# Casey Anthony acquitted of killing daughter



## OKLAHOMAN (Jul 5, 2011)

Of course none of us sat on the jury so lets not judge them, it seems the prosecution really did not prove their case.


----------



## terryf (Jul 5, 2011)

the worst part is that there was probably compelling evidence but was hidden amongst all the lies and deceit. Scary that you can actually get away with murder!

The story reads like a Murder She Wrote TV drama!!!


----------



## sbell111 (Jul 5, 2011)

Rule #1:  If your case isn't an absolute slam dunk, work a little harder at making yourself likable.


----------



## bitshird (Jul 5, 2011)

This is a sad day for American Justice, but now at least she can "live the good life"


----------



## renowb (Jul 5, 2011)

Who killed her?


----------



## Akula (Jul 5, 2011)

Very sad but not unexpected.  The State failed on just about everything.  We don't go on feelings in the courtroom, still need facts at the end of the day.  I would have hated being on the jury.  That might be played in their minds the rest of their lives.

No guilty does not mean innocent.


----------



## vallealbert (Jul 5, 2011)

Not guilty does not mean innocent...she has all the life to deal with that... God have mercy!!!


----------



## leestoresund (Jul 5, 2011)

AHA! That's the whole point.
The evidence showed that she was killed but not who did it. But it also did not even prove HOW she was killed.
If it WAS Casey, the State did a horrible job of preparation.
From the bits and pieces I saw over the last 3 years the investigation was a clusterf**k from the very beginning.
If the government can't properly do its job she deserved to be acquitted.

Just the viewpoint of a criminal defense lawyer.


Lee


----------



## Smitty37 (Jul 5, 2011)

*Under our system - it does.*



vallealbert said:


> Not guilty does not mean innocent...she has all the life to deal with that... God have mercy!!!


 
Under our system of justice...not guilty does in fact mean innocent. 


2nd definition of the word innocent --- 
Not guilty of a specific crime or offense; legally blameless: _[SIZE=+0]was innocent of all charges.[/SIZE]_
Our system has only 2 possibilities that the jury can agree on - Guilty or Not Guilty. There is no "maybe" or "not proven" or anything else.

I didn't pay enough attention to the case to have formed an opinion, since she at minimum hid the body and covered up the death I would probably have leaned toward thinking she had something to hide. But evidently the prosecutors didn't satisfy the jury that she did.


----------



## wolftat (Jul 5, 2011)

She can go and hang out with OJ....ooops, forgot, he got busted for something else and is doing time.


----------



## penhead (Jul 5, 2011)

Umm, don't agree with you on that one..

Not guilty is a verdict in a criminal trial by by a jury after finding that the prosecution has not proved the defendant guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt or that it believes the accused person was insane at the time the crime was committed.

Key words here are 'proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I could be wrong, but I believe OJ Simpson was also found 'not guilty', instead of innocent of his accused crime...and he was then taken to civil court.

JMHO...





Smitty37 said:


> vallealbert said:
> 
> 
> > Not guilty does not mean innocent...she has all the life to deal with that... God have mercy!!!
> ...


----------



## THarvey (Jul 5, 2011)

Juries must decide on the evidence.  I listened to the closing arguments.  I could not have voted to convict, based on the evidence presented.  The tape of the phone call, played by the prosecution in closing, sounded more like the family was refusing to even give Casey a simple phone number.

The prosecutors did not even prove that Cayley was _killed_.  They only showed evidence that she was _dead_.

Casey's attorneys did not have a responsibility to prove or disprove anything.  The burden of proof was solely on the prosecution.

Noone wins in this case.  No matter what the outcome of the trial, this family has been destroyed.


----------



## THarvey (Jul 5, 2011)

A jury cannot declare anyone innocent.  There is no evidence presented to attempt to prove innocense.  There is only an attempt to prove guilt.  The jury basicaly vote "yes" or "no" on the evidence supporting proof of guilt.





penhead said:


> Umm, don't agree with you on that one..
> 
> Not guilty is a verdict in a criminal trial by by a jury after finding that the prosecution has not proved the defendant guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt or that it believes the accused person was insane at the time the crime was committed.
> 
> ...


----------



## ctubbs (Jul 5, 2011)

Ken, I'll bet you remember a similar case between where you live and here several years back, where a woman in Obion County TN "lost"  her very young daughter, then she was sold for drugs, then she was thrown into one of the Obion swamps, none of which were ever proved.  Later she had a 12 year old son she tried to kill in a graveyard in Graves County, KY.  For that one she was finally sent up as the boy survived and was proof of the deed.  Yes, justice is not always swift or equal, but as my late wife liked to say, "God doesn't like ugly."  Over the years I have found much truth in those four little words.  If she is truly guilty, It will come around, one way or the other.  My $0.02 today.


----------



## PenMan1 (Jul 5, 2011)

The only concrete evidence presented in this case was that Caylee Anthony IS dead and Casey Anthony lied to police.

The evidence did not even concretely prove that a murder occured. Do I THINK that Casey killed her child? YES! Did the State prove that there was a murder? NO. Did the 
State prove that Casey killed her? NO.

In light of the evidence presented, I'm surprised that the judge did not grant the motion for aquittal at the end of the State's case. IMHO, this case should never have gone to the jury. 

Based of the evidence presented, I think the jury got this one exactly right.


----------



## Longfellow (Jul 5, 2011)

I live in the Orlando area and for 3 years this has been a media circus. It riled  up every whacko and lunatic within 100 miles if not more.  The State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And the childish 13 year old 8th grader actions of Jeff Ashton, lead prosecutor, in the courtroom doomed any hopes the state had of a conviction. Casey's mother will probably spend a good long time in prison for perjury. Ashton faces sanctions by the court for his actions. Now all parties can make millions on TV, books, movies, and all the Surermarket Rag papers. But life goes on for everyone but Caylee Marie Anthony.


----------



## THarvey (Jul 5, 2011)

If I were the prosecuter, I would have to pour back over these transcripts.  
Might even quietly open an investigation on Casey's father.

Do I think Casey had something to do with Caylee's death?  YES.  I don't think she is smart enough to do it alone.  She had to have help.  

My opinion: She knew Caylee was dead.  She did not know where the body was.

The prosecution did not support their charges against Casey.  They rushed this to trial without gathering (or at least did not present) the appropriate evidence.


----------



## G1Pens (Jul 5, 2011)

I would have not wanted to be on that jury. Based on what I know, which is very little, I don't know that I could have voted to convict her. However, she is guilty of something and a lot more than lying to the authorities. She knew/knows more that she is admitting to. It's something she and possibly her family now have to live with for the rest of their lives. In the end a little girl never got to grow up, the rest is really irrelevant. It's all very sad.


----------



## OKLAHOMAN (Jul 5, 2011)

Longfellow said:


> I live in the Orlando area and for 3 years this has been a media circus. It riled up every whacko and lunatic within 100 miles if not more. The State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And the childish 13 year old 8th grader actions of Jeff Ashton, lead prosecutor, in the courtroom doomed any hopes the state had of a conviction. *Casey's mother will probably spend a good long time in prison* *for perjury.* Ashton faces sanctions by the court for his actions. Now all parties can make millions on TV, books, movies, and all the Surermarket Rag papers. But life goes on for everyone but Caylee Marie Anthony.


 She was only convicted of 4 counts of lying and each count has a max penalty of one year, she has served 3 years in jail awaiting trial, the judge can set her free for time served and it would not suprise me.


----------



## Smitty37 (Jul 5, 2011)

*civil case*



penhead said:


> Umm, don't agree with you on that one..
> 
> Not guilty is a verdict in a criminal trial by by a jury after finding that the prosecution has not proved the defendant guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt or that it believes the accused person was insane at the time the crime was committed.
> 
> ...


 
OJ Simpson was not tried in civil court by the state for murder he was sued by a father for wrongful death. That lawsuit (like most other civil lawsuits) can be filed (in some jurisdictions) regardless of the criminal verdict in any case. It aledges that even if it was not murder the defendant wrongfully caused the death. 

He was and is as far as our legal system is concerned innocent of murder, and can not even be charged again for the same crime.

Criminal verdicts (when a verdict is reached) can only be Guilty or Not Guilty. Not Guilty by reason of insanity is still Not Guilty. 

The standard for reaching a verdict of Guilty is that the State has proved Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. An accused in our system is entitled to the presumption of innocence *UNTIL* proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, a not guilty means innocent.


----------



## sbell111 (Jul 5, 2011)

OKLAHOMAN said:


> Longfellow said:
> 
> 
> > I live in the Orlando area and for 3 years this has been a media circus. It riled up every whacko and lunatic within 100 miles if not more. The State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And the childish 13 year old 8th grader actions of Jeff Ashton, lead prosecutor, in the courtroom doomed any hopes the state had of a conviction. *Casey's mother will probably spend a good long time in prison* *for perjury.* Ashton faces sanctions by the court for his actions. Now all parties can make millions on TV, books, movies, and all the Surermarket Rag papers. But life goes on for everyone but Caylee Marie Anthony.
> ...


Casey's mother is Cindy.  I doubt that any charges will be filed against her.


----------



## sbell111 (Jul 5, 2011)

Smitty37 said:


> The standard for reaching a verdict of Guilty is that the State has proved Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. An accused in our system is entitled to the presumption of innocence *UNTIL* proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, a not guilty means innocent.


That doesn't logically follow.

Imagine that I kill someone.  I plan it out carefully and cover my tracks very well.  Gary Sinise can't find a bit of evidence against me.  I have motive, means, and opportunity, so I get arrested.  My lawyers shred the prosecuter's case.

Am I innocent?  Of course not.  I killed someone.  I was found not guilty, but I'm sure not innocent.


----------



## PenMan1 (Jul 5, 2011)

OKLAHOMAN said:


> Longfellow said:
> 
> 
> > I live in the Orlando area and for 3 years this has been a media circus. It riled up every whacko and lunatic within 100 miles if not more. The State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And the childish 13 year old 8th grader actions of Jeff Ashton, lead prosecutor, in the courtroom doomed any hopes the state had of a conviction. *Casey's mother will probably spend a good long time in prison* *for perjury.* Ashton faces sanctions by the court for his actions. Now all parties can make millions on TV, books, movies, and all the Surermarket Rag papers. But life goes on for everyone but Caylee Marie Anthony.
> ...



Roy:
I think he is talking about Cindy Anthony (Casey's mother). It wouldn't surprise me if they do put her on trial. The State DID prove that she lied under oath.


----------



## rkimery (Jul 5, 2011)

bitshird said:


> This is a sad day for American Justice, but now at least she can "live the good life"


 
Bet there's a book or a movie in her future about this!


----------



## OKLAHOMAN (Jul 5, 2011)

PenMan1 said:


> OKLAHOMAN said:
> 
> 
> > Longfellow said:
> ...


----------



## bitshird (Jul 5, 2011)

sbell111 said:


> Smitty37 said:
> 
> 
> > The standard for reaching a verdict of Guilty is that the State has proved Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. An accused in our system is entitled to the presumption of innocence *UNTIL* proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, a not guilty means innocent.
> ...



Steve, you unfortunately are "Innocent in the eyes of the law",    But isn't Justice supposed to be blind?? With idiots like the prosecutor in the Anthony case and the circus in the OJ trial. I guess Lady Justice poked her own eyes out!!


----------



## Smitty37 (Jul 5, 2011)

*By definition....*



sbell111 said:


> Smitty37 said:
> 
> 
> > The standard for reaching a verdict of Guilty is that the State has proved Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. An accused in our system is entitled to the presumption of innocence *UNTIL* proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, a not guilty means innocent.
> ...


 
We are getting into two different meanings of innocent.  

adj. innocent - not guilty of a specific crime or offense.  In your example you have been found by a jury of your peers to be that.

adj. innocent - doing or thinking nothing morally wrong: pure.  In your example you are not that.

So you are both innocent and not innocent.


----------



## sbell111 (Jul 6, 2011)

Smitty37 said:


> So you are both innocent and not innocent.


I knew a girl like that once.  Good times.


----------



## snyiper (Jul 6, 2011)

If we indeed are innocent in the eyes of the law untill proven guilty why did she wait in jail for 3 years? That does not sound like  innocent untill proven guilty. That sounds like"we think you are guilty and now all we have to do is prove it" to me.


----------



## azamiryou (Jul 6, 2011)

Gut feeling #1: She did it.
Gut feeling #2: I am damn proud to live in a country where gut feelings are not sufficient to convict someone of a crime.


----------



## renowb (Jul 6, 2011)

What happened to circumstantial evidence? Isn't that what was used way before DNA?


----------



## Smitty37 (Jul 6, 2011)

snyiper said:


> If we indeed are innocent in the eyes of the law untill proven guilty why did she wait in jail for 3 years? That does not sound like innocent untill proven guilty. That sounds like"we think you are guilty and now all we have to do is prove it" to me.


 
Our system does allow, under some circumstances, people to be held in jail waiting and during trial.  


Waiting trial for 3 years does not sound like the "speedy trial" promised by the constitution either.


----------



## Smitty37 (Jul 6, 2011)

*yes*



renowb said:


> What happened to circumstantial evidence? Isn't that what was used way before DNA?


 All most all evidence is circumstantial including DNA.


----------



## roddesigner (Jul 6, 2011)

One big difference between the two cases, when OJ was found not guilty the state CLOSED the case inferring that nothing further would be done with investigating other possible suspects.
At the press conference nothing was mentioned about closing the Anthony case.


----------



## Russianwolf (Jul 6, 2011)

The true failure here was at the Grand Jury level. There is no way that the Prosecution should have been able to get an indictment with no real evidence. 

The Grand Jury's job is to make sure that the Court's time and money isn't wasted. When I served duty in DC we had a prosecutor that came in with a great story. But that's all he really had was a story. We told him to come back when he had evidence.


----------



## roddesigner (Jul 6, 2011)

Sorry but in most states the Grand Jury is a star chamber, with only the prosecutor presenting evidence, virtually no defense attorney would allow his client to even be present, a half decent attorney can convince a grand jury that the dog committed the crime


----------



## Russianwolf (Jul 6, 2011)

roddesigner said:


> Sorry but in most states the Grand Jury is a star chamber, with only the prosecutor presenting evidence, virtually no defense attorney would allow his client to even be present, a half decent attorney can convince a grand jury that the dog committed the crime



A Grand Jury isn't a trial jury. It is simply a jury where the prosecution presents their case and the jury decides if it moves forwards to trial or if the prosecution needs to do more work. The defendant is not present nor are they effected in any way by the findings in a Grand Jury. Its all about finding if the prosecution is ready for a trial.


----------



## OKLAHOMAN (Jul 6, 2011)

Well seems that starting this thread the gods are trying to get me to understant the justics system better. In todays mail I got a notice to apperar on Monday the 11th for jury duty. Its been over 40 years the last time I servered on a jury.


----------



## Smitty37 (Jul 6, 2011)

*ham sandwich*



roddesigner said:


> Sorry but in most states the Grand Jury is a star chamber, with only the prosecutor presenting evidence, virtually no defense attorney would allow his client to even be present, a half decent attorney can convince a grand jury that the dog committed the crime


Wachtler, (Sol Wachtler former chief justice of the NY State court of appeals in a 1985 interview with the NY Daily News) who became the state's top judge earlier this month, said *district attorneys now have so much influence on grand juries that "by and large"* *they could get them to "indict a ham sandwich."*


----------



## Smitty37 (Jul 6, 2011)

OKLAHOMAN said:


> Well seems that starting this thread the gods are trying to get me to understant the justics system better. In todays mail I got a notice to apperar on Monday the 11th for jury duty. Its been over 40 years the last time I servered on a jury.


Serves you right, Roy.


----------



## Russianwolf (Jul 6, 2011)

Smitty37 said:


> roddesigner said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry but in most states the Grand Jury is a star chamber, with only the prosecutor presenting evidence, virtually no defense attorney would allow his client to even be present, a half decent attorney can convince a grand jury that the dog committed the crime
> ...



And if we don't see that as a failure, then that is the problem.


----------



## bitshird (Jul 6, 2011)

I believe we need more justice and less Law, Given the shoddy work of the prosecutor and the impassioned Mr Baez it's not much wonder we have jails and prisons filled to overflowing capacity with minor drug violations, yet with enough good press and stupid pet tricks in court, murderers get off. How ever I think it far better that 5 guilty walk rather than one wrongful conviction. particularly in a Capital murder case, even if it were scum like OJ and this last unspeakable woman, at the very least she should be shunned by civilization, perhaps put out in the desert, (at least she couldn't drown)


----------



## joefyffe (Jul 6, 2011)

Roy:  I think you are reading the judges mind.  I fully expect her to walk.  After 29 years in Law Enforcement, retiring as lead "street level" crime scene investigator for the Indianapolis police department in 1998, I could tell you some things about prosecution or *THE LACK OF *



OKLAHOMAN said:


> Longfellow said:
> 
> 
> > I live in the Orlando area and for 3 years this has been a media circus. It riled up every whacko and lunatic within 100 miles if not more. The State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And the childish 13 year old 8th grader actions of Jeff Ashton, lead prosecutor, in the courtroom doomed any hopes the state had of a conviction. *Casey's mother will probably spend a good long time in prison* *for perjury.* Ashton faces sanctions by the court for his actions. Now all parties can make millions on TV, books, movies, and all the Surermarket Rag papers. But life goes on for everyone but Caylee Marie Anthony.
> ...


----------



## renowb (Jul 6, 2011)

:foot-in-mouth: LOL! 



OKLAHOMAN said:


> Well seems that starting this thread the gods are trying to get me to understant the justics system better. In todays mail I got a notice to apperar on Monday the 11th for jury duty. Its been over 40 years the last time I servered on a jury.


----------



## IPD_Mrs (Jul 6, 2011)

I have to agree with you on this one.  Not Guilty doesn't *equal* Innocent, though is a better way of putting it.  At the start of sitting on a jury and again at the end, jurors are given specific instructions as to what is expected of them.  
While MANY of us don't like the verdict - it was absolutely the *correct* verdict (which btw doesn't equal accurate.)  Based on the laws of our great nation, regardless of whether or not Casey Anthony killed her daughter or not, the prosecution HAS to prove that as FACT beyond any REASONABLE DOUBT.  The prosecutor did not do that, hell he wasn't even nice enough to get a sympathy vote in my book.  Having doubt that someone committed a crime is not the same as believing they are innocent - Regardless of a dictionary definition (no offense Smitty - I've had this same conversation with others).   INSANE is also a LEGAL definition - but if you go to a psychiatrist, therapist or other person allowed to diagnosis individuals with mental illness you would note that it is NOT a medical diagnosis.  Still, many people are found not guilty of crimes due to a statement that they are insane.  
HOWEVER, our justice system doesn't legally allow jurors to make a verdict based on emotion, "maybe's," reporter hype or pure gut instinct.  I have to say *Thank God for that!    *If jurist were allowed to make decisions based on those factors there would be a LOT of innocent people in jail and our FREEDOM would really be nothing more than spit on a sidewalk.
Having sat on a jury one time, I can tell you how HARD it is to come back with a not guilty verdict when someone is facing a life changing situation (even harder though to say guilty if the case isn't proven) . . . 

_*Mrs.*_






penhead said:


> Umm, don't agree with you on that one..
> 
> Not guilty is a verdict in a criminal trial by by a jury after finding that the prosecution has not proved the defendant guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt or that it believes the accused person was insane at the time the crime was committed.
> 
> ...


----------



## Smitty37 (Jul 6, 2011)

The definition I gave for innocent - is a standard dictionary definition, not a legal one.  A jury (in most jurisdictions) does not get a choice to vote "innocent"   A jury can choose only between Guilty and Not Guilty. 

A Jury can can choose between Guilty and  Not Guilty by reason of insanity in some trials (I think only if the defense has pled that) usually where the fact of "who done it" are stipulated and the trial is really about "why" they did it.

Not being present during the jury's deliberations in this case I am not convinced that I can make any determination of what they believed.  I (and society in general) can only go by what they said.  Society (at least in the organized or legal sense) must treat her as being innocent.  Regardless of personal opinion.

I personally think that if she were actually guilty of murder, with 3 years to prepare a case the police and prosecutor should have been able to get enough evidence for a conviction.  That they did not present sufficient evidence to convince a jury might mean the prosecutor and/or the police did a poor job, that she is exceptionally clever or that the evidence wasn't collected because it didn't exist and she didn't do it.

I know I have seen cases on American Justice where it seemed there was much less to go on and still the police were able to get enough forensic evidence to get a conviction.  But the evidence was really there.


----------



## btboone (Jul 6, 2011)

You would think that there would at least be a child endangerment charge.  Going 30 days without ever filing a report that she was missing!? (And partying like there's no tomorrow.)  The parents actually had to report it.  Isn't that a bit reckless deserving of some time behind bars?


----------



## MesquiteMan (Jul 6, 2011)

IPD_Mrs said:


> I have to agree with you on this one.  Not Guilty doesn't *equal* Innocent, though is a better way of putting it.  At the start of sitting on a jury and again at the end, jurors are given specific instructions as to what is expected of them.
> While MANY of us don't like the verdict - it was absolutely the *correct* verdict (which btw doesn't equal accurate.)  Based on the laws of our great nation, regardless of whether or not Casey Anthony killed her daughter or not, the prosecution HAS to prove that as FACT beyond any REASONABLE DOUBT.  The prosecutor did not do that, hell he wasn't even nice enough to get a sympathy vote in my book.  Having doubt that someone committed a crime is not the same as believing they are innocent - Regardless of a dictionary definition (no offense Smitty - I've had this same conversation with others).   INSANE is also a LEGAL definition - but if you go to a psychiatrist, therapist or other person allowed to diagnosis individuals with mental illness you would note that it is NOT a medical diagnosis.  Still, many people are found not guilty of crimes due to a statement that they are insane.
> HOWEVER, our justice system doesn't legally allow jurors to make a verdict based on emotion, "maybe's," reporter hype or pure gut instinct.  I have to say *Thank God for that!    *If jurist were allowed to make decisions based on those factors there would be a LOT of innocent people in jail and our FREEDOM would really be nothing more than spit on a sidewalk.
> Having sat on a jury one time, I can tell you how HARD it is to come back with a not guilty verdict when someone is facing a life changing situation (even harder though to say guilty if the case isn't proven) . . .
> ...



I could not have said it better, Linda.  My sentiments exactly.


----------

