Posted by (+371) 11 years ago
Her mom guilty? Not that it would being Caylee back....
[This message has been edited by C.Kee (7/4/2011)]
[This message has been edited by C.Kee (7/4/2011)]
Posted by (+178) 11 years ago
Give her the chair....any mother that can look so cold hearted even when someone mentions the name of her murdered child shouldn't get the right to breathe another breath of air!
Posted by (+371) 11 years ago
She reminds me of Scott Peterson during his trial; those eyes and face with no expression.
Posted by (+472) 11 years ago
GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY!
How could any mother let her child be "gone" a month before she decides to tell someone she's missing? But then again, maybe if you had a really busy partying schedule, that would be easy to forget to mention...
She's a first-class serial liar. And a murderer.
How could any mother let her child be "gone" a month before she decides to tell someone she's missing? But then again, maybe if you had a really busy partying schedule, that would be easy to forget to mention...
She's a first-class serial liar. And a murderer.
Posted by (+375) 11 years ago
I believe the grandparents helped her too, they also lied about a lot of things!
Posted by (+15122) 11 years ago
I fail to understand how any of you can render a verdict one way or another seeing as none of you were sitting as a jury member where you could hear the evidence. 
[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (7/4/2011)]
[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (7/4/2011)]
Posted by (+178) 11 years ago
And do you know how many guilty people are set free because of those people on the jury who just "can't make up their freakin minds." You can sit and watch the trial on the television and hear the same things the jury does. But since you arent a mom you can never and will never understand...too many people are getting away with killing their children and it has to stop crazy or not there is no excuse. Drowning them in a bathtub, driving them into a lake, microwaving them, tying them up with duct tape and throwing them in some brush this world is messed up and the evidence against this woman is unbelievable. If you don't see that then thank god you are not on the jury....thats all i have to say.
Posted by (+196) 11 years ago
But since you arent a mom you can never and will never understand...
Do we moms have a superhuman power to rush to judgment that dads lack? Perhaps that is a good thing then. Unless you sat and watched eight hours of testimony every single day of the trial, no, you do not have all of the information that the jurors do. If you did, perhaps you aren't spending enough time with your child(ren). I'm not saying she is guilty or innocent, but I agree with Richard. The only people that should be making that decision are the jurors, not armchair quarterbacks.
Oh, and
And do you know how many guilty people are