Casey Anthony Trial!!!

Coming from a lawyer:

The prosecution failed to make their case. Plain and simple. The jury did their job correctly and made a decision based on the facts presented, not their emotions or personal opinions. As someone pointed out, each count has very specific criteria associated with it, and the prosecution did not do a good enough job meeting these criteria. Most of their evidence was circumstantial at best.

Our legal system was designed the way it was for a reason. Innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove her guilty, not on the defense to prove her innocent. The prosecution failed to do so beyond a reasonable doubt.

I agree- beyond a reasonable doubt.
She should have at least got convicted of the 2nd or 3rd charge. She got away with the biggest lie of all- and she knows it. She didn't get a convicted in the death of her daughter today but I would hate to stand next to her when her judgement day comes. Caylee rolled over in her grave today and I can only pray for Caylee.
I don't know what is more sad:
*that she could profit from her daughter's death,
*that she is capable of having more children or
*if and when others are on trial for murder they will reference this case to get off on technicalities.
A very sad day.

Where is Dexter when we need him

What are you guys talking about?

Here is my take and it may not be popular. But the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Did Casey kill her daughter? Yes she did. Did the prosecution PROVE she did it? No, they dropped the ball. Instead of relying on evidence they just played on emotions. The defense was able to poke so many holes in what evidence the State did have and in the end the jury followed the evidence and not their emotions. I think that Jose Baez and Cheny Mason had great closing arguments the other day where they attacked the lack of hard evidence. That said, she did just get away with murder. But we all meet our maker one day and she will have to answer for her actions.

THIS.

We know that she used to knock her kid out so she could party.
We know that she didn't report her missing for a month.
We know that she showed no emotion over the whole thing.
We know that she lied to the police.
We know the trunk of her car smelled like a dead body.


That was enough to get her. These are facts, not emotions.

We know that she used to knock her kid out so she could party.
- We actually don't KNOW this one

We know that she didn't report her missing for a month.
- Yes but it does not prove murder

We know that she showed no emotion over the whole thing.
- This is subjective, and also does not prove murder

We know that she lied to the police.
- Which she was found guilty of

We know the trunk of her car smelled like a dead body.
- Yes, but does not link Casey to her death - it is only circumstantial evidence


Look I am with you, she IS guilty, but the evidence just sucked.

http://research.lawyers.com/ask-a-lawyer/Is-Circumstantial-Evidence-Enough-to-ConvictU-5709.html

http://www.southcarolinacriminaldefenseblog.com/2010/03/state_v_frazier_convictions_fo.html


Lets not forget the Scott Peterson trial either. Circumstantial evidence can be used to connect the dots and convict.

These trials were in two completely different states. Every state has their own rules regarding circumstantial evidence and how heavily it can, and should, be weighed during jury deliberations. And just because circumstantial evidence can be used to convict, should this be the rule? How many innocent people have been released after being convicted on circumstantial evidence? I am a lawyer and have studied and actually SEEN cases to this effect.

I am not saying that Casey didn't murder her child, in fact, I think she did. But if the evidence didn't conform to the rules that would have allowed the jury to convict her, then she must be aquitted. Our legal system is flawed, but it could be SO much worse.

Where is Dexter when we need him

Yes, Dark Knight where art thou?!

I was, and am very upset about the verdict. With all this evidence piled up they can't prove without a doubt that she did it? Even if she didn't kill her, I think she still knows and is hiding something. She's lied way too much throughout this trial. What really sucks, is that even if she comes out in the future and says she did it, she can't be accused again. She'll get hers in the end though, God judges us all. Not to mention she now gets to live in public scrutiny for the rest of her life. Nobody is ever going to forget this. Hope she's got a body guard lined up, I have a feeling people are going to go to town on her *kitten*.

I was, and am very upset about the verdict. With all this evidence piled up they can't prove without a doubt that she did it? Even if she didn't kill her, I think she still knows and is hiding something. She's lied way too much throughout this trial. What really sucks, is that even if she comes out in the future and says she did it, she can't be accused again. She'll get hers in the end though, God judges us all. Not to mention she now gets to live in public scrutiny for the rest of her life. Nobody is ever going to forget this. Hope she's got a body guard lined up, I have a feeling people are going to go to town on her *kitten*.

What evidence?

All you need is one person on the jury to have a little doubt. 1 out of the 12 only has to have a slight doubt. That leads to a not-guilty verdict.

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that she killed her child. But all it takes is a tiny shred of doubt in 1 of the 12 jurors.

Very sad day in this country.