Did Casey Anthony get

[LindaR]

One of the jurors now says there was suspicion about George that was discussed among the jury.

George was not on trial...Casey was. It was an ABC (All But Casey) defense throughout that entire trial. Take the focus off Casey and put it on somebody else was the purpose of the defense to create "reasonable doubt" in the minds of the jurors. The "not guilty" verdict is the evidence that this purpose was accomplished.

[John81]

George was not on trial...Casey was. It was an ABC (All But Casey) defense throughout that entire trial. Take the focus off Casey and put it on somebody else was the purpose of the defense to create "reasonable doubt" in the minds of the jurors. The "not guilty" verdict is the evidence that this purpose was accomplished.

That's exactly what a defense is supposed to do. According to this juror, after hearing George's testimony they had doubts, there was suspicion about him.

From what I've read and seen, it seems the whole family has problems or issues. Little Caylee may have been the only normal one in the bunch. They certainly are not, or I hope they are not, anything near a "normal" family.

There are more twists and turns in the overall story and in how each individual reacted and what they did do, and didn't do, than one would expect to find in a complex mystery novel.

I'm still trying to sort out the contradictory statements and actions of Casey's mother and how she fits into this.

Odd family.

[JerryNumbers]

George was not on trial...Casey was. It was an ABC (All But Casey) defense throughout that entire trial. Take the focus off Casey and put it on somebody else was the purpose of the defense to create "reasonable doubt" in the minds of the jurors. The "not guilty" verdict is the evidence that this purpose was accomplished.

Our courts allowing defense lawyers to slander people in order to put doubt in the mind of the jury is 100 % wrong.
Of course the jury ought to see though it.

[LindaR]

Our courts allowing defense lawyers to slander people in order to put doubt in the mind of the jury is 100 % wrong.
Of course the jury ought to see though it.

I agree. Common sense was thrown out the window. Edited July 11, 2011 by LindaR

[Standing Firm In Christ]

While I think Casey got away with murder, it is out of our hands. She has been ruled innocent. God will now be her judge, and He will judge rightly. I did find an interesting petition though. This petition would make it a law that a parent report their missing children in a timely manner as in a 24 hour period of them missing. If anyone is interested in signing it, here is the link. http://www.change.org/petitions/create-caylees-law It already has a million signatures.

Actually, Casey was not ruled to be innocent. Juror #3 clearly said Casey was not innocent.

[amblivion]

Actually, Casey was not ruled to be innocent. Juror #3 clearly said Casey was not innocent.

If she wasn't ruled to be innocent, she would have been charged with first degree murder. She can not be tried again for first degree murder for the death of her daughter because she was found innocent of the charge. By ruling not guilty the jurors were all saying unanimously that they believed there was reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony did not murder her daughter in the first degree.

[John81]

If she wasn't ruled to be innocent, she would have been charged with first degree murder. She can not be tried again for first degree murder for the death of her daughter because she was found innocent of the charge. By ruling not guilty the jurors were all saying unanimously that they believed there was reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony did not murder her daughter in the first degree.

A "not guilty" verdict only means the jury didn't find the evidence presented to be worthy of a conviction. That never means the one on trial found not guilty is "innocent" (although some are), it only means the prosecution failed to convince the jury they were guilty.

[amblivion]

A "not guilty" verdict only means the jury didn't find the evidence presented to be worthy of a conviction. That never means the one on trial found not guilty is "innocent" (although some are), it only means the prosecution failed to convince the jury they were guilty.

I never said she was innocent. I clearly stated that I believe she got away with murder. My whole point is she was found innocent. Innocent until proven guilty right? Was she ever proven guilty? Not according to the courts. So according to the laws of our land she is innocent and was ruled innocent of first degree murder and not guilty. Edited July 11, 2011 by amblivion

[farouk]

In Scottish law there is a sort of in between verdict possible, called 'not proven'. This means neither fully one thing, nor another.

[John81]

I never said she was innocent. I clearly stated that I believe she got away with murder. My whole point is she was found innocent. Innocent until proven guilty right? Was she ever proven guilty? Not according to the courts. So according to the laws of our land she is innocent and was ruled innocent of first degree murder and not guilty.

I know you didn't say she was innocent. Neither did the jury. In our legal system one is considered innocent until proven guilty. That's where it starts. For the jury the question at hand is whether or not the prosecution proves one is guilty or not. If the prosecution fails to prove guilt then the verdict is not guilty; which means the prosecution failed to prove guilt but doesn't mean the jury necessarily thinks the person is innocent.

This is exactly why in most cases like this the prosecution puts much more effort into the case, goes from as many angles as they can, presents all the evidence they can muster (whether circumstantial, solid or even trivial), and then takes a great deal of time carefully putting it all together and planning the presentation. Most legal experts have faulted the prosecution from even before the not guilty verdict was rendered because their case was lacking. The prosecution in this case was counting on emotion winning over the weaknesses in their case. That's a huge gamble in cases like this. Some juries will be swayed by emotion but some won't. Much better, as the experts point out, to build as solid a case as one can, then add plenty around it, fit it together orderly, polish it, present it well and don't rely upon emotion for the outcome.

[LindaR]

The jury came back with a "not guilty" verdict...not an "innocent" verdict. Not guilty does not mean innocent.

[John81]

The jury came back with a "not guilty" verdict...not an "innocent" verdict. Not guilty does not mean innocent.

That's correct. Some jurors have spoken about this. Typically, if a jury believes the one they found not guilty to actually be innocent, they will say so after the trial. In this case, those jurors who have spoke to it have said they were not saying she is innocent, only that the prosecution didn't prove to them that she was guilty.

If she is innocent, I pray the guilty party may come to light. If she is guilty, I know the Lord will bring about the right justice at the right time.

[amblivion]

I know you didn't say she was innocent. Neither did the jury. In our legal system one is considered innocent until proven guilty. That's where it starts. For the jury the question at hand is whether or not the prosecution proves one is guilty or not. If the prosecution fails to prove guilt then the verdict is not guilty; which means the prosecution failed to prove guilt but doesn't mean the jury necessarily thinks the person is innocent.

This is exactly why in most cases like this the prosecution puts much more effort into the case, goes from as many angles as they can, presents all the evidence they can muster (whether circumstantial, solid or even trivial), and then takes a great deal of time carefully putting it all together and planning the presentation. Most legal experts have faulted the prosecution from even before the not guilty verdict was rendered because their case was lacking. The prosecution in this case was counting on emotion winning over the weaknesses in their case. That's a huge gamble in cases like this. Some juries will be swayed by emotion but some won't. Much better, as the experts point out, to build as solid a case as one can, then add plenty around it, fit it together orderly, polish it, present it well and don't rely upon emotion for the outcome.

According to the eyes of the courts she is innocent and has always been innocent because she was not proven guilty. By bringing back a not guilty verdict she was deemed innocent in the eyes of the court. While individual jurors may believe her to be guilty, as a whole they brought back an "still innocent verdict" in the eyes of the court. Edited July 11, 2011 by amblivion

[farouk]

The jury came back with a "not guilty" verdict...not an "innocent" verdict. Not guilty does not mean innocent.

There is no such thing as an innocent verdict. The burden of the proof is on the prosecution; the accused doesn't have to prove anything, however serious the charges.

I love Paul's words in Romans 8: 'Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.'

[Standing Firm In Christ]

There is no such thing as an innocent verdict. The burden of the proof is on the prosecution; the accused doesn't have to prove anything, however serious the charges.

I love Paul's words in Romans 8: 'Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.'

Surely you aren't putting Casey Anthony in the category of God's elect???