Pam L in Mid Tenn Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 no words Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravelingChris Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 a total travesty of justice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in WI Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Shock and disbelief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TammyinTN Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I just can not believe the outcome.:001_huh::confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim in Appalachia Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 not guilty? Wow. I'm truly shocked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcconnellboys Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 While I had hoped that the jury would exercise better discretion that the folks I've been overhearing out and about the last few weeks, I guess the world has gone mad. All the comments I had been hearing indicated that everyone did think of the Dad as the bad guy and totally bought into Baez's obfuscations.... Perhaps we need to bring logic training back into our schools.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakia Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I have words, but I'm not posting them here because I would probably be banned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatMomof3 Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 :001_huh: I am in total shock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enviromommy Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Jurors don't seem to understand the difference between "reasonable doubt" and "any microscopic crazy doubt the defendant's attorney has flung your way." The American system of justice depends on educated citizen jurors. We don't seem to have that anymore. I NEVER post to these kinds of threads, I NEVER get involved in "headline news" types of stories, but I feel sick at the idea of this psychopath celebrating that she has murdered her child and gotten off scott free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whereneverever Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Once Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 While I had hoped that the jury would exercise better discretion that the folks I've been overhearing out and about the last few weeks, I guess the world has gone mad. All the comments I had been hearing indicated that everyone did think of the Dad as the bad guy and totally bought into Baez's obfuscations.... Perhaps we need to bring logic training back into our schools.... I agree. This shows to me that the jury pool is seriuosly lacking in some basic reasoning. There was much to convict her of even if first degree was off the table because it was circumstantial. For all of them to agree that quickly indicates that they were not thinking clearly. It occurs to me that they found her guilt only of the things she said she was guilt off....they stopped reasoning after that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariannNOVA Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Jurors don't seem to understand the difference between "reasonable doubt" and "any microscopic crazy doubt the defendant's attorney has flung your way." The American system of justice depends on educated citizen jurors. We don't seem to have that anymore. I NEVER post to these kinds of threads, I NEVER get involved in "headline news" types of stories, but I feel sick at the idea of this psychopath celebrating that she has murdered her child and gotten off scott free. In red: same here. And, I agree with everything else enviromommy posted -- and what Nakia said. I am shocked -- unfortunately not surprised -- but shocked that there were no advocates for that little girl. It's sickening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcconnellboys Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 That's okay, I predict she'll be back in jail for another crime within 5 years. I just hope that she won't be killing anyone else to get there.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdalley Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Juror 14 (alternate) was quoted as saying the drowning theory that defense threw out made the most sense to the jury. :confused: If it had been an accident then why make it look like a murder? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sagesavannah Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Unbelievable!!:glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Someone is guilty in that house. How can that baby be wrapped in a pooh blankie, tape from the house and to top it off the laundry bag that matches it pair from their home. Accident or not someone is responsible. And on another note, since she alienated her parents, where will this girl live now?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jewish Mama of 4 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Being on a jury is one of the most important jobs that we can do as Americans... so many people think of every excuse in the book to NOT serve then they b**ch and moan about those that do.... A juror can only decide on the information they are given. RIP Baby Caylee :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 It is difficult to prove a crime being done beyond a reasonable doubt when they don't even know the cause of death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdalley Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 It is difficult to prove a crime being done beyond a reasonable doubt when they don't even know the cause of death. Because all children are found with duct tape on their mouths? :confused: In a garbage bag? Thrown out in the woods? Many convictions have been won without a precise cause of death. At the very least she's guilty of child neglect. Losing your kid for 31 days. Being convicted of lying to the police but not guilty of the crime? Makes NO sense at all. She lied for a reason. If she wasn't guilty then why lie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) My theory is that Casey is a sociopath who was neglient or neglectful or abusive and one of these caused Caylee's death. Neglient -- let her play unsupervized and Caylee got into something and died accidentally (ie drown in the pool.) Neglectful -- Casey was hungover and passed out and Caylee got into something and died accidentally (ie drown in the pool.) Abusive -- Casey gave Caylee drugs to keep her quiet and sleep and Caylee died from the drugs. Now what does someone who is already a sociopath and accomplished liar do in this case? Tell the truth? No, of course not. She tried to make it look like Caylee was kidnapped from their home, that is why she used the duct tape. But there is also a part of her that responds like other mothers who hide their kids' bodies. She wrapped/swaddled Caylee and put her in water. Why was Casey partying, getting tatoos, etc? Because she is a sociopath. Her emotional response has never been that of a normal person. Or she compartmentalizes her emotions so much, she begins to believe her own lies (the baby was kidnapped and she has to act normal or her family will be hurt). That's my theory. ETA: My theory is separate from what I think of the trial and verdict. Edited July 6, 2011 by unsinkable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 The thing is, they can't prove it was Casey who put the duct tape on the mouth and dropped her off in the woods. It could have been Casey's dad. It could have been anyone, in theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie4b Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 It is difficult to prove a crime being done beyond a reasonable doubt when they don't even know the cause of death. Thank you. We are talking about finding legal guilt here, not moral culpability. If you look at the profiling of the jurors, they were tipped in a direction the prosecution would have liked. One juror even got on who said that he thought Anthony was guilty but that he could be impartial. There were people with advanced degrees on the jury. There were parents of little children on the jury. The job of the jurors isn't to say: duct tape on her mouth--the mother is lying; therefore the mother did it, whatever "it" is. "It" as it was offered to the jury was premeditated murder, second degree murder, aggravated child abuse, or aggravated manslaughter of a child. As a juror, one is not allowed to say, "Hey in my gut with my common sense, this is the most plausible explanation." A juror has to weigh whether the prosecution did or did not connect all the dots sufficiently so that you can arrive at a guilty verdict without a reasonable (not fantasy) doubt. The jurors didn't have the option to say, "She sure as heck did something: eenie, meenie, minie moe: which shall we choose?" The prosecution has to prove that the particular crime happened and that the particular person on trial committed the crime. Casey Anthony's lying and failure to report the crime to the police are morally reprehensible. I believe that she was either directly responsible for the child's death, whether accidental or not... OR that she knew who did and is covering for them. Do any of the charges reflect the second possibility? Not as I read them--except the charges of lying to the police. The aggravated manslaughter of a child comes closest, but one would not be guilty of that if one left the child with someone you had no reason to distrust and the child died. It's not the jury's fault if they were not presented with an option that reflected what was actually proven. They were not given the option to find her guilty of neglect (less complicated than aggravated manslaughter of a child because her neglect did not have to be proven to have caused the death of a child), something like accessory after the fact, etc. Either FL doesn't have statutes to cover this type of situation or the prosecution did not offer that as a choice. Not the jurors' fault. I really think it is morally wrong to castigate jurors as if one knows that they are stupid, morally reprehensible, etc. If that is what jurors can expect when they reach an unpopular verdict, why would we not expect people to be trying to get off jury duty in any controversial trial. When that becomes the norm, then yes, we get left with people "too stupid to get out of jury duty" to quote one prosecutor on a TV show. Public castigation of jury verdicts makes that more likely, not less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandsam Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Jurors don't seem to understand the difference between "reasonable doubt" and "any microscopic crazy doubt the defendant's attorney has flung your way." The American system of justice depends on educated citizen jurors. We don't seem to have that anymore. I NEVER post to these kinds of threads, I NEVER get involved in "headline news" types of stories, but I feel sick at the idea of this psychopath celebrating that she has murdered her child and gotten off scott free. :iagree: You mirror my thoughts exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovelaughs_times_three Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I am sick to my stomach. I think this is what the media was calling the CSI effect. We've seen scripted crime dramas so long that we really think the real trials have to mirror the kind of evidence and impulsive confessions we have seen SCRIPTED for our entertainment on TV! The judge said that they don't have to agree on how Casey did it to believe that it was proven that she did. Even if they felt that it was an accident with chloroform just to keep her quiet, that is still felony murder. I am in shock that they didn't find her at least guilty of 3rd degree murder or child abuse. I am frightened that she will be out and able to get pregnant again. The selfishness and lack of care she showed by partying and getting the "good life" tattoo just days after her daughter had died....it makes me so upset and sick. I am concerned too with what this means. If you kill your child, but hide the body long enough for it to decompose, that you will get away with it??? Where is the common sense?:confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bettyandbob Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 You weren't there on the jury. It's really hard to understand the decision making in a trial for a crime that has been sensationalized for some time. Someone very close to me served on a jury in a capital murder trial. A crime that made national headlines and took a few to take place. The person I know who served considered her jury service one of the most difficult things she has done in her life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariannNOVA Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) . Edited July 6, 2011 by MariannNOVA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.