0) (#13)
    by rdandrea on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 01:45:11 PM EST
    I'll nurse MSNBC as far as it goes.

    Parent
    Heh... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Addison on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 01:59:30 PM EST
    ...tuned in for 30 seconds and it seems that Nancy's too shell-shocked right now to really live up to expectations. Content with field calls from random people who didn't know ANYONE personally in this case who are for some reason sobbing over the verdict (the soap opera narrative didn't go their way, they haven't been this upset since the disappointing Lost finale. I guess we'll have to wait for tonight or the rest of this week for the fireworks there.

    Parent
    You're brave :) (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:07:45 PM EST


    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 01:53:06 PM EST
    Given that the jury came back in under 24 hours I think it is obvious the prosecution didn't come close to making their case.

    Do I think she was guilty?

    Do I think she was innocent?

    I do not know. But the people who sat in judgement said that they would not convict despite all the powers of the state leveled against her.

    That should be good enough for all of us.

    That's Exactly My Thoughts (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 03:28:37 PM EST
    I figured they would be out for at least a week.  And when they returned, they would give her the lightest guilty murder available, manslaughter I believe.

    This shocked me, out one day, and unanimous.

    Anyone who's paid any attention knew they simply didn't have any evidence beyond a girl lying.  Smells and IMO special science just for this case just didn't (pardon the pun) pass the smell test for me.

    I will add this, the American justice system is not perfect, we have locked up innocent people and let guilty people go free.  But it's the best system available.  IMO they didn't come close to proving a crime was committed.

    We will never know if she did it, but we do know it could not be proved.  In America we don't lock up people (for the most part) because of instinct, gut feelings, or Nancy Grave's opinion, we lock up people we can prove did the crime.

    And as much as I hate that no one will pay for this girls death, or possibly body dumping, I sleep better knowing we aren't locking up people because we think they did it, or because there are no other suspects, or because the mother is a habitual liar, or whatever.

    This girl isn't going to out partying or doing anything normal anytime soon, and after feeling around other sites, she is probably going to need some sort of security.  The nutz need a head for their platter and I imagine she will be getting death threats for years.

    Lastly, the parents seem really odd.  When they both testified against her, I thought she was done, then they both testified for her.  WTF ?  Neither came across and loving and nurturing, and it certainly made me understand why the girl came with a penchant for lying.

    Parent

    I was not surprise (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by loveed on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 04:31:25 PM EST
    that it was a quick verdict. When you really take a look at the prosecution case it did not make sense.

     

    Parent

    The "best possible system" (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Makarov on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 05:32:39 PM EST
    would be one where prosecutors and public defenders were paid on the same scale and had access to similar resources.

    That is not the case in the United States today.

    Parent

    Just for the record (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 12:30:02 AM EST
    whether we like it or not, people get convicted on circumstantial evidence all the time.  See Peterson, Scott, for one particularly strong example.

    There was a lot more damning circumstantial evidence in this case than there ever was in the Scott Peterson case, plenty enough to convict her of manslaughter, though not, IMO, murder one.


    Parent

    Even bigger WOW. (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 03:51:19 PM EST
    I agree with you on something!

    Parent
    Jim, thanks for your post. (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 04:24:42 PM EST
    you took my sentiments and thought and relayed them perfectly. It doesn't matter what I think, the jury found her not guilty of murder.

    Parent
    And Nancy Grace... (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:02:09 PM EST
    using a dead child for ratings is kosher?  Allrighty then.

    WTF? (2.00 / 1) (#28)
    by mm on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:07:34 PM EST
    Nice equivalency there.  Dead child/Nancy Grace's ratings on a goddamned cable channel.  Yeah, I see your point.  The important thing here is put Nancy Grace in her place.

    This place is giving me the creeps today.

    Parent

    NG was on more than a GD cable channel (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:12:10 PM EST
    ABC comes to mind, as that is how I happened to see her less than stellar act. You may like trial by media, but not everyone does . . .

    Parent
    Oh, ABC (none / 0) (#42)
    by mm on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:27:44 PM EST
    Now that's a horse of a different color.  Excuse me. What is Nancy Grace's ABC show?

