..and she was found guilty on some of the counts against her. I thought you were implying that it is obvious that she murdered her daughter.....which is certainly not the case.
Verdict in Anthony Trial
- Thread starter CycloneRulzzz
- Start date
..and she was found guilty on some of the counts against her. I thought you were implying that it is obvious that she murdered her daughter.....which is certainly not the case.
We can agree to disagree. The 12 people with the responsibility of judging her did not speculate. They were unanimous in deciding the state did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Oh for crying out loud. So what's enough evidence. Can we only convict someone when there are 15 witnesses saying they saw someone do it or if there is a video or what? At what point is enough evidence enough evidence?
I still haven't heard a legitimate reason as to why she would wait that long if she wouldn't be in trouble for what actually had happened. If your daughter drowns, why would you not do anything for 31 days plus go out of your way to make up stories? To me, this makes the evidence in the OJ case barely worthy of trial. I just think it's pretty obvious she was covering something up. Whether it was first degree or not, I don't know, but when there is a search for how to make chloroform, that shows premeditation.
I still think she's guilty, but like people have said, the DA didn't do his job well enough.
And I love seeing Nancy Grace putting her foot in her mouth.
And I love seeing Nancy Grace putting her foot in her mouth.
I think all the legal experts that I've seen said that the prosecution did a fantastic job and did everything they could. Some were calling it a dynamic performance a really giving the prosecution high praise.
...Who knows? Could she be covering for someone else, or was she afraid to tell about an accident? Maybe......but the state did not prove she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of 1st degree murder
It is up to the jury to decide if there is enough evidence. In this case every single one of them decided there was not.
Do I think Casey is guilty? As hell. However, I don't think the jury got it wrong.
Mostly due to boredom at work, I've been following this case for awhile. I never thought the prosecution was going to get her on 1st Degree murder. I also thought the only reason why aggravated manslaughter and aggravated child abuse (or whatever those charges exactly were) were added were so they could go for the death penalty.
It sounded to me that the prosecution was trying to paint a picture of what they "thought" happened. However, they were never able to prove that Casey actually murdered her daughter (in fact, one of the "backup" jurors said the entire jury was waiting for someone from the prosecution to actually prove that Casey killed her daughter - and they never did).
What a lot of people seem to forget is that in America, the burden of proof is not on the defense to prove innocence, but on the prosecution to prove guilt. 12 jurors and 8 backup jurors absolutely agree that the prosecution did not meet their burden - like I said earlier, they were waiting for the prosecution to prove that Casey actually killed her daughter, and all they proved was that Casey treated her daughter's body horrifically after her death. We don't even know how Caylee died - does anyone besides Casey and God? Was it the chloroform? Was it the duct tape (keeping in mind how Caylee was "buried" with the duct tape was consistent with how the Anthony's buried their dead animals)? Did she drown? Nobody knows beyond a reasonable doubt whether Casey murdered her daughter or whether her daughter died due to a horrific accident. All we know is Caylee was treated horrifically after her death - and you don't ring someone up for 1st Degree murder (like everyone in the media and the general public wanted) based on how you treat a dead body.
A lot of the "legal experts" are the same "talking heads" that were discussed earlier in the thread. The vast majority of them were prosecutors in their previous career and had rung up Casey as guilty of 1st Degree murder before the trial even started. Listen to any of the defense attorneys and most of them had serious problems with what the prosecution was doing.
Mostly due to boredom at work, I've been following this case for awhile. I never thought the prosecution was going to get her on 1st Degree murder. I also thought the only reason why aggravated manslaughter and aggravated child abuse (or whatever those charges exactly were) were added were so they could go for the death penalty.
It sounded to me that the prosecution was trying to paint a picture of what they "thought" happened. However, they were never able to prove that Casey actually murdered her daughter (in fact, one of the "backup" jurors said the entire jury was waiting for someone from the prosecution to actually prove that Casey killed her daughter - and they never did).
What a lot of people seem to forget is that in America, the burden of proof is not on the defense to prove innocence, but on the prosecution to prove guilt. 12 jurors and 8 backup jurors absolutely agree that the prosecution did not meet their burden - like I said earlier, they were waiting for the prosecution to prove that Casey actually killed her daughter, and all they proved was that Casey treated her daughter's body horrifically after her death. We don't even know how Caylee died - does anyone besides Casey and God? Was it the chloroform? Was it the duct tape (keeping in mind how Caylee was "buried" with the duct tape was consistent with how the Anthony's buried their dead animals)? Did she drown? Nobody knows beyond a reasonable doubt whether Casey murdered her daughter or whether her daughter died due to a horrific accident. All we know is Caylee was treated horrifically after her death - and you don't ring someone up for 1st Degree murder (like everyone in the media and the general public wanted) based on how you treat a dead body.
A lot of the "legal experts" are the same "talking heads" that were discussed earlier in the thread. The vast majority of them were prosecutors in their previous career and had rung up Casey as guilty of 1st Degree murder before the trial even started. Listen to any of the defense attorneys and most of them had serious problems with what the prosecution was doing.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 43,012
- 34,521
- 113
Here's a psychologist's take on the flaws in the prosecution's theory. It's interesting reading.
Infanticide in order to party: A nonsense motive - CNN.com
like this would be the first time a jury has ever gotten a verdict wrong. The very least she should have been convicted of is accesory to murder for the obvious coverup.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 43,012
- 34,521
- 113
They couldn't convict her of a crime she wasn't charged with. That's not how it works.
I was answering yaman's question of how much evidence is enough evidence to convict someone? Did you have something to add?
I'm not a Nancy Grace fan but on this she and I agree. I'm glad she's speaking up for those that are angry and disgusted over this verdict.
Not sure the prosecution proved their case. But I think Casey Anthony is guilty. Definitely not justice. OJ Simpson, Rodney Heemstra and now this. :swoon::swoon:
Well then I think in the name of justice perhaps we need to take another look on any case that doesn't have a confession attached to it (not a coerced one of course) or multiple witnesses coming forward. I'm seeing a lot of "The prosecution didn't do their job." Is this about which team does a better job? No, it's about this lady killing her daughter. If I am on the jury, from what I have heard which is admittedly not as much as what they heard, I have to say she did it and there's no reasonable doubt. The defense made a lot of bold claims that they never backed up. They didn't give me a viable reason for waiting that long. They didn't explain the tape. The prosecution basically proved that Anthony looked up how to make chloroform when they proved that her mother could not have done it. I can't look beyond waiting that long and the chloroform ties. The scent I can get over because that doesn't prove she was killed by her mother, just that her mother hauled a dead body around. I think if the jury could find that much doubt then they did do the right thing but I don't see how you can find the doubt there. We say the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Ok, so did they even have a chance here? A decomposed body doesn't give much but it got the chloroform. They proved that she looked up how to make it. The dogs told them there was a dead body in that car at some point. I just don't see what else they could do here short of producing witnesses or a video of the act. I don't think anyone really believes that she didn't do it. Somehow this has come down to what counsel does instead of what the actual facts show.
Dr. Drew Pinsky was hinting towards this very thing during HLN's coverage this afternoon. In fact, come to think of it, perhaps that's exactly why the defense made sure Casey was "competent to stand trial" - Pinsky referred the only time in his experience that someone would have a motive such as this is if they were "mentally unstable".
Last edited:
