My heart goes out to little Caylee Anthony, but...

The prosecutor went overboard on the charges.

Capital murder? Child abuse? (especially when there was no evidence of child abuse and the prosecutor showed the jury Caylee and her mom playing with each other)

The prosecutor set her out to be a monster but their evidence wasn't good enough to get the jury to agree.

Pretty much this:

And the beat goes on.

Well even though She didn't get the justice She deserved...Hopefully She'll get Karma justice and like I was saying....knowing the way She lives Her life I wouldn't be surprise if Casey ends up in more legal trouble or dead.

34 posts and nobody's blamed Obama yet?

Y'all are slipping.

"Not guilty" are powerful words and there aren't that many places in the world where such an unpleasant, unpopular and IMHO bad person can hear them. "Knowing" someone did something is one thing. Convincing a jury that they did it beyond a reasonable doubt is another and obviously the prosecutors failed miserably in this case. However, the jury was convinced that she is a bad person who lied her ass off to the cops.

Nancy Grace wanted to lynch "Tot Mom" and now she wants to lynch the jury.

Some of you sound like you would have preferred Cardassian Justice.

"Miles O'Brien has been found guilty of aiding the Maquis and sentenced to death. The trial begins tomorrow."

For once I agree with you. And this is why there's a media frenzy surrounding these trials, because the media knows the has already made its decision and feeds them as many lurid details as possible.

I think she did it. However, as a juror in a murder case where they could not tell me time or method or death and the only motive was wanting to date a guy, I'd be very hard pressed to find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Wait...... So I dont have to hire Johhnie Cochran to get away with murder?

Interesting, you have no problem bringing up Obama in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with him. Kind of speaks volumes to your partisanship.

You took the bait so quickly it was barely in the water!

And those last 4 words are the most important part of this.

Maybe she did it, maybe she didn't. The biggest problem is that the prosecution made her look like a bad mother, which she is, but her skill as a mother has very little to do with whether or not she is a killer.

I hear people on different forums and media channels saying, "well if I was a mother, I wouldn't go out and do <insert thing that Casey Anthony did>", and they probably wouldn't, but doing those things aren't indicative of being a killer, only an irresponsible parent. If we started jailing people for being shitty parents, nearly everyone would be in jail.

I'll bite:

Not only is this Obama's fault, but there is in fact a very real chance that Obama is the real killer. He duct taped and butchered little Caylee, just like he worked Ron and Nicole over with that knife that one time.

Exactly. The prosecution should have been focused on why she hadn't reported the child missing for a month - and charged her with more than murder.

It is a shame the prosecution didn't have your expertise available to them.

So, are y'all ready to stop getting the news from The Glass Tit yet?

I think this comes down to a misunderstanding of "beyond a reasonable doubt."

You can convince twelve reasonable people that Casey Anthony is somehow responsible for the death of her daughter -- guilty of something, with manslaughter being the lowest common denominator. I think in this case that's a no-brainer.

The problem arises if any of those twelve reasonable people can imagine another reasonable person not being convinced. We might think of that as "reasonable doubt." But is it really?

Each individual juror is either convinced, or not convinced. If all twelve are convinced, then sitting around imagining whether it would be "reasonable" to disagree -- to doubt -- misses the entire point. The jurors are the reasonable people. Do they really harbor doubt, or do they just think they're looking out for some hypothetical reasonable person who would harbor it?

And my point is that when I ask people whether they think Anthony killed her daughter I find a lot more conviction than when I ask people whether it would be reasonable to doubt that she did it.

I can't help wonder which viewpoint was considered by the jury.

I was wrong. The lying to the police can get a max of 1 year in prison per count. So since she's already served three plus years in jail that will credit towards her sentence and she may get a few more months but for sure she will be out of prison before the end of 2012.

That's assuming the judge throws the book at her for each count, gives her the max for each count and makes each one have to be served separately. Otherwise she will be out of jail and totally free in a couple months depending on how long they take to sentence her.

Maybe she'll OD on coke or heroin.

Here's hoping that someone kills her in public like they should have done to OJ.

Our justice system is a fucking tragedy. Hell, our fucking COUNTRY is a tragedy!

We deserve that meteor with each and every passing second.

Maybe that Jon Benet girl can finally rest in peace. The tabloids have a new mother to throw mud at now.

Care-o-meter not even jiggling.

I have no idea whether she's guilty or not and take no position on it.

However, I'm pretty sure the lawyer told all of them that he would have to throw some folks under the bus to get her acquitted and that was the price of getting her off.

not only that, but a couple of the key points in her defense, so the wife says, came from the mom's testimony.

so I kinda doubt there's a price she has to pay with them now. that said, the public opinion (right or wrong) being against them, they will all be pariahs now. they need to emulate the witness protection program and disappear.

by their actions we will know them. People with a shred of decency would follow Nova's suggestion and crawl into a deep hole. If they go on the book/talk show/movie circuit that will paoint a different picture.

Do you really think the defense should be allowed to present "alternate theories" of the crime?

As did the Anthony lawyers in claiming the girl died by accident?

After all, shouldn't the emphasis be on the prosecutions case or the lack thereof.

Personally I think that allowing the defense to present an "alternate theory" is a sop to the simple fact that a jury wants to know what really happened and will never be satisfied with just evaluating the prosecutions case.

This case makes me think more and more that juries should be composed of professional judges.

I'm not paying close enough attention to take an opinion on whether or not she killed the child, but the things i overheard that were offered BY HER DEFENSE seems to me to be an admission of SOME criminailty. for instance, the claim was that George and the brother had abused the child - and yet she left the child in their care - isn't that neglect or abuse on her part?

isn't all that stuff done to cover for the "accident" illegal?

Isn't going to great lengths to implicate an innocent party illegal? (or is that what the "false information" charges were about?)