    Parent
    FWIW - here's the ABC appearance (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:44:06 PM EST
    she made along with a write up from the Hollywood Reporter - which is an appropriate publication to cover someone like Grace:

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hlns-nancy-grace-weighs-casey-207987

    She is a ratings hound.  She doesn't care about missing children - she cares about sensationalism and ad dollars.

    Parent

    I think I can speak for most TL'ers... (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:15:25 PM EST
    nobody is happy a child died under very mysterious circumstances, obviously...we're glad notions like reasonable doubt and "better that 100 guilty people go free than to convict 1 innocent" still exist, despite the ravings of a bad actor like Nancy Grace.

    And not for nothing, that poor child is dead whether a person is convicted of her murder or not.

    Parent

    How about child endangerment? (none / 0) (#101)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 06:09:23 PM EST
    Wasn't that the other charge?

    Parent
    You have a very sad (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 03:52:40 PM EST
    misunderstanding of the court system. The prosecution did not present a convincing case.

    Parent
    mm, You Give Me the Creeps (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 03:59:52 PM EST
    I get the feeling you are more concerned about putting someone behind bars then justice.

    No one knows if the child was murdered, this includes you and NG.  But yet someone has to be convicted of murder because it was a child ?  Do you even care if she did it, or should she die in prison because she lied, because that is all they proved.

    • Sucks we will never know the truth, but pointing your anger/sadness at us is a bunch of BS.  
    • Claiming to know what happened, I assume because you wanted a guilty verdict, is a bunch of BS.
    • Not having faith in 12 grown adults because they didn't give you the verdict you wanted is a bunch of BS.
    • Implying the commenters her are somehow more concerned with NG than a child's life is beyond BS, it pathetic and like your feelings about this case, a string of unfounded rants.

    No one is forcing you to read this, plenty of websites you can visit to discuss just how f'ed up the American Justice System is and how deep in hell Casey should be condemned, and the horrible acts that should be done to her once she arrives.

    Parent
    Maybe now we can find the answer (none / 0) (#69)
    by loveed on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 03:33:24 PM EST
    to that question what happen to Kaylee?

    Parent
    Welcome! (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by Addison on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:09:36 PM EST
    Well, you could've easily posted something proactive in remembrance about Caylee Anthony. That would not have been too hard, if that had actually been what concerned you. But, of course, that wasn't the point. So instead you attacked the Nancy Grace attackers, while ironically complaining about attacking. So you're on the same plain, you're an "abomination" if everyone else is. Welcome to the gutter, I guess.

    Yeah, we're even. (1.00 / 0) (#32)
    by mm on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:13:37 PM EST
    Be of good cheer.  Rush and Sean on with you on this one.

    Parent
    Yuck! (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by kaleidescope on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:23:41 PM EST
    I just had to wipe a piece of Nancy Grace's skull off my computer screen here a continent away from her "Live in Orlando" appearance.

    But we still don't know how the child died, (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by esmense on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:58:34 PM EST
    who bears responsibility for her death or what the nature of their responsibility might be.

    We do know that her mother acted in very odd and disturbing ways, that most people find very offensive and suspicious, between the time the child went missing and the time her body was found. But it would have been wrong for a jury to convict her on that behavior rather than on evidence and proof.

    I don't know what this woman's involvment in her child's death was. And neither do you. And neither, obviously, did the jury. The prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

    This verdict is not about (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Towanda on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 03:06:23 PM EST
    whether the child died, so neither is this post.

    When the host has more time, she well may post more that would provoke more discussion of legal points -- or not, as this has not been a case of strong interest for her.  For now, the immediate reaction to media coverage has its logic.

    However, I'm sure that there are Facebook pages where one can post "so sad 2 see" about the poor child whose cause of death remains undetermined, legally, or "i h8 her" about the mother and/or others now determined to be not guilty, legally.

    Right (2.00 / 2) (#63)
    by mm on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 03:13:12 PM EST
    This verdict is about Nancy Grace getting it right up her gozzonga.  Woo hoo.

    Parent
    I haven't watched Nancy Grace (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by Towanda on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 03:48:47 PM EST
    for years, nor have I done so today.  From what I recall of what I did see years ago, I am sorry for those who have such an obsession about her.

    Parent
    No, the verdict isn't about Nancy Grace (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 03:49:58 PM EST
    at all; what people are reacting to is Grace's relentless hammering at Casey's guilt.  Sometimes, strange as it seems, all the piling on reminds people that it isn't supposed to be about the accused having to prove themselves innocent, but about the state having to prove them guilty.  

    Nancy Grace has been doing her best to try and convict Casey in the media, but I guess the jury, sequestered as they were from all the 24/7 blather from Nancy and others, got the opportunity to make their decision based on what they heard and saw only in the courtroom.

    As near as I can tell, Nancy Grace is like the Billy Mays of sensational criminal cases; she's got a product, and by God, she is going to sell it, drill a hole into your brain, and not give up until she makes the sale.

    All I can say is, thank goodness it isn't the Nancy Graces of the world who get to decide who's guilty.

    A little girl is dead, and we may never know what really happened; if it was as open-and-shut as some want to think, that doesn't say much for the skill and knowledge of the state and its many experts, does it?


    Parent

    I'm glad the jury did not submit to (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 03:48:19 PM EST
    immediate grilling by the media. Get back home and decide if you want to talk later seems to be the better option.

    +1 (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by rdandrea on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 03:50:36 PM EST
    Lock up the book deal first!

    Parent
    I was struck most by something (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 03:57:43 PM EST
    Baez said on Saturday. He said that the point in Casey's lying that the prosecutors dwelt on, at which she led them to her fictional office at Universal, was the point at which they should have realized they were dealing with a very disturbed young lady and gone at things from another direction. Maybe investigators with better psychological training could have gotten her to tell the truth, but once they charged her with murder that chance was lost.

    I don't think you could get (none / 0) (#121)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 12:38:58 AM EST
    this girl to tell the truth about what time of day it is.  However it happened, she's deeply, deeply damaged and pathological.  I'll refrain from making an armchair psychological diagnosis.  She's been telling elaborate whoppers since long before Caylee vanished, stealing checkbooks and credit cards from friends and family (including her grandmother's fund to pay for her senile grandfather's nursing home), etc.

    To try to wriggle out of the legal charges, she accused her father and brother of sexually molesting her since childhood, with specifics, her father of being complicit in the child's death, the guy who discovered the body of removing it and keeping it for months and then putting it back, etc.

    Parent

    have no private 'in' as to guilt or innocence. (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by the capstan on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 04:19:31 PM EST
    So I accept the verdict, in so much as I think it better that the guilty are acquitted than the innocent punished.

    However, at no level can I connect with Casey.  As a mother and grandmother, I cannot comprehend sloughing off a child's death by accident, murder, illness, or hospital error (which killed my baby grand-daughter).  That latter item left me sad, angry, uncomprehending for months.  Casey obviously is cut from a different cloth, so all I can say is her behavior is totally foreign to me.  But that is not the question put to the jurors.

    What's down the road... (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Lacy on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 08:07:38 PM EST
    There is a life sentence to be served and it is for all in the Anthony family.  Though they tried to cover for Casey, they assuredly know the truth. Imagine those future Thanksgivings.

    And those here who claim this was the correct verdict are simply confused about circumstantial evidence and reasonable doubt...And in that, let's include the lawyers.

    This case is simply a lone parent who took a child from its home, and then hours later was alone, partying 24/7, the child was gone, never to be seen again alive, and the caretaker was immediately lying about what had happened to the child. And after months of constant lies and deception from that lone custodian of the child, the body of that child is found discarded in a wooded area near that child's home.

    The fact that her lies and police foolishness delayed finding the body, thereby complicating exactly how she brought about the death, might be enough to lead a rational jury to a 2nd degree or manslaughter verdict.  That is clear.  But what is just as clear is that there is absolutely no reasonable doubt but that the parent with custody acted in some fashion to cause or facilitate the death. In fact, a man in this situation would be waiting now to find out if it would be "death". And whether he strangled, smothered, or improvised somehow would just not be that big a deal if a father had killed Caylee. (No one knows how or exactly when Laci Peterson died for example.)

    It is frankly beyond any stretch of "reasonable" to conclude that an innocent mother would do the things Casey did in the aftermath of Caylee's hypothetically accidental (or otherwise unexpected death). And we know from undisputed multiple testimonies that the death of Caylee as perceived by Casey was a releasing and obviously welcome event.

    Simply not knowing exactly when or precisely how someone acted to facilitate a death does not constitute "doubt" when there is in fact no rational or reasonable alternative to that person's involvement.

    for you to claim the (5.00 / 6) (#107)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 08:18:40 PM EST
    verdict was incorrect is insulting to the jurors who served on this trial, heard all the testimony, viewed all the exhibits and heard the arguments of counsel and were instructed by the court.

    You have an opinion, that's fine, but please don't present it as fact, or the truth. It is the truth as you see it, which may or may not be reality.

    Parent

    Jeralyn, the prosecutors did not (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 10:32:17 PM EST
    prove a murder took place or that the mother caused a murder. I see that.   What about the fact that she "lost" her child and lied repeatedly about where the child was and who had her?  That is the most important aspect of this case.  She was responsible for that child's life and she lied about everything.  I agree that it doesn't mean she killed her, but she wasn't even held accountable for child endangerment or neglect.  Unbelieveable that so many on this site don't feel that is important.

    Parent
    Insulting? (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Lacy on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 07:40:35 AM EST
    Your premise that what I stated was an "insult" is of course your own way of insulting me with an ad hominem claim.

    What I pointed out related to my position that there can be a factual basis (beyond its inherently subjective nature) to compare issues of reasonable doubt.

    And do contact the Innocence Project to tell them your notion that verdicts cannot be questioned.


    Parent

    Oy (none / 0) (#108)
    by sj on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 10:17:55 PM EST
    It is frankly beyond any stretch of "reasonable" to conclude that an innocent mother would do the things Casey did in the aftermath of Caylee's hypothetically accidental (or otherwise unexpected death).

    Pain is processed in all sorts of ways.  Self-medicating and avoidance is one very common way.  One doesn't have to be wearing sackcloth and ashes to prove it.

    I haven't been following the trial (with the exception of loveed's synopses) but anytime I hear "an innocent person wouldn't possibly behave that way" it really grates on me.  It tells me that the speaker hasn't had to deal with a level of pain that is just too much to process, too much to look at, just too, too much.  I could envy that as innocence but it's really just ignorance.

    Parent

    Not just pain . . . (none / 0) (#123)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 01:20:47 AM EST
    bi-polar comes to mind from personal experience w/family members. Also, addiction.

    Parent
    Right. (none / 0) (#127)
    by Lacy on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 07:51:29 AM EST
    Casey's behavior could have been presented as the obvious mania that it was...BUT,and it's a big one, Bipolar and its mania have not in the past been exculpatory  in a legal defense, and claiming a mental problem would have been seen as essentially admitting to killing the child.

    I would not hesitate to say that Casey's manic actions, especially the hyper-sexuality, are psychiatrically indisputable and pathognomonic of Bipolar Disorder.  And I would suggest that suicide is a very likely ultimate outcome for her.

    Parent

    Correction (none / 0) (#128)
    by Lacy on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 08:04:47 AM EST
    Intended to say that Bipolar has "rarely" been a successful legal defense..The problem being that many of its symptoms mimic exaggerated personality traits or characteristics we consider "Being bad".

    (Personal Note: While in the DOJ I observed that about 1% of Federal Prisoners were being treated for Bipolar Disorder, but I would estimate the incidence in that group at over 20%, and maybe WAY over 20%.)    

    Parent

    I pray for Kasey (none / 0) (#1)
    by loveed on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 01:04:16 PM EST


    Not Guilty (none / 0) (#2)
    by Makarov on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 01:23:38 PM EST
    of all serious charges.

    Found guilty on multiple counts of providing false information to a police officer - 4 or 5 counts I think.

    Would find it hard to believe she's sentenced to more than time served.

    Sentencing Thursday (none / 0) (#3)
    by Makarov on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 01:24:06 PM EST
    at 9 am.

    Time served. (none / 0) (#73)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 03:45:28 PM EST
    Most likely.

    Parent
    I'm sort of wondering (none / 0) (#6)
    by rdandrea on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 01:29:25 PM EST
    who Nancy Grace will be sneering at next.

    That's easy (none / 0) (#117)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 12:21:50 AM EST
    It'll be the next woman whose child comes to some kind of grief.  She refers to them all sneeringly as "Mommy."

    She used to be more into the husbands/boyfriends of missing white women, but since she finally had kids herself, she's focused heavily on child abuse/death cases and the negligent/abusive/stupid mothers.

    Parent

    This is the correct verdict (none / 0) (#7)
    by loveed on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 01:30:17 PM EST
    Waiting to here from the jury.

    haven't followed case (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by desmoinesdem on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:22:24 PM EST
    but this seems like a situation where a Scots verdict of "not proven" would be appropriate.

    Parent
    Pretty sure that that is always (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:35:02 PM EST
    what our verdicts already are when the defendant is found not guilty.  People aren't found "innocent" under our system - just "not guilty" of the charges upon which they are tried.

    Parent
    in this case especially (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by desmoinesdem on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:46:16 PM EST
    it might be appropriate to emphasize "not proven" rather than "not guilty." Maybe juries should have that option. It is hard to think of a benign explanation for not reporting your two-year-old missing for a month.

    Parent
    Not guilty (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by eric on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 03:01:56 PM EST
    is not proven.  Same thing.

    Parent
    She didn't report her missing because (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 12:23:27 AM EST
    she wasn't missing.  What she didn't report was the accidental death of the child while in her custody, almost certainly because it happened as a result of something she did.

    Even Casey admits the child was never missing.

    Parent

    Your innocent until (3.50 / 2) (#67)
    by loveed on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 03:23:41 PM EST
    proven guilty. Since the OJ trial the rules was changed in the mind of the media, but not the constitution.
     She is innocent of murdering her daughter.

     I watched this trial, commented on it regularly. Almost all of my comments pointed towards her innocence,and how terrible the prosecution  case was.

     If you did not watched the trial,accept the jury verdict and move on. If you did watch the trial this verdict did not surprise you.

     

    Parent

    She was convicted on some charges. (none / 0) (#59)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 03:08:09 PM EST
    I would be surprised if the State didn't have other options with respect to the things they could have charged her with that they might actually have been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Whatever the definition of "First Degree Murder" is under the Florida statute was apparently not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

    As for the benign explanation for not reporting - there are some.  Personally, that girls strikes me as being crazy, confused and completely without life skills.  She might be dumb enough, irresponsible enough, self-centered enough and crazy enough to have opted not to tell anyone that her daughter was missing for fear of the consequences.  Maybe the baby accidentally drowned and she freaked out.  Who knows?  I don't and you don't know what really happened.

    These types of people do exist in the world; and you can't automatically make the assumption that that means that they are murderers.  

    Parent

    Anyone who has dealt with CPS (none / 0) (#64)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 03:18:28 PM EST
    (child protective services) have seen some pretty awful people and some pretty sad little kids who are at their mercy.  I didn't follow the case and have only seen Nancy grace once or twice so I am not sure about the facts of this case.  But just because everyone hates Nancy Grace isn't a reason to assume she is always wrong.

    Parent
    My opinion has nothing to do (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 03:41:21 PM EST
    with Nancy Grace.  In fact, there's pretty much no opinion that I could ever possibly form that would take into account what Nancy Grace thinks or says.

    Parent
    WIth you there (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Romberry on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 05:42:48 PM EST
    In fact, there's pretty much no opinion that I could ever possibly form that would take into account what Nancy Grace thinks or says.

    You got that right. Nancy Grace had her own issues when she was a prosecutor, and innocent people (that she knew were innocent) went to jail because of her.

    Nancy Grace is a talking head entertainer. Nothing more. I don't look to her for credible information. If she told me the sky was blue, I'd want to verify it for myself. I'm not in the legal profession, but if I were, I'd think of Nancy Grace as an embarrassment.

    Parent

    She is always wrong. (none / 0) (#90)
    by loveed on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 04:55:43 PM EST
    She will never admit to being wrong. People believe anything and everything she says. The crowd is hostile and not accepting the jury verdict. Baby Killer signs everywhere.

     She misstates facts all the time,and no one calls her on it. CNN will not take her off the air due to her rating(facts don't matter just rating).

     This jury took one day to find her not guilty.Last time I looked Nancy Grace was not a prosecutor on this case. But she will be right no matter what.She will degrade these member of this jury for the rest of her life.

     I like the fact the jury refused to talk to the media. They don't have to answer to anyone.

     Where is the justice in killing Kaylee mother for a crime she did not commit. This is justice for Caylee.

     

    Parent

    FYI, NG has not (none / 0) (#119)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 12:25:17 AM EST
    "degraded the jury."

    Parent
    Anyone who has dealt with CPS (none / 0) (#65)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 03:19:25 PM EST
    (child protective services) have seen some pretty awful people and some pretty sad little kids who are at their mercy.  I didn't follow the case and have only seen Nancy grace once or twice so I am not sure about the factsof this case.  But just because everyone hates Nancy Grace isn't a reason to assume she is always wrong.

    Parent
    The presumption of guilt lives on (none / 0) (#72)
    by 1980Ford on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 03:44:10 PM EST
    Even after a not guilty verdict. Why presume the jury did not find her innocent?

    Parent
    Wow. The direct evidence made it (none / 0) (#8)
    by Buckeye on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 01:36:04 PM EST
    difficult to cross the threshold of reasonable doubt, but I am still surprised she got acquitted.  I thought that the jury would convict her since everyone assumed guilt.

    Conviction by media (none / 0) (#10)
    by Makarov on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 01:41:20 PM EST
    isn't what it used to be, I guess.

    Parent
    We've come a long way (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 01:54:56 PM EST
    since the original Sam Shepard case.

    Parent
    Reading this thread (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 02:16:36 PM EST
    I don't think I have ever been happier to have had a vacation from TV news.

    Sounds like the justice system worked.

    Well, if she is guilty in actuality (none / 0) (#61)
    by magster on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 03:11:24 PM EST
    She at least will be condemned to a life of being stalked mercilessly by TMZ et al. -- a fate worse than imprisonment.

    Octomom is so yesterday...

    And if she didn't have a hand in (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 03:49:17 PM EST
    her child's death she will still be stalked mercilessly.

    Parent
    Plenty of doubt (none / 0) (#97)
    by Zeno on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 05:53:52 PM EST
    For some reason, everyone who raised the case in my presence (I never brought it into any conversations myself) was certain beyond any peradventure of a doubt that the accused was guilty, guilty, guilty and should be immediately hanged by the neck until dead and what the hell were we waiting for? I found the trial coverage intemperate and voyeuristic and avoided it. Now in the wake of the verdict and amidst all of the exploding heads, my question is simple: Do we even know that there was a murder?

    No (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 06:19:35 PM EST


    Parent
    I just wanna know... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Thanin on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 05:56:19 PM EST
    why white women from Florida always try to blame nonexistent minorities when their children die.

    It was... some Puerto Rican guy. (none / 0) (#103)
    by tigercourse on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 06:35:47 PM EST


    Parent
    By no means is this phenomenon limited (none / 0) (#106)
    by Peter G on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 08:16:58 PM EST
    to white women from Florida.  I have had two such cases myself in Pennsylvania, there was another here just recently, and there was a very famous one (with a well-to-do white male defendant) who killed his wife, about 20 years ago in Boston.

    Parent
    And not just in Florida (none / 0) (#109)
    by Towanda on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 10:22:28 PM EST
    as the case of Jesse Anderson showed, a white business executive who murdered his wife and blamed it on African Americans.

    He was murdered in prison with fellow and more famous inmate Jeffrey Dahmer, whose victims also had included many African Americans.  Interesting rumors abounded about that double prison murder.

    Parent

    So a small toddler is found dead and (none / 0) (#100)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 06:00:02 PM EST
    nobody knows nothing.  Case closed?

    Unfortunately (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 12:41:13 AM EST
    if you kill somebody, on purpose or by accident, and can hide the body somewhere until it's decomposed completely, you're almost certain to get away with it unless you bury it in your own cellar.

    Parent
    Sean Hannity agrees (none / 0) (#130)
    by loveed on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 08:43:23 PM EST
    the jury got it right.

    Casey Anthony Verdict In | 129 comments (129 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment