Casey Anthony Verdict

[GoSox05]

The problem is most of the people who could tell you the details of this case probably couldn't tell you who represents them at the local/state/federal levels. That's my big problem with this. Yes it was a horrible, horrible thing. At the end of the day, it doesn't affect 99.99999% of us. Whereas when it comes to things we actually should be following, people don't care. People should be following their state representatives closer than some random woman who probably killed her daughter.

 

 

Perfectly said.

[Chisoxfn]

Pretty surprised she gets off scott free. Seems about as bad as the OJ verdict.

[Milkman delivers]

I'll be honest and say that I haven't followed this case in the slightest, but now I'm inundated with it so I'm going to comment.

 

It seems that a lot of the evidence was circumstantial. It sucks, but you can't convict someone because of that. I have a feeling people are so up in arms about this because of the media coverage, which is blatantly running it as though there is no doubt that the mother did it. That sells.

 

Remember how everybody on Earth was sure that Gary Condit murdered Chandra Levy? And why was that? It was because the media shoved it down our throats as though it were a forgone conclusion. No trial would have even been necessary, as he was guilty. No doubt about it. He lost his reelection bid, and I'm pretty sure it was in direct correlation to the Levy case.

 

Oh, then his name is cleared. Apology? f*** no. He was probably lucky if the news of his clearing was even a blurb on any station or in any newspaper.

 

So forgive me if I'm not going to jump all over this woman. She's obviously a scumbag of immense proportions, but they couldn't prove that she murdered her daughter. So she walks, and that's how the system is supposed to work.

 

It's guilty until proven innocent in the America and especially in the media, unfortunately.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Milkman delivers

[Kyyle23]

i feel just as bad about this case as i do with any case involving a child. the christian choate story is equally as heartbreaking for me.

 

i look at my 11 month old boy and 10 year old girl and just do not understand how and why

[southsider2k5]

I'll be honest and say that I haven't followed this case in the slightest, but now I'm inundated with it so I'm going to comment.

 

It seems that a lot of the evidence was circumstantial. It sucks, but you can't convict someone because of that. I have a feeling people are so up in arms about this because of the media coverage, which is blatantly running it as though there is no doubt that the mother did it. That sells.

 

Remember how everybody on Earth was sure that Gary Condit murdered Chandra Levy? And why was that? It was because the media shoved it down our throats as though it were a forgone conclusion. No trial would have even been necessary, as he was guilty. No doubt about it. He lost his reelection bid, and I'm pretty sure it was in direct correlation to the Levy case.

 

Oh, then his name is cleared. Apology? f*** no. He was probably lucky if the news of his clearing was even a blurb on any station or in any newspaper.

 

So forgive me if I'm not going to jump all over this woman. She's obviously a scumbag of immense proportions, but they couldn't prove that she murdered her daughter. So she walks, and that's how the system is supposed to work.

 

It's guilty until proven innocent in the America and especially in the media, unfortunately.

 

I believe the Washington Post did something like an 11 part series on that story a couple of years ago. It was amazing how the story died once Condit was cleared. It should have been the opposite.

[Milkman delivers]

I believe the Washington Post did something like an 11 part series on that story a couple of years ago. It was amazing how the story died once Condit was cleared. It should have been the opposite.

 

Because nobody gave a s*** that she was murdered. They cared that it might have been a U.S. Senator that did it. Once he was cleared and his career completely obliterated, there was no point in caring anymore. Now she was just a dead girl instead of a dead girl at the hands of someone important.

 

In this case, what happens if they find bulletproof evidence a year from now that exonerates the mother? Do you think anyone will give a s***? No, they will not. No media coverage will pop up because nobody will care that a child was murdered unless it were done by the parent. Nobody will start a thread on it and people won't mention it in their Facebook statuses.

[longshot7]

She's not even as hot as the media would have you believe. Very average. Not like that schoolteacher who slept with her students a few years back.

[Kyyle23]

Because nobody gave a s*** that she was murdered. They cared that it might have been a U.S. Senator that did it. Once he was cleared and his career completely obliterated, there was no point in caring anymore. Now she was just a dead girl instead of a dead girl at the hands of someone important.

 

In this case, what happens if they find bulletproof evidence a year from now that exonerates the mother? Do you think anyone will give a s***? No, they will not. No media coverage will pop up because nobody will care that a child was murdered unless it were done by the parent. Nobody will start a thread on it and people won't mention it in their Facebook statuses.

 

i would admit i was wrong, and i probably would dig up this thread too. so on both of those accounts where you are pretty much directly referring to me, you are wrong.

[lasttriptotulsa]

While I believe that she probably did murder that poor child, had I been on the Jury I would not have been able to find her guilty. As others have said, almost all of the evidence was circumstantial. They could never even determine a cause of death. How can you convict somebody of murder when you don't even know if a murder occured? The defense had all kinds of crazy stories that were off the wall and probably B.S., but remember the burden of proof is on the prosecution. They have to prove that she committed the crime, the defense does not have to prove that she didn't. There is a lot of flaws in our justice system, but as much as it sucks to say, I think the jury got it right. There just was not enough evidence to warrant a murder conviction.

[whitesoxfan99]

It seems that a lot of the evidence was circumstantial. It sucks, but you can't convict someone because of that. I have a feeling people are so up in arms about this because of the media coverage, which is blatantly running it as though there is no doubt that the mother did it. That sells.

 

That isn't true. You absolutely can convict someone based on circumstantial evidence.

[Milkman delivers]

i would admit i was wrong, and i probably would dig up this thread too. so on both of those accounts where you are pretty much directly referring to me, you are wrong.

 

No, I'm pretty much referring to Facebook. There are about 50 straight statuses about it. I didn't even consider who made the fist post when I typed that.

[CrimsonWeltall]

They could never even determine a cause of death. How can you convict somebody of murder when you don't even know if a murder occured?

 

 

C'mon, of course a murder occurred. The defense didn't even try to deny that all the evidence pointed towards murder; they just argued (absurdly, and without a shred of evidence) that the ex-cop grandfather and Casey made an accidental drowning *look* like a murder.

 

 

[Milkman delivers]

That isn't true. You absolutely can convict someone based on circumstantial evidence.

 

Well, a jury can pretty much go any way they want. You're not supposed to go solely on circumstantial stuff, though.

[CrimsonWeltall]

That isn't true. You absolutely can convict someone based on circumstantial evidence.

 

Right. Almost all evidence is circumstantial unless you have witnesses or ballistic evidence showing it had to be your gun that shot somebody. They could have found the kid's blood in the car trunk and the defense could argue that Casey was changing her diaper in the trunk and the kid got a scratch on her knee.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Because nobody gave a s*** that she was murdered. They cared that it might have been a U.S. Senator that did it. Once he was cleared and his career completely obliterated, there was no point in caring anymore. Now she was just a dead girl instead of a dead girl at the hands of someone important.

 

In this case, what happens if they find bulletproof evidence a year from now that exonerates the mother? Do you think anyone will give a s***? No, they will not. No media coverage will pop up because nobody will care that a child was murdered unless it were done by the parent. Nobody will start a thread on it and people won't mention it in their Facebook statuses.

 

Its funny, but I am the exact opposite. I find it more interesting once that happens. I hardly paid attention to the Condit stuff, much like this. Once I came across the long series about the investigation and the mistaken assumptions, I couldn't get enough of it.

[greg775]

Their defense was a story that is completely incoherent and depends on the word of people (Casey and her parents) who are known to be liars.

 

Sorry, but I think any doubt about her guilt is unreasonable. You don't do google searches for "how to make chloroform" and "neckbreaking", then have your daughter go missing for a month (which you don't report because you're busy partying), and have the trunk of your car have traces of chloroform and the stench of death....all as a coincidence.

 

 

Can someone tell me why I should care about this case? How many kids get killed on a daily basis here in Chicago?

 

 

Because she is pretty and white, duh...

 

 

What makes the verdict even worse is that she is probably going to get rich off of killing that little girl because our society is full of a bunch of f***ing idiots who will watch her interviews, buy her book, etc.

 

1.) If she did google searches on chloroform and neckbreaking and the child ends up murdered, and there is C in the trunk, my gosh I have to find her guilty or I at least don't leave the juror's room without it being a hung jury. Cmon folks. The child is dead and this happened? The mom doesn't deserve to walk.

2.) I think you should care just because it's horrible. But you are right, I'm sure there are pitiful horrible stories in the inner city on a daily basis that get no attention.

3.) That is sad but prolly true. I would hate to be in on production meetings where people actually say that when they plan coverage of stories. Pretty, white, child dead ... this is our story to run with until the last day of the trial. Way of the world, but pretty sad if other stories get killed cause of race reasons.

4.) Yeah that is really sad. She's going to be a rich celebrity. Why? Cause she got acquitted of murder of her own f***ing kid. And the poor kid. Has no say. I'm sick.

[whitesoxfan99]

Well, a jury can pretty much go any way they want. You're not supposed to go solely on circumstantial stuff, though.

 

Not true. Circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient for a conviction as long as you prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Don't believe everything you see on TV.

[greg775]

Seriously folks, how did they justify the mom checking the internet for articles on neckbreaking and chloroform.

Did she admit in court she had thoughts of killing her child but thought better of it, then wham, suddenly unfortunately the child died anyway??

I pray for all of us and our souls. This world can be a joke,

[Soxbadger]

Technically any evidence is enough for a jury to convict so long as its enough evidence that it overcame directed verdict.

 

I have no clue on this case, I didnt follow it and wasnt in the courtroom. I do have to say that reading newspapers about court cases is frustrating because it is generally about jumping to conclusions, and less about analyzing evidence.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

Greg,

 

The information you posted simply is not compelling enough absent real evidence connecting her to the murder. It also could be a case of the prosecution aiming to high (did they even try and charge her with child endangerment or something where you could get a conviction for the fact she had no clue where her daughter was for 6 months?)

 

The system is created so that if its 50/50 the accused should walk.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Seriously folks, how did they justify the mom checking the internet for articles on neckbreaking and chloroform.

Did she admit in court she had thoughts of killing her child but thought better of it, then wham, suddenly unfortunately the child died anyway??

 

The defense had the grandmother testify that it was SHE, not Casey, who made the searches. The prosecution later showed that the grandmother was on to her work computer at the time, so she pretty blatantly perjured herself.

[SouthSideTeacher]

1. How any man in their right mind could find this murderous liar HOT--or even attractive in the least-- is beyond me.

2. 2 words.... street justice.

Edited July 5, 2011 by SouthSideTeacher

[BigSqwert]

But it was a damn good post

[Milkman delivers]

Not true. Circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient for a conviction as long as you prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Don't believe everything you see on TV.

 

Don't believe everything you see on TV is my exact point.

[greg775]

1. How any man in their right mind could find this murderous liar HOT--or even attractive in the least-- is beyond me.

2. 2 words.... street justice.

 

Street justice doesn't work. Solves nothing.