If it were a hung jury, or if the jury had taken one of the lesser options, then yes. But they didnt. All 12 of them thought there was reasonable doubt. All 12 of them listened to more testimony and evidence than all of us did.
Verdict in Anthony Trial
- Thread starter CycloneRulzzz
- Start date
If it were a hung jury, or if the jury had taken one of the lesser options, then yes. But they didnt. All 12 of them thought there was reasonable doubt. All 12 of them listened to more testimony and evidence than all of us did.
Trials should not be on TV like they are. The media has way too much influence and there is no reason they should have the access they do. The media wanted her to be guilty before the trial even began and played Casey Anthony as a villian to try to gain viewers. Its crazy how many people became enamored with this trial and made it personal even though they had no connection at all, except through the media. Why was this case any bigger than other murder trials? It shouldn't have been but the media made it that way.
The fact that the media didn't get what they wanted was a victory for me. All 12 jurors did exactly what they are supposed to do, since they didn't think she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The fact that the media didn't get what they wanted was a victory for me. All 12 jurors did exactly what they are supposed to do, since they didn't think she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I've actually been thinking the same thing since I've seen the response to this case. It reminds me of the Bonet Ramsey, Phil Specter and OJ cases with the amount of media involved injecting their own opinions in the middle of what the facts and evidence presented was.
Does it sound like she did it? Yes, it sure does. But a lot of people aren't willing to realize that they're hearing what the media wants people to hear to gain ratings. However, for me, it's hard to say she actually did it without hearing the entire arguments, uncut, see all of the evidence, read the Judge's notes, and look back over all of that during deliberation while hearing other juror's opinions on what they heard/think.
Yes. Florida. Chock-full of dumb***** who can't see the forest for the trees.
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree. Although I enjoyed watching the entire trial, it was far too publicized from the very beginning. This left their pool of potential jurors that had no knowledge of the case pretty depleted.
As far as reasonable doubt, the duct tape is the one thing that you just can't ignore. the defense admits she was fully aware of the death when it happened. Why is there duct tape on the skull? That's reason enough for me to believe she was involved in the death of her child and at the very least deserved aggravated child abuse or manslaughter...
The defense team came out and said that the little girl drown. Who told them that? Their client? The defense claimed that her father tried to cover up the accidental drowning by making it look like a murder and disposing of the body. Who told them that? Their client? When the police questioned her about what had happened to Caylee did she immediately make them aware of this information? Was this information told to anyone prior to the trial? WHY NOT????????????????
Doesn't the fact that Casey allegedly knew all of this information from the very moment that the child died make her complicit in the coverup and in the disposal of her body? Duh.... It sure seemed like every single assertion that the defense team made was fueled by information provided by Casey which in fact only proved that she was fully involved in what happened to Caylee. Thus her guilt was seemingly agreed upon by her own defense team. Manslaughter would have been the correct charge to find her guilty. It is pathetic that the jury couldn't connect the dots.
Knowing about the kid being killed or of duct tape being there is a far cry from being involved. It's actually quite easy to create plausible scenarios for these things.
Even if it can be proven she was a participant in the coverup\disposal, it does not prove she killed Caylee. And you dont just move down a charge if you think someone is guilty of a greater charge but have reasonable doubt on that one. If they dont believe there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt she killed Caylee, neither manslaughter or murder is appropriate.
The jury isnt supposed to 'connect the dots'. They are supposed to rule whether the evidence shown provides proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They believe the evidence does not show proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and made their verdict accordingly.
I'm not going to get involved in discussing the evidence in this case nor anything about the case in general, but to just to clear up a couple of things mentioned above:
Item 2 above. It was Cindy Anthony (Casey's mother) that claimed that she had left work and had made the "how-to-make-chloroform" Google search on the family desktop. The prosecution had 100% proof from numerous witnesses at her company (Gentiva) and IT experts from her company that she was at work when the search was made.
Item 4 above. The cadaver dog made a direct hit on Casey's car trunk as far as detecting the smell of a decomposing human body. No other hits were made by the dog on the Anthony property.
Didnt she testify that she sometimes left work for short periods without clocking off?
She did not leave work for a short period of time during when the searches for "how-to-make-chloroform", "neck-breaking" and "death" were made. She was at work at the exact moment the searches were made. It was proven 100% by IT records and a secure computer and password set-up.
Last edited:
You're forgetting the duct tape over the child's mouth that was proven to come from the Anthony home. And the laundry bag she was dumped in matching one at the Anthony home.
I listened to the trial streaming at work. I feel the prosecution did an excellent job making their case, despite lacking hard evidence, much of which may have been destroyed by water through no fault of theirs or the police. It is my opinion that the jury, in fact, did drop the ball. I do not blame the prosecution whatsoever.
Not only do the records show she was at work, they proved she was at her computer ENTERING DATA continuously during the time period in question.
A lot of people seem upset by this verdict. Which I can't deny, I thought she did it. Instead of blasting states and the people that live in them though, I find this as a bit of proof that our system works, not that it's broken. I had to listen to a lady at work go on and on today about what a ****** country we live in that would let a woman like this go and how stupid we've become as Americans. I didn't have the heart to tell her she's the one being stupid here. The jury did what they were supposed to do. They saw doubt and did not convict her. I really believe that the prosecution blew it here. They were probably believing what they heard on Nancy Grace as well. This is why we have juries.
Yep, IT records don't lie. And Cindy Anthony testified that only she had the password to her work computer and it was a password that she had to make up herself. She worked at a health care company and they are very, very strict about patient confidentiality and keeping work computers secure. If she left the work computer for one second longer than 15 minutes without a keystroke, the work computer would go into sleep mode and could only be awakened by her with her private password.
No evidence on the time of her death, the cause of death or no hard evidence linking Casey Anthony to the death in any way. Circumstantial evidence galore, but thank God in this country you can't take someone's liberty based solely on a theory and circumstantial evidence. Like it or not, the justice system worked here.
...obvious to who, and guilty of what? 12 jurors returned a verdict in less than 1 day, and were unanimous in their findings. The prosecution just didn`t get it done. Thank goodness that we are innocent until PROVEN guilty, and not the other way around.
So if there was a video of a brunette woman savagely beating this child that was the exact height and weight of Casey Anthony, but it never showed her face, would the people who agree with the verdict right now call that circumstantial evidence? I mean it could have been another brunette woman the exact same size that came in and randomly killed the child.
The evidence that the prosecution had was not circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is a fact that the duct tape matched the Anthony's duct tape, it is a fact that the mom lied about the google searches and couldn't possibly have made them, it is a fact that Anthony lied and made up elaborate stories to cover up what happened, it is a fact that the kid was found dumped in the woods in a bag similar to the Anthony's, it is a fact that the cadaver dog had a direct hit on Anthony's car trunk, it is a fact that Anthony didn't give a **** about her child being gone for a month as evidenced by all the pictures and her not telling anyone. All of these things are facts and not circumstantial. These things all point toward Anthony being guilty. One of these things alone may not be very strong to convict her but everything added up including things I haven't mentioned should be enough.
I think the jury messed up what reasonable doubt is and it is a product of the "CSI effect". Just because no hard DNA, fingerprint, or any other 100% conclusive evidence was found doesn't mean that a person should be infallible to the circumstances surrounding them. The jury blew this one.
Also a question for everyone, if you are a juror and 99% sure that Anthony did it, is that 1% of doubt enough to constitute reasonable doubt?
The evidence that the prosecution had was not circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is a fact that the duct tape matched the Anthony's duct tape, it is a fact that the mom lied about the google searches and couldn't possibly have made them, it is a fact that Anthony lied and made up elaborate stories to cover up what happened, it is a fact that the kid was found dumped in the woods in a bag similar to the Anthony's, it is a fact that the cadaver dog had a direct hit on Anthony's car trunk, it is a fact that Anthony didn't give a **** about her child being gone for a month as evidenced by all the pictures and her not telling anyone. All of these things are facts and not circumstantial. These things all point toward Anthony being guilty. One of these things alone may not be very strong to convict her but everything added up including things I haven't mentioned should be enough.
I think the jury messed up what reasonable doubt is and it is a product of the "CSI effect". Just because no hard DNA, fingerprint, or any other 100% conclusive evidence was found doesn't mean that a person should be infallible to the circumstances surrounding them. The jury blew this one.
Also a question for everyone, if you are a juror and 99% sure that Anthony did it, is that 1% of doubt enough to constitute reasonable doubt?
Last edited:
