Casey Anthony found not guilty

[TYLERTECHSAS]

There is what prosecutors say, and then there is what the evidence actually says. The duct tape evidence said nothing, unfortunately.

I agree that that was a major bust in their case unfortunately.

[JuBru]

Hopefully, you now see why the verdict was correct.

[coop1448]

Ju - You seem really hell bound on proving it is the correct verdict. There is very little that I have not read about this case. I would have been on this jury in a heartbeat, but they would NOT have chosen me.

What i do know is that there are tons (not a stat person) of cases where someone is found guilty with only circumstantial evidence (scott peterson). I also know that if your child accidentally drowned, you would not put duct tape over her mouth, one piece or two or three and throw, carry her around in the trunk (cage) of your car for a while, and throw her in the swamp up the road 15 houses? WTC??

I think if I were a juror, I would have HAD to know the entire defense theory. Okay, you say she drowned, what then...Otherwise circumstantial common sense says you convict of felony murder..
Felony Murder

Felony murder occurs when a person kills another human being while engaged in the commission, or attempted commission, of the following statutorily enumerated felonies, regardless of whether they intended to kill anybody:

• Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
• Aggravated child abuse,...Definition of Aggravated Child Abuse
  
  The crime of Aggravated Child Abuse can be committed in one of three ways by either:
  1. Committing an aggravated battery on a child;
  2. Willfully torturing, maliciously punishing, or willfully and unlawfully caging a child

Evidence (Caylee's hair) confirmed Caylee was in the trunk of the Pontiac (cage). jm2b

[JuBru]

1) The case the prosecution presented was not supported by any evidence. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution, not the defense (unless it is pretty clear cut like KSM and OBL).

2) I'm tired of seeing this compared to Scott Peterson. The circumstantial evidence that tied him to his case was beyond a reasonable doubt, hence guilty. He went boating on the day Lisa disappeared, and lo and behold, their unborn baby and her wash up on shore a year later at the same place with obvious signs of injuries that happened before she died (and not caused by being in the water). A cause of death could not be determined due to a lost of missing parts, but the medical examiner was sure the injuries happened before she died. Because of the prosecution in this case was smart, they were able to tie it all together. Yes, they had help from 1 hair on a pair of pliers from his boat.

3) The prosecution in the Casey Anthony case couldn't tie their shoe. The duct tape was claimed to be the murder weapon. It had nothing on it other than residue from a sticker with a heart and Caylee's hair from when they had to cut it off. The duct tape was tied to the household (if I'm not mistaken) but not to anyone in the household in particular. You ever use duct tape? You can't not touch the sticky side, and whatever touches it sticks. No skin. No mucus. No saliva. Nothing but the sticker residue and hair. Nothing to actually tie a person to it or to show she was killed with it by it being over her nose and mouth as the prosecution claimed. As to the chloroform, refer to my previous post on it.

4) No one can say with absolute certainty how they would react if their child accidentally drowned. Even so, not everyone will react the same. People panic. They will do stupid things when they panic. Things that don't make sense to a person who is on the outside looking in.

5) There was nothing that showed Caylee was held in the trunk. “Hair banding” is questionable. It has not been peer-reviewed enough to be convincing for a court. Yeah, it makes the case sound good, but ultimately (in this case) made the prosecution looked like fools because the whole process of gathering, controls, etc was flawed. There is no way to tell rather that hair came from Caylee before or after she died nor rather it was there because of natural or sinister means. You can't abuse (cage) a child if their dead. Nothing before this all started or found out afterward give any credence to Caylee being abused. Like I said, Casey was considered by everyone around to be a good mother until this happened.

6) She was found in a ditch, not a swamp. Just wanted to make sure you know there is a difference.

7) Again, the prosecution has to prove their case. The defense just has to throw kinks in the story, enough to make it seem plausible something other than what the prosecution story is. Like I hinted earlier, you seem to one of those that would look at the person as being guilty and they would have to prove their innocence instead of looking at the person innocent until proven they are guilty. The prosecution was never able to show why Casey was guilty of murder, aggravated manslaughter, or aggravated child abuse.

I really don't want to go on from this. I am not trying to prove Casey is innocent or guilty. I'm more defending the system we have (though I hate it sometimes too) because it worked in this case. What the prosecution charged and their arguments were not supported by the evidence presented by them therefore it was correct for the jury to find her not guilty of the murder, manslaughter, and abuse charges. The defense does not matter.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

JuBru, you must like cop, lawyer or CSI type shows on TV. However, not every murder case has the perfect "to the letter" evidence laid out to be viewed by all like TV or the movies. Major common sense has to be used IMHO.

[saltydawg]

JuBru, you must like cop, lawyer or CSI type shows on TV. However, not every murder case has the perfect "to the letter" evidence laid out to be viewed by all like TV or the movies. Major common sense has to be used IMHO.

And what does your common sense tell you about this case?

[JuBru]

JuBru, you must like cop, lawyer or CSI type shows on TV. However, not every murder case has the perfect "to the letter" evidence laid out to be viewed by all like TV or the movies. Major common sense has to be used IMHO.

Actually, no. I hate watching CSI, Law & Order, etc because of what you hinted. There is no "common sense" to this case; nor is it an acceptable means of determining guilt or innocence. Otherwise, there is no point to our system and we need a bunch of Dredd's running around.

[DawgyNWindow]

1) Like I said, Casey was considered by everyone around to be a good mother until this happened.

Absolutely. She worked hard to support her daughter and never let her "wild" life get in the way.

Being kind to her child in public should not be confused with being a good mother. There is NO EVIDENCE to suggest she was a good mother.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

And what does your common sense tell you about this case?

We've tried to fill your head with common sense for years and it hasn't worked so why start now?

[WWDog]

I'm burned out on this story which was hyped from the beginning.

[glm47]

1) The case the prosecution presented was not supported by any evidence. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution, not the defense (unless it is pretty clear cut like KSM and OBL).

2) I'm tired of seeing this compared to Scott Peterson. The circumstantial evidence that tied him to his case was beyond a reasonable doubt, hence guilty. He went boating on the day Lisa disappeared, and lo and behold, their unborn baby and her wash up on shore a year later at the same place with obvious signs of injuries that happened before she died (and not caused by being in the water). A cause of death could not be determined due to a lost of missing parts, but the medical examiner was sure the injuries happened before she died. Because of the prosecution in this case was smart, they were able to tie it all together. Yes, they had help from 1 hair on a pair of pliers from his boat.

3) The prosecution in the Casey Anthony case couldn't tie their shoe. The duct tape was claimed to be the murder weapon. It had nothing on it other than residue from a sticker with a heart and Caylee's hair from when they had to cut it off. The duct tape was tied to the household (if I'm not mistaken) but not to anyone in the household in particular. You ever use duct tape? You can't not touch the sticky side, and whatever touches it sticks. No skin. No mucus. No saliva. Nothing but the sticker residue and hair. Nothing to actually tie a person to it or to show she was killed with it by it being over her nose and mouth as the prosecution claimed. As to the chloroform, refer to my previous post on it.

4) No one can say with absolute certainty how they would react if their child accidentally drowned. Even so, not everyone will react the same. People panic. They will do stupid things when they panic. Things that don't make sense to a person who is on the outside looking in.

5) There was nothing that showed Caylee was held in the trunk. “Hair banding” is questionable. It has not been peer-reviewed enough to be convincing for a court. Yeah, it makes the case sound good, but ultimately (in this case) made the prosecution looked like fools because the whole process of gathering, controls, etc was flawed. There is no way to tell rather that hair came from Caylee before or after she died nor rather it was there because of natural or sinister means. You can't abuse (cage) a child if their dead. Nothing before this all started or found out afterward give any credence to Caylee being abused. Like I said, Casey was considered by everyone around to be a good mother until this happened.

6) She was found in a ditch, not a swamp. Just wanted to make sure you know there is a difference.

7) Again, the prosecution has to prove their case. The defense just has to throw kinks in the story, enough to make it seem plausible something other than what the prosecution story is. Like I hinted earlier, you seem to one of those that would look at the person as being guilty and they would have to prove their innocence instead of looking at the person innocent until proven they are guilty. The prosecution was never able to show why Casey was guilty of murder, aggravated manslaughter, or aggravated child abuse.

I really don't want to go on from this. I am not trying to prove Casey is innocent or guilty. I'm more defending the system we have (though I hate it sometimes too) because it worked in this case. What the prosecution charged and their arguments were not supported by the evidence presented by them therefore it was correct for the jury to find her not guilty of the murder, manslaughter, and abuse charges. The defense does not matter.

You're making assumptions/inferences not supported by actual proof. In that case you choose to connect the dots, in the anthony case you choos not to.

[JuBru]

You're making assumptions/inferences not supported by actual proof. In that case you choose to connect the dots, in the anthony case you choos not to.

There was enough information for Peterson's case to connect the dots and prove what California charged and argued against Peterson. The 3 main charges and their arguments Florida provided against Casey could not. Everything I have said for both are directly from the evidence and trials.