Did Casey Anthony get

[John81]

I respectfully disagree. There was testimony that Caylee was last seen alive with Casey. She was in Casey's care alive and all of a sudden, Casey is alone and claiming the Nanny has Caylee. There was enough evidence to prove intent on Casey's behalf.

No one could have done the internet searches but Casey. Casey had access to the tape. One of Caylee's hairs with a death band was in the trunk of the car that Casey had in her possession.

There was more than enough evidence to convict Casey. The jury just did not want that responsibility.

Not according to the jury members who have spoken.

First of all, there is not a continuous timeline for when Caylee was and wasn't with Casey. The simple fact that at one point Caylee was with Casey and later wasn't does not prove murder.

The internet searches don't prove murder. As has been put forth by some who have studied this case, what was searched for on the internet could very well have been used if she had been pimping Caylee out to perverts.

Hair can get almost anywhere and alone does not prove murder. Also, Casey's car was not in her possession at all times.

As two jurors have now stated, the prosecution could not even prove how Caylee died so how can one say she died by means of premeditated murder?

Sure there is circumstantial evidence and Casey obviously lied about several things and lived a strange life before, during and after whatever happened, but that does not prove murder.

By the standards set forth in Scripture and by the standards of the law in Florida, the prosecution failed to prove murder.

It doesn't seem right to accuse the jury of not wanting to take responsibility for handing out a certain decision. One of the jurors clearly stated that they would have liked to have found that Casey was guilty but the evidence simply wasn't there. They knew their decision would be unpopular but decided to follow the law with regards to burden of proof rather than bow to peer pressure or emotions and render a verdict the evidence didn't support.

As the juror also stated, finding Casey not guilty does not mean they believe she is innocent; it only means the proof wasn't there for a guilty verdict.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

The jury was blind to the evidence that was set forth.

From what is coming out, they very well may have been corrupt.

For instance, Juror#3, the one who said there was no evidence, has a criminal record from last year for purchasing items at a store with bad checks... hmmm, how'd that get past the state anyhow?

Juror # 11 drug arrest history,

I'm sorry, but I still have to disagree with you.

And why do you say, "By the standards set forth in Scripture and by the standards of the law in Florida, the prosecution failed to prove murder. "? Exactly what standards are there in Scripture that show the prosecution failed to prove murder?

This ought to be good.

[no name joe]

IN our justice system, a person is innocent until proven guilty. A person must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I'd much rather let a guilty person go free than have our system convict a person who is truly innocent. The burden of conviction is so high to minimize the risk of convicting an innocent person. As a result, there are times that people go free when in fact they are guilty.

All the evidence submitted was merely circumstantial. Yes, it was very strong circumstantial evidence, but the evidence did not prove as to how the girl died. There are theories that are pointed to with the evidence, but nothing solid. There are doubts as to how she died.

I admire the jury for making a difficult decision, a right decision, to proclaim that she was not guilty because the evidence was not there. I am certain no one wanted her to go free, but the fact remains, the evidence was weak. Circumstantial evidence is not good enough to convict someone. There must be evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt a) how the person died; ) have physical evidence showing that the person on trial committed the murder; c) a weapon or devise used to commit the murder that is physically connected to the person (fingerprints, dna, clothing fibers, etc.), and d) a motive.

The evidence established a motive, but did not prove how the child died, and did not produce physical evidence definitvely linking her to the murder. It simply was not there. The prosecution did a fantastic job with what they had, and hoped the jury would find that it was enough due to the grusomeness of the case. But it was not there.

Another thing: what people see and read in the media is very different than what goes on in trial. The public likely saw more evidnece than did the jury. Some evidence is not admissible. We were not there and could not see and evaluate the witnesses and how credible they were. The jury could.

While it sickens me to see her go free, it would sicken me more to see an innocent person spend a lifetime in jail (and even that has happened in our system, though with less frequency than it would if we did not have jury system).

Edited July 8, 2011 by kindofblue1977

[LindaR]

The "motive" lies in the 31 days of not reporting the child missing...all the while KNOWING that the child was dead (as was brought out by the defense in the opening statement). Why was Casey not "concerned"...but instead, "partied it up" during those 31 days?

[John81]

The jury was blind to the evidence that was set forth.

From what is coming out, they very well may have been corrupt.

For instance, Juror#3, the one who said there was no evidence, has a criminal record from last year for purchasing items at a store with bad checks... hmmm, how'd that get past the state anyhow?

Juror # 11 drug arrest history,

I'm sorry, but I still have to disagree with you.

And why do you say, "By the standards set forth in Scripture and by the standards of the law in Florida, the prosecution failed to prove murder. "? Exactly what standards are there in Scripture that show the prosecution failed to prove murder?

This ought to be good.

The biblical standard for proving murder is having two or three witnesses. That's the Bible standard, not the standard for Florida.

[John81]

IN our justice system, a person is innocent until proven guilty. A person must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I'd much rather let a guilty person go free than have our system convict a person who is truly innocent. The burden of conviction is so high to minimize the risk of convicting an innocent person. As a result, there are times that people go free when in fact they are guilty.

All the evidence submitted was merely circumstantial. Yes, it was very strong circumstantial evidence, but the evidence did not prove as to how the girl died. There are theories that are pointed to with the evidence, but nothing solid. There are doubts as to how she died.

I admire the jury for making a difficult decision, a right decision, to proclaim that she was not guilty because the evidence was not there. I am certain no one wanted her to go free, but the fact remains, the evidence was weak. Circumstantial evidence is not good enough to convict someone. There must be evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt a) how the person died; ) have physical evidence showing that the person on trial committed the murder; c) a weapon or devise used to commit the murder that is physically connected to the person (fingerprints, dna, clothing fibers, etc.), and d) a motive.

The evidence established a motive, but did not prove how the child died, and did not produce physical evidence definitvely linking her to the murder. It simply was not there. The prosecution did a fantastic job with what they had, and hoped the jury would find that it was enough due to the grusomeness of the case. But it was not there.

Another thing: what people see and read in the media is very different than what goes on in trial. The public likely saw more evidnece than did the jury. Some evidence is not admissible. We were not there and could not see and evaluate the witnesses and how credible they were. The jury could.

While it sickens me to see her go free, it would sicken me more to see an innocent person spend a lifetime in jail (and even that has happened in our system, though with less frequency than it would if we did not have jury system).

Good post, except I would say that I'm not sicked by her going free because I don't know if she killed the child or not.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

The biblical standard for proving murder is having two or three witnesses. That's the Bible standard, not the standard for Florida.

That is not for proving murder I suggest you go back and read the passage that says 2 or 3 witnesses again.


Also, if you were watching the same trial I was, there were more than 3 witnesses.

[John81]

That is not for proving murder I suggest you go back and read the passage that says 2 or 3 witnesses again.


Also, if you were watching the same trial I was, there were more than 3 witnesses.

The prosecution didn't put forth a single witness that saw Caylee murdered.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

No one saw Jael murder Sisera. Reckon that never happened, eh?

No one had to see Casey kill Caylee. The proof was there for those who wanted proof.

[John81]

No one saw Jael murder Sisera. Reckon that never happened, eh?

No one had to see Casey kill Caylee. The proof was there for those who wanted proof.

If the proof was there why didn't the prosecution present it? The prosecution couldn't even say how she died so how can one know for certain she died by premeditated murder?

[LindaR]

Question: Why was Casey totally unconcerned or worried that her 2 year old daughter was missing for 31 days? And why do you think she failed to report her child missing for that period of time?

There was plenty of circumstantial evidence pointing to Casey killing that child. It is NOT necessary to have an eyewitness to murder. The majority of murder cases are not committed in the presence of witnesses. To think one has to have a witness to get a guilty verdict in a murder case is inane. My father and his brothers were trial lawyers and I know for a fact that the majority of convictions are based on circumstantial evidence.

Edited July 9, 2011 by LindaR

[John81]

Question: Why was Casey totally unconcerned or worried that her 2 year old daughter was missing for 31 days? And why do you think she failed to report her child missing for that period of time?

There was plenty of circumstantial evidence pointing to Casey killing that child. It is NOT necessary to have an eyewitness to murder. The majority of murder cases are not committed in the presence of witnesses. To think one has to have a witness to get a guilty verdict in a murder case is inane. My father and his brothers were trial lawyers and I know for a fact that the majority of convictions are based on circumstantial evidence.

I never said one had to have eyewitnesses to murder to get a conviction, I pointed out what the biblical rule on that was.

Circumstantial evidence of the sort put forth in this case proves Casey was a terrible mother but it doesn't prove murder.

There is no doubt many convictions today are based upon circumstantial evidence but that doesn't mean they are always decided right or wrong. There are also differing degrees of circumstantial evidence, as some carrys more weight than others, in some cases there is far more such evidence and such that takes on a different nature.

Again, the prosecution could not even prove that Caylee was murdered let alone prove who committed murder if murder was committed.

I'm a trained paralegal, I've been involved in court cases and I've studied many more. It's amazing how many people get wrongly convicted and most often with the prosecution putting forth a much stronger circumstantial case that was put forth against Casey.

I would certainly hope that if any of us were ever placed in the horrible situation of being accused of murder our juries would require the prosecution to meet the burden of proof rather than accepting a weak circumstantial case to convict us.

[LindaR]

The defense never proved that Caylee's death was an accidental drowning either. Therefore, if there was no accidental drowning, how did Caylee die? Someone is responsible...if not Casey, then who killed Caylee? Who tossed that body into the swamp like a piece of trash? With whom was Caylee last seen alive?

[John81]

The defense never proved that Caylee's death was an accidental drowning either. Therefore, if there was no accidental drowning, how did Caylee die? Someone is responsible...if not Casey, then who killed Caylee? Who tossed that body into the swamp like a piece of trash? With whom was Caylee last seen alive?

The burden of proof is upon the prosecution to prove murder was committed and who committed the murder. Remember, innocent until proven guilty; the defense doesn't have to prove what happened or who may have been involved.

Exactly! What happened to Caylee? We still don't know. The mother or someone else may have premeditated her murder and killed her. Something else may have been going on and somehow Caylee accidently died as a result of negligence or mishandling by the mother or someone else. We don't know, but God does.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

If the proof was there why didn't the prosecution present it? The prosecution couldn't even say how she died so how can one know for certain she died by premeditated murder?

The prosecution proved premeditated murder. Just because 12 jurors did not vote guilty does not mean they did not prove premeditated One juror even said they did not want to vote guilty because they did not want to sentence Casey to death. The voted, not on lack of evidence, but rather on sentence.

The searches on the internet for how to make chloroform proves premeditation. The unusually high level of chloroform in the trunk proves chloroform was used. The hair with the death band in the trunk puts the murdered child in the car... something that only Casey was in possession of.

Casey murdered that baby, no one else did it.