Casey Anthony Trial -- a Verdict has been reached...

[unsinkable]

Dexter is a tv show about a killer who kills killers.

 

Thanks for answering. I wish I hadn't asked.

[stephanier.1765]

Dexter is a tv show about a killer who kills killers.

 

Especially ones that escape justice.

[Scarlett]

No, it's not an either/or scenario.

 

But it says a lot about what the family dynamic is when the Grandma wouldn't "allow" 19 y. o. Casey to choose a valid and reasonable option for an unplanned pregnancy.

 

What does it say?

 

To me it says Cindy felt the baby should be raised by Casey. Is that really so shocking-- that a woman be expected to raise her own child--especially a young woman from a middle class family who is willing to help in every way.

 

I am sure if Casey had said, 'hey mom, if you 'force' me to keep this baby I'm going to kill it when it is 2.', Cindy would have felt the baby would be better off elsewhere.

[Murphy101]

No, it's not an either/or scenario.

 

But it says a lot about what the family dynamic is when the Grandma wouldn't "allow" 19 y. o. Casey to choose a valid and reasonable option for an unplanned pregnancy.

 

"allow" my left butt cheek.

 

This woman very likely murdered or at least "accidnetly" abused her 2 year old to the point of death. And she sure didn't let that baby interfere with her partying. I am having a VERY hard time believing her mother could have kept her from doing anything she wanted to do.

 

What does it say?

 

To me it says Cindy felt the baby should be raised by Casey. Is that really so shocking-- that a woman be expected to raise her own child--especially a young woman from a middle class family who is willing to help in every way.

 

I am sure if Casey had said, 'hey mom, if you 'force' me to keep this baby I'm going to kill it when it is 2.', Cindy would have felt the baby would be better off elsewhere.

 

I agree.

[unsinkable]

What does it say?

 

To me it says Cindy felt the baby should be raised by Casey. Is that really so shocking-- that a woman be expected to raise her own child--especially a young woman from a middle class family who is willing to help in every way.

 

I am sure if Casey had said, 'hey mom, if you 'force' me to keep this baby I'm going to kill it when it is 2.', Cindy would have felt the baby would be better off elsewhere.

 

It says that Cindy felt she could control decisions that were not hers to make.

 

Is it really so shocking that a woman would want to give her child up for adoption? Is it really so shocking that a woman might want to have a different life for her child that she (Casey, as a 19 yo single mother) was capable of giving her?

 

As for you 2nd paragraph, I already agreed with Martha that it wasn't an either/or situation. I am not going to comment further on that 2nd paragraph.

[unsinkable]

]"allow" my left butt cheek.[/b]This woman very likely murdered or at least "accidnetly" abused her 2 year old to the point of death. And she sure didn't let that baby interfere with her partying. I am having a VERY hard time believing her mother could have kept her from doing anything she wanted to do.

 

 

 

I agree.

 

 

 

I was quoting the linked story from youtube.

 

That's why I used the word "allow" and put it in quotes.

[Murphy101]

No it is not all that shocking or wrong that an unwed mother would consider adoption.

 

Is it all that shocking or wrong that the loss of a baby is not just the mother's decision? That the entire family would feel the loss and have opinions about it? That a grandmother would want to reassure her daughter that she doesn't have to give up that baby for lack of family support?

 

I agree the decision was hers and she made it.

 

I don't think for one minute she did it bc of her mother or love of her baby.

Whether that baby was kept, lived or died was completely at the whim of her selfish mother.

[Murphy101]

I was quoting the linked story from youtube.

 

That's why I used the word "allow" and put it in quotes.

 

I understand. I'm just saying I'm not buying it.:)

[unsinkable]

No it is not all that shocking or wrong that an unwed mother would consider adoption.

 

Is it all that shocking or wrong that the loss of a baby is not just the mother's decision? That the entire family would feel the loss and have opinions about it? That a grandmother would want to reassure her daughter that she doesn't have to give up that baby for lack of family support?

 

I agree the decision was hers and she made it.

 

I don't think for one minute she did it bc of her mother or love of her baby.

Whether that baby was kept, lived or died was completely at the whim of her selfish mother.

 

Is it all that shocking that people on this board have been intimately touched by adoption? And that you and Scarlett don't need to act like giving a child up for adoption is so horrifying and that it makes you a bad mother?

[Murphy101]

Is it all that shocking that people on this board have been intimately touched by adoption? And that you and Scarlett don't need to act like giving a child up for adoption is so horrifying and that it makes you a bad mother?

 

Neither us said a single thing about birth mothers being bad for choosing adoption. That is you being overly sensitive and extrapolating something that isn't there.

 

I don't think anything negative of adoption at all.

 

But would I want my grandchild to stay in the family?

 

Yes, yes I would very much and I would tell my ds or dd that.

 

Would I want to help my children with their grandchildren if I could?

 

I would. Family helps family. That's just what we do.

 

Might they still choose adoption?

 

Yes.

 

Would I think them bad people for it?

 

No.

[Marylou]

unsinkable, that's what really stood out to me when I saw that video. The mother wouldn't "allow" her daughter to relinquish the child :001_huh:. I think the same story said she described her daughter as a "sociopath". Maybe that was in the 911 video. I can't remember.

 

If Cindy couldn't stand to see her grandchild live in another family, and she knew her daughter to be unfit, she and George should have adopted her to have full custody. Open adoptions are very common nowadays.

 

But hindsight is 20/20.

[Murphy101]

If Cindy couldn't stand to see her grandchild live in another family, and she knew her daughter to be unfit, she and George should have adopted her to have full custody. Open adoptions are very common nowadays.

 

But hindsight is 20/20.

 

This I certainly agree with.

[pdalley]

Is it all that shocking that people on this board have been intimately touched by adoption? And that you and Scarlett don't need to act like giving a child up for adoption is so horrifying and that it makes you a bad mother?

 

 

I'm a birth mother and I didn't get that at all from their posts.:confused:

[Scarlett]

Neither us said a single thing about birth mothers being bad for choosing adoption. That is you being overly sensitive and extrapolating something that isn't there.

 

I don't think anything negative of adoption at all.

 

But would I want my grandchild to stay in the family?

 

Yes, yes I would very much and I would tell my ds or dd that.

 

Would I want to help my children with their grandchildren if I could?

 

I would. Family helps family. That's just what we do.

 

Might they still choose adoption?

 

Yes.

 

Would I think them bad people for it?

 

No.

 

Yes. Totally. I am not anti adoption. There are situations that call for it. I do however, believe that in general people who make babies should care for those babies if at all possible. I would strongly encourage any child of mine to keep their own child and/or let me raise it. That is the way *I* was raised. (I was born of an unwed mother from a very nice family in 1965).

 

Cindy is a strong personality--that is for sure. However, Casey seems equally strong and I doubt seriously she ever did much she didn't want to do.

 

Failure to give this child up for adoption is not the issue. A woman being so selfish that she refused to be a real mother to her child and ultimately killed her child is the issue.

[Scarlett]

unsinkable, that's what really stood out to me when I saw that video. The mother wouldn't "allow" her daughter to relinquish the child :001_huh:. I think the same story said she described her daughter as a "sociopath". Maybe that was in the 911 video. I can't remember.

 

If Cindy couldn't stand to see her grandchild live in another family, and she knew her daughter to be unfit, she and George should have adopted her to have full custody. Open adoptions are very common nowadays.

 

But hindsight is 20/20.

 

I believe that was what the big fight was about the night before Caylee disappeared. Cindy was angry that Casey wasn't taking care of Caylee properly and threatened to take her away. That kind of thing doesn't happen over night.

[Scarlett]

I'm a birth mother and I didn't get that at all from their posts.:confused:

 

Thank you. I am not against adoption. Not at all.

[lovelaughs_times_three]

 

And she sure didn't let that baby interfere with her partying. I am having a VERY hard time believing her mother could have kept her from doing anything she wanted to do.

 

 

 

 

 

:iagree: I don't think Cindy could have forced her to do anything! I think that has been proven by Casey's behavior.

My youngest is adopted, so I am very sensitive in this area, and I did not AT ALL take it that Scarlett and Martha were speaking against adoption. I think the point is, it is reasonable and not disfunctional for Cindy to encourage Casey to take up being a mother and encourage her that she will have the help she needs. Even if she strongly encouraged Casey, Casey did what Casey wanted to do. And nothing that has come out so far about Cindy's behavior makes what Casey did make ANY SENSE!

I feel so sad and sick about Caylee. It's like the NOT GUILTY verdict made her seem lost in the whole thing. Like she didn't matter....:(

I (somewhat) understand if they didn't think there was enough for first degree murder, but not guilty of ANYTHING???? Except for the lying??? Still in somewhat of shock over that verdict.

Edited July 7, 2011 by lovelaughs_times_three

[hsmamainva]

I would like to know if the taxpayers and search organizations could recoup some of the thousands of dollars spent looking for Caylee? If the defense says Caylee was never missing?

 

Yes...

 

Texas Equuisearch (sp?) said that they spent $112,000 searching for Caylee and, since the defense admitted in their opening statement that Caylee never was missing, they plan to sue Casey to get that money back.

 

Prosecutor Linda Drane Burdick has also said that they will spend the next 30 days compiling the costs of their investigation and suing her for compensation for that as well.

 

And then there's the defamation case coming against Casey from a woman named Zenaida Gonzalez. I believe Casey's due to have a deposition taken within the next few weeks for that case to proceed.

 

And then there's the money she stole from her friend who was out of the country during that month Caylee was missing. Casey faces felony theft charges for that, too.

[lovelaughs_times_three]

And then there's the defamation case coming against Casey from a woman named Zenaida Gonzalez. I believe Casey's due to have a deposition taken within the next few weeks for that case to proceed.

 

 

 

It is unbelievable that there is actually a woman named Zenaida Gonzalez! It was such a different name! I thought it was something Casey had completely made up from her imagination!!

[hsmamainva]

It is unbelievable that there is actually a woman named Zenaida Gonzalez! It was such a different name! I thought it was something Casey had completely made up from her imagination!!

 

Yes...apparently, the woman filled out a card at the Sawgrass Apartments where Casey's current boyfriend lived. One of those "interested in renting" information cards. They're speculating that Casey saw the card and used her info for the fake nanny.

 

However, there's an even more involved story that you can google on the internet.

 

When Casey had her jailhouse convo with her brother and he's asking for information about Caylee, Casey says something along the lines of, "I feel she's close to home. I've given them names down to the "t"."

 

The two streets that intersect ... Hope Springs Drive, where the Anthony's live, and Suburban form a "T intersection" .... Caylee was found at that intersection between two houses. The name of the family at one house is Zenaida and the name of the family at the second house is Gonzalez.

 

Not sure if the investigators knew that, followed up on it, etc.....but folks are speculating that Casey was telling her brother, in code, where to find Caylee.

[lovelaughs_times_three]

Yes...apparently, the woman filled out a card at the Sawgrass Apartments where Casey's current boyfriend lived. One of those "interested in renting" information cards. They're speculating that Casey saw the card and used her info for the fake nanny.

 

However, there's an even more involved story that you can google on the internet.

 

When Casey had her jailhouse convo with her brother and he's asking for information about Caylee, Casey says something along the lines of, "I feel she's close to home. I've given them names down to the "t"."

 

The two streets that intersect ... Hope Springs Drive, where the Anthony's live, and Suburban form a "T intersection" .... Caylee was found at that intersection between two houses. The name of the family at one house is Zenaida and the name of the family at the second house is Gonzalez.

 

Not sure if the investigators knew that, followed up on it, etc.....but folks are speculating that Casey was telling her brother, in code, where to find Caylee.

 

Oh my gosh! That's just creepy! Really! You can't make this stuff up! (well, Casey could!) This whole thing fits perfectly into the cliche "The truth is stranger than fiction." :001_huh:

[Renee in NC]

Yes...

 

Texas Equuisearch (sp?) said that they spent $112,000 searching for Caylee and, since the defense admitted in their opening statement that Caylee never was missing, they plan to sue Casey to get that money back.

 

Prosecutor Linda Drane Burdick has also said that they will spend the next 30 days compiling the costs of their investigation and suing her for compensation for that as well.

 

And then there's the defamation case coming against Casey from a woman named Zenaida Gonzalez. I believe Casey's due to have a deposition taken within the next few weeks for that case to proceed.

 

And then there's the money she stole from her friend who was out of the country during that month Caylee was missing. Casey faces felony theft charges for that, too.

 

The thing is, Casey can say in her deposition that Caylee *was* missing. Casey never testified that Caylee wasn't missing and that she drowned in the pool - the lawyers did. They never presented evidence that this is what happened. Casey's father denied the story. Casey can say in her deposition, "She didn't drown in the pool" and there isn't much anyone could do.

 

I personally think that with the prosecution's lack of evidence, her lawyers could have stuck to "Casey doesn't know what happened to Caylee" and she still would've been not guilty. The circumstantial evidence was flimsy.

[hsmamainva]

I agree. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, which is why folks were surprised that the defense even offered the 'drown in the pool' theory and the alleged abuse by her father and brother...and then offered no proof to back it up, nor did they need to do so...but that still was in the juror's minds and who knows if it played a role or not.

[Chris in VA]

Don't know if a thread has been started already on this, but I saw the juror's interview last night. I actually came away from it thinking the woman made some excellent points, had tried hard to come to a legal decision, and that the prosecution really.screwed.up. It was on ABC.

[hsmamainva]

I've heard that, too. I think Juror #3 has come forward and said that they were literally sick, knowing that they had to pronounce her not guilty and that many of them were crying, but that they had no other choice because of the way the indictments were phrased and the charges put to them by the prosecution.

 

What a mess.

[sheryl]

We're on vacation in KY right now. This is such sour news. She was guilty and of course the judicial system seems to protect the guilty and not the innocent. Remember OJ?

 

How very sad.

[Mary in VA]

Don't know if a thread has been started already on this, but I saw the juror's interview last night. I actually came away from it thinking the woman made some excellent points, had tried hard to come to a legal decision, and that the prosecution really.screwed.up. It was on ABC.

 

I don't think the prosecution screwed it up at all. (Full disclosure - I prosecuted cases in the military - so I'm prosecution biased) The facts are what the facts are - nobody saw Caylee after she left with Casey that day in June and she shows up dead six months later so decomposed that cause of death in indeterminable. So the only element of the crime that isn't circumstantial is that she is dead. The rest - Casey's lying, partying, duct tape from Anthony's house, and smell of death in her car seem to me to indicate guilt, but the jury found differently. The prosecution was dealt a difficult case and I think did the best they could with what they had. People have been convicted on a lot less.

 

Mary

[Scarlett]

At least Judge Perry gave her the maximum....she might be out soon anyway, but he gave her the max. And he said Caylee. Marie. Anthony. obviously stating the victims name about 3 or 4 times.

[Scarlett]

The circumstantial evidence was flimsy.

 

I rarely disagree with you, but, hey first time for everything! :)

 

I think the circumstantial evidence was more than enough to convict...it added up to murder by no one other than Casey.

[Scarlett]

She gets out next Wednesday.

 

I was pleased to hear Judge Perry's obvious disapproval of her.

[hsmamainva]

She gets out next Wednesday.

 

I was pleased to hear Judge Perry's obvious disapproval of her.

 

Same here! And he said Caylee's name several times during the sentencing.

 

Methinks he disagrees with the verdict the jury handed down.

[BamaTanya]

I considered they were happy about "winning" but still they would all have to be cold and heartless. The women were crying and smiling.

 

I don't get it, either. Think they would ask her to babysit their children? <<shudder>>

[sunflowerlady]

She gets out next Wednesday??? I wonder where she will go. Not sure her parents will welcome her. Where will she be able to go freely around Orlando?

[pdalley]

I rarely disagree with you, but, hey first time for everything! :)

 

I think the circumstantial evidence was more than enough to convict...it added up to murder by no one other than Casey.

 

And it at the very least required more than a mere 11 hours of deliberation. That's what bugs me the most. All those charges. Only 11 hours.

 

I really don't understand the jurors claiming no one proved Caylee was murdered.

 

They found her with a duct taped mouth and thrown into a wooded area in a garbage bag. Do they really think she wandered off and got lost and put the duct tape on herself? I mean, really...

[hsmamainva]

She gets out next Wednesday??? I wonder where she will go. Not sure her parents will welcome her. Where will she be able to go freely around Orlando?

 

No idea. She can't leave the state of Florida without permission of the court, but I don't think she'll go home. Her parents were smiling in court today and commenting on how pretty she looked so who knows what they're thinking? :glare:

[TheAutumnOak]

I rarely disagree with you, but, hey first time for everything! :)

 

I think the circumstantial evidence was more than enough to convict...it added up to murder by no one other than Casey.

 

:iagree:

[Scarlett]

:iagree:

 

I have gone from being irritated by the jury to feeling sorry for them. They honestly believed there was not enough evidence to convict her even though they believed she did it! The one juror I saw interviewed said no one could prove how she died so how could Casey be punished? Hello!!!! They might not could have proved by what MEANS, but it was definitely proven that Caylee was MURDERED. It defies logic to think an accidental death would be covered up and/or tried to look like murder.

[Mrs Mungo]

And it at the very least required more than a mere 11 hours of deliberation. That's what bugs me the most. All those charges. Only 11 hours.

 

I really don't understand the jurors claiming no one proved Caylee was murdered.

 

They found her with a duct taped mouth and thrown into a wooded area in a garbage bag. Do they really think she wandered off and got lost and put the duct tape on herself? I mean, really...

 

Did you see this?

Ford told "GMA" she thought Casey Anthony's claim that her toddler daughter accidentally drowned and she lied for three years was more believable than the evidence the prosecution presented.

"It's easier to get to a conclusion that it was an accident than to get to the conclusion that it was chloroform and duct tape, for me," Ford said of the charges laid out by the prosecution that Anthony used chloroform to smother Caylee, then put her in the trunk of her car without anyone seeing her.

"They had strong circumstantial evidence, but they just needed something solid," Ford said of the prosecution.

 

 

:confused: I honestly don't get it. It's easier to believe that someone would take the a child who drowned, duct tape the child, put the child in a garbage bag, put her in the trunk of the car, borrow the neighbor's shovel and eventually leave her in the woods? I truly don't understand how that is the easier conclusion. Especially when the only supposed "witness" (who supposedly helped in all of this cover-up) vehemently denies any of that happened.

[Scarlett]

Did you see this?

 

 

 

:confused: I honestly don't get it. It's easier to believe that someone would take the a child who drowned, duct tape the child, put the child in a garbage bag, put her in the trunk of the car, borrow the neighbor's shovel and eventually leave her in the woods? I truly don't understand how that is the easier conclusion. Especially when the only supposed "witness" (who supposedly helped in all of this cover-up) vehemently denies any of that happened.

 

So crazy. What kind of world do these people live in where 2 year olds die by accident but end up inside a trash bag, dumped in a swamp with duct tape on their mouth. Oh and then their mother lies about it for 3 years.

 

Common sense was missing in that jury room.

[BamaTanya]

Did you see this?

 

 

 

:confused: I honestly don't get it. It's easier to believe that someone would take the a child who drowned, duct tape the child, put the child in a garbage bag, put her in the trunk of the car, borrow the neighbor's shovel and eventually leave her in the woods? I truly don't understand how that is the easier conclusion. Especially when the only supposed "witness" (who supposedly helped in all of this cover-up) vehemently denies any of that happened.

 

AND they believe that "witness" participated in a six month search for his precious granddaughter's body AND that he allowed his daughter to sit in jail for murder charges for THREE years when he "knew" it was an accident????

 

:banghead:

 

None of the defense's case was believable. Which means she lied. Which means she was covering up a murder.

[Scarlett]

As much as I disagree with the verdict I am shocked at the threats being made toward the jurors! Seriously people...leave them alone.

 

As obsessive as I feel at times, I can promise you I would not be picketing the courthouse steps!

[Jennifer3141]

As much as I disagree with the verdict I am shocked at the threats being made toward the jurors! Seriously people...leave them alone.

 

As obsessive as I feel at times, I can promise you I would not be picketing the courthouse steps!

 

 

I saw an interview or read an article from someone who won the lottery and was able to be in the courthouse for the verdict. Not family. Not a friend. Just a random guy who stayed in line for HOURS to be able to see the trial right there.

 

He said when the verdict was read, he screamed and jumped up and down and had to exit to the court where court officers then had to ask him to to be quiet.

 

I watched that and thought, "Whacko!" I think this verdict was a true travesty of justice but I don't think I'd have what amounted to a public tantrum over it. It's a courtroom. You cannot act like that in court. I wonder if this guy is one of the ones threatening jurors??

 

And we cannot allow that as a society. It's really distressing to hear that. It would be kind of hard for justice to prevail for anyone without jurors and who would want to be a juror if they thought their life or even more terrifying, their family's lives were in jeopardy????

[Scarlett]

I saw an interview or read an article from someone who won the lottery and was able to be in the courthouse for the verdict. Not family. Not a friend. Just a random guy who stayed in line for HOURS to be able to see the trial right there.

 

He said when the verdict was read, he screamed and jumped up and down and had to exit to the court where court officers then had to ask him to to be quiet.

 

I watched that and thought, "Whacko!" I think this verdict was a true travesty of justice but I don't think I'd have what amounted to a public tantrum over it. It's a courtroom. You cannot act like that in court. I wonder if this guy is one of the ones threatening jurors??

 

And we cannot allow that as a society. It's really distressing to hear that. It would be kind of hard for justice to prevail for anyone without jurors and who would want to be a juror if they thought their life or even more terrifying, their family's lives were in jeopardy????

 

I heard tonight in passing that one of the jurors said he/she would go to jail before serving on another jury like this.

[FaithManor]

I heard tonight in passing that one of the jurors said he/she would go to jail before serving on another jury like this.

 

 

Scarlett, this brings up a valid point. These kinds of cases with the media circus are practically abusive to the innocent jurors that just happened to have the bad luck to be called to a high profile case instead of county court where the landscape developer and the elderly woman are fighting over who killed her prize rose bush.

 

The OJ Simpson jurors were sequestered for months and it wears on them. Some juries are not allowed to go home, speak to their family, eat with their family, etc. They are kept in hotels under guard, escorted everywhere they go, their every move watched. They may as well be in prison themselves!

 

Even my mom's federal jury case, in which jurors could go home each evening having been admonished to NOT talk about the case, had two jurors that were badly affected by being called to jury duty. These two individuals were from the upper penninsula. The federal court district they were called to was in Bay City, MI. If you look at the map, just from the Mackinaw Bridge which connects the two penninsulas, it is a 200 + mile drive. These men were from Marquette which is 6-7 hrs. one way depending on driving conditions. So, they couldn't go home. The case lasted two weeks and they were sequestered in a hotel in Bay City. One was an independent contractor which means he didn't earn any money for two weeks and the other had been applying for a new position which he lost out on for not being able to make an interview and this set him back financially. Though this was not high profile for the national media, it was for the local media, so the courthouse had to order lunch in for the jury because they couldn't be safely taken to a restaurant for the onslaught of journalists from three news stations and five newspapers. Crazy!

 

I think we need to take a serious look at how the jury process in modern America and long, drawn out, high profile cases, affects the innocent juror called to these trials. We may end up with the tax payers needing to pay for counseling for the jurors who have to endure this three-ring circus that ends with an uncivilized primates making death threats! I am not certain that allowing live coverage of these cases is wise and I'm a huge supporter of freedom of the press. But, I think that we also need to consider the constitutional rights of the jury to not be on display to the public while going through this and certainly their safety must be paramount.

 

Faith

[Scarlett]

Scarlett, this brings up a valid point. These kinds of cases with the media circus are practically abusive to the innocent jurors that just happened to have the bad luck to be called to a high profile case instead of county court where the landscape developer and the elderly woman are fighting over who killed her prize rose bush.

 

The OJ Simpson jurors were sequestered for months and it wears on them. Some juries are not allowed to go home, speak to their family, eat with their family, etc. They are kept in hotels under guard, escorted everywhere they go, their every move watched. They may as well be in prison themselves!

 

Even my mom's federal jury case, in which jurors could go home each evening having been admonished to NOT talk about the case, had two jurors that were badly affected by being called to jury duty. These two individuals were from the upper penninsula. The federal court district they were called to was in Bay City, MI. If you look at the map, just from the Mackinaw Bridge which connects the two penninsulas, it is a 200 + mile drive. These men were from Marquette which is 6-7 hrs. one way depending on driving conditions. So, they couldn't go home. The case lasted two weeks and they were sequestered in a hotel in Bay City. One was an independent contractor which means he didn't earn any money for two weeks and the other had been applying for a new position which he lost out on for not being able to make an interview and this set him back financially. Though this was not high profile for the national media, it was for the local media, so the courthouse had to order lunch in for the jury because they couldn't be safely taken to a restaurant for the onslaught of journalists from three news stations and five newspapers. Crazy!

 

I think we need to take a serious look at how the jury process in modern America and long, drawn out, high profile cases, affects the innocent juror called to these trials. We may end up with the tax payers needing to pay for counseling for the jurors who have to endure this three-ring circus that ends with an uncivilized primates making death threats! I am not certain that allowing live coverage of these cases is wise and I'm a huge supporter of freedom of the press. But, I think that we also need to consider the constitutional rights of the jury to not be on display to the public while going through this and certainly their safety must be paramount.

 

Faith

 

I know. It is crazy! I don't know how much more of these high profile trials the country can take. I like the accountability of the media having access, but I do wonder if she might have been convicted if the case had been more low profile.

[unsinkable]

Casey will be released under cover of darkness on a day the media won't expect it. All the talk of release dates is smoke and mirrors, IMO.

 

There were comments about vigilante justice on this board (of all places!). Casey's safety is uncertain.

[Jaimie]

She got away with murder, IMHO, BUT I really feel like no matter what her next move is, Casey will never have a satisfying fulfilled life. She'll soon find that the only people who want to associate with her will be gold-digging/fame-seeking types. Her only hope at ever getting a sympathetic following honestly is to really in a heartfelt act give her life to Jesus. That is the only ticket for redemption for her.

 

 

"For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil." - Ecclesiastes 12:14

[unsinkable]

She got away with murder, IMHO, BUT I really feel like no matter what her next move is, Casey will never have a satisfying fulfilled life. She'll soon find that the only people who want to associate with her will be gold-digging/fame-seeking types. Her only hope at ever getting a sympathetic following honestly is to really in a heartfelt act give her life to Jesus. That is the only ticket for redemption for her.

 

 

"For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil." - Ecclesiastes 12:14

 

She could become a cloistered nun and the people that want her dead would still want her dead.

[Slartibartfast]

I am surprised not even one person voted guilty.

 

A hung jury would have resulted in a mistrial, not her completely walking free.

[Slartibartfast]

She got away with murder, IMHO, BUT I really feel like no matter what her next move is, Casey will never have a satisfying fulfilled life. She'll soon find that the only people who want to associate with her will be gold-digging/fame-seeking types. Her only hope at ever getting a sympathetic following honestly is to really in a heartfelt act give her life to Jesus. That is the only ticket for redemption for her.

 

 

"For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil." - Ecclesiastes 12:14

 

I wouldn't actually care if she said she gave her life to Jesus at some point. Lots of Christians do evil deeds, lots of non-Christians do great ones.

 

I don't wish anyone dead but I am filled with horror.