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

The prosecution did a very good job presenting their case. The problem is jury selection. You got a group of people who didn't want to make any judgments at all about Casey Anthony's psycho behavior.

I dunno.

All I know is that I imagine having a baby and if it was missing and I didn't know what happened to her....I try to imagine how I could possibly be running around nightclubs partying and getting tattoos that permanently proclaim I'm having a "beautiful life" and my mind just can't wrap itself around it.

Nothing in life would even have a chance of being beautiful again until I knew what happened to my baby.

And thus, I can't think of this woman could have done those things and been innocent. Her actions are those of a woman suddenly freed from a horrible burden and reveling in the feeling of freedom...not those of a grieving mother during the time there were no answers about her missing child.

Oh, I'm not saying I believe the stranger abduction idea for a moment, or that her behavior was exactly normal following the kid's disappearance. I'm thinking (and admittedly, I haven't followed the case that closely) accidental death and then a kind of disconnect/denial afterward.

Just not buying the cold-blooded murder argument. And I think the media coverage on top of the prosecution's overreaching obscured whatever actually happened.

It's just amusing to me how in this high-profile cases there are people who "know she's guilty" from the get-go.

Because you know anything about the jury.

The bottom line is that when you can't say how or when the victim died and your motive is fairly half baked you'll have a hard time convincing a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Add to that the grandfather trying to kill himself in the middle of this, his having an affair also during this time and both he and the brother being tested to see if they were Caylee's father and this result should have been predicted by all.

I disagree. Even with what little I saw of the trial, it was obvious that the prosecution didn't make their case at all. The verdict surprised me not.

There's always Jersey Shore. She'd be a natural.

No they didn't.

No jury comes back not guilty in less than 24 hours unless the prosecutor did a complete crap job of presenting their case.

Fact is, a court room ain't what the media says it is. She may have been guilty for the last 3 years on Nancy Grace but the prosecution shouldn't depend on that brain dead audience to show up on a jury.

In fact, since most juries are pretty brain dead, it suggests that prosecution did a shockingly bad job.

Nancy Grace needs to just STFU. Annoying bitch.

Oh, I think she's guilty as all hell. I don't think she set out to kill the child; I suspect she tried to sedate the child so it would sleep while she was out partying and overdosed her. Then it became a huge CYA.

I listened to them read the verdicts, I mean how could I not it being everywhere, , but they said it was a unanimous decision on each of the counts.

Apparently they weren't convinced.

I don't know if she did it or not. I don't know if and to what extent her father was involved.

I do know the state shot their load leaving nothing else to pick up later.

Shame really, no kid deserves to be killed like that and not have punishment served to the perp.

No. No. NO.!!!

When you have circumstantial evidence there is always ALWAYS the possibility of more than one explanation. Prosecutors actually often prefer circumstantial cases, because the theory they present is so conclusive that any other explanation is obvious bullshit.

Here's a classic law school example: a juror sees a spectator come into the courtroom for the morning session wearing a dry overcoat. After lunch the juror comes in the courtroom and his overcoat is soaking wet. It is therefore reasonable to infer that it was raining during lunch.

Now here's the reason for allowing an alternate theory: if that wet raincoat is the prosecution's "proof" that the spectator committed murder, suppose that what really happened is that the spectator happened to be underneath a window washer who spilled his bucket of soapy water. Then suppose that the window washer testified that he was in that place at the time the spectator claimed he was there. Do you still want to send the spectator to death row?

Pretty much my attitude. I'm disgusted with the whole process. If the parents have any brains, they'll turn their backs on her for good. She's a sociopath.

From the description I saw on TV earlier tonight, this particular jury was pretty sub-standard. Dunno how true the claim was.

That much lines up with my thinking - if she is guilty of actually killing the child, it was not with intent. I was predicting the last day or two that they would pop her for something like negligent homicide or manslaughter.

I wonder if it wouldn't have been a much better plan of attack to pursue that outcome in the first place instead of going for a death penalty offense.

if they know this to be true (and if they don't, then they are too) and they helped get her off, they are no better than she.

Juries are generally sub standard.

Maybe she did it. Maybe she didn't. I have no clue. But, if there was a reasonable doubt (and it sounds like the DA did a crap job), I'm glad the jury acquitted.

There are other forms of justice than going to jail, ya know...

I don't know why people still get wrapped around the axle over the whole "guilty or innocent" angle. Justice has nothing to do with this - it's a game!

It's all about who plays the game better, through careful jury pool selection, timing (when you do things is just as important as what you do) and many other things.

It's like the punishment situation - a guy steals a car and gets five years in prison. Another guy rips off old people for thousands of dollars systematically over a years time, and gets six months.

And for those thinking God/Allah etc. will extract justice in the end.....well the verdict is still out on whether or not this will happen. The world is a crazy place - we're all alone on this rock traveling around the sun...what do you want, logic?

Woman did it, but you can't prove it, maybe she'll mess up in the end and get imprisoned, maybe not.

The prosecution and the judge have a say in who gets seated on the jury. As does the defense. So if the jury's crappy its because that's what everyone wanted.

I just watched the entire defense closing on YouTube. It took about 4 hours. I can easily see now why the jury couldn't vote to convict. There was no evidence of how Caylee died, who killed her, or motive. There was certainly plenty of doubt created by the defense's theory that she may have drowned (the picture of Caylee opening the back door by herself, the strange statement by the grandmother to her co-workers, the pull-ups and no socks or shoes found on the body, etc.). The duct tape with the logo on it that was found on the body that lined up with the grandfather's duct tape captured on video by the news crew at the "command center." The strange story and lies about the gas can with that same kind of duct tape on it. The bizarre story of the guy who found the body and his changing story.

Lots and lots of doubt. I simply don't see how you can convict for murder on that. I don't doubt that Casey knows much more than she's ever told, particularly about the way the body was disposed of, but that's not a reason to convict her of murder, manslaughter, or child neglect.

So basically it comes down to: There are three hundred million people in America. 299,999,988 of them knew that Casey Anthony murdered Caylee Anthony.

Somehow the other 12 all got onto this one jury. :o

Astonishing.

Prosecution:
Caylee was "missing"
Casey partied hard and lied.
Must be her killer.

Defense:
Don't know cause of death
Or lots of things in this case.
Reasonable doubt

"Reasonable doubt" is very loosely defined in most jury instructions, or at least that's my understanding.

Personally, I think if either form of reasonable doubt that you describe -- "I have a doubt, therefore I will vote to acquit" or "While I personally have no doubts, I can imagine a reasonable person having a doubt, therefore I will vote to acquit" -- should lead to an acquittal.

Indeed, I would almost applaud a system where people realize that their point of view isn't necessarily the only reasonable one.

Why shouldn't it be allowed to present alternate theories of the crime? In what way would a defense be a defense if it couldn't say, "The prosecution's version of events is wrong, and here's at least one other explanation"?

Providing alternate theories of the crime shows how the prosecution's case is lacking.

By saying that there are alternate explanations that fit the evidence better or at least as well, the defense shows that the prosecution case is weak.

It probably would depend on the details.

For instance, did Caylee know that they were abusing the child? Or just suspect it, given her own alleged abuse at her dad's hands? Or did she only find out about the supposed abuse after the fact, when Caylee was dead.

Did she have the guilty mindset required for their to be a crime?

Did she allow the child to be in their care for the purpose of getting the child abused, or out of recklessness?

Did she have any defenses, such as her own supposed abuse making it hard to stand up to George and the brother?

Presumably that is why she got convicted with all the lying to the cops charges.

If you're talking about going to great lengths in court to implicate an innocent party, and if you're talking about criminally illegal, then no.

My understanding is the "false information" charges were about lying to the police and misleading them during the investigation.

As someone else said, the question is not really what you or I would do if we were in Casey's place, or even what a reasonable person would do in Casey's place.

It's more, is there a reasonable doubt that this particular person committed the crime, given this evidence?

People react to grief different ways.

Beyond that, it seems to me that the circumstances you're evaluating are not the ones that matter here.

The main defense theory was, it seems to me, third-hand: Yeah, Casey Anthony lied. A lot. But she didn't have anything to do with the death of Caylee. She just was involved with a coverup. Caylee died in an accident, and Casey lied about it.

So it's not a question of Casey partying while her child was missing. It's Casey partying and getting a tattoo when she knew her child was already dead, and putting up a front that her child might still be alive.

Why would Casey lie about her child being "missing" when she knew Caylee was dead?

The simplest explanation is, perhaps, that Casey was involved in Caylee's death.

But there are alternative explanations:

1. She was covering up for another family member.
2. She liked the attention
3. She simply is a pathological liar

Even if you assume that Casey was involved in Caylee's death, without evidence to show what happened to Caylee exactly, it's hard to say an open-minded jury should have convicted.

Goddamn! You need to get a divorce, pronto!

I want to hit Grace in the mouth with a lead pipe, and then bend her over & stick it up her ass sideways. And that's just after seeing a 5 second clip of her on The Soup. I couldn't imagine watching her whole show and staying sane enough to raise kids.

Good grief! Did you just make a typo?





:dancingbacon:

All verdicts are unanimous. The majority does not automatically win -- the jury always deliberates until there's unanimous agreement (or a mistrial, if the jury cannot reach agreement).

The way reasonable doubt is supposed to work is that any juror who isn't convinced need only convince the others that his doubt is reasonable.

This is considerably different from twelve convinced jurors sitting around thinking up reasonable-sounding excuses for the accused.

So the question is whether anyone actually carried reasonable doubt into the jury room, or whether they introduced it themselves while deliberating.

It's hard to imagine anyone walking out of that courtroom without being convinced that young woman was responsible for her daughter's death. The suggestion here is that one of those jurors was not convinced that Casey was guilty of even a manslaughter-level offense, and then he/she convinced the others that this doubt was reasonable.

I think it's more likely that one or more rational people, while personally convinced of Casey's guilt, felt obliged to defend the possibility that she was just caught up in some big misunderstanding. When I try to imagine all the supposition it would take to convince me that maybe she didn't do it, I'm thinking molehill doubt got mountain reasonableness.

Like I said, nearly everyone you ask about it will tell you they're pretty sure she did it -- that's reasonable, based on what I heard. I think it's a lot less reasonable to believe that Casey Anthony's just an innocent victim here. And yet this panel gave that possibility some sort of foothold in the jury room.

Yes, everyone is pretty sure she did it. Alas pretty sure does not meet the required beyond a reasonable doubt requirement for a jury to convict.

I would wager most or all felt that there was reasonable doubt from the get ho. They either spent time reviewing to be sure or had to convince a couple of hold outs who thought she was guilty.

I heard an interview with the prosecutor this morning who basically said he's never or almost never tried a circumstantial evidence case where they could not assign a method of death. Even he thought that was a serious issue for them.

In a scenario in which the state is basing its case on circumstantial evidence, then yes, I do think an alternate interpretation should be available. Casey Anthony did the smart thing and didn't take the stand. I had hoped she would take the stand, but her lawyers instead did a brilliant job of working the system.

Johnny Cochran has been dead for quite some time (though his firm lives on in Memphis). I guess the torch had to pass at some point!

My you are the smug one! "I'm always fascinated..." "It's just amusing to me..." Give me a break!

Her little girl is dead but she lies about it, wastes a lot of the police's time with a "missing person" search and shows zero emotion. In fact she's out partying within days of the girl's death. Everyone with kids knows how they would react to their daughter being missing or dead. Hell, my 3 year old daughter ran of in a store once and I was in a panic for five minutes until I found her. But Casey Anthony was just cold and evasive. Yet you are fascinated that most people took these obvious clues to paint her as the killer?

There was obviously no evidence or even a crime scene available to prove that Casey Anthony committed the murder or that it was even murder at all since the cause of death could not be determined. So emotionally I was shocked at the verdict but once you look at it rationally, the verdict makes sense. Unfortunately.

But wise garamet knew all along.

So which one of you is working on the Nancy-Grace's-head-explodes-like-the-guy-in-Scanners .gif? Chop chop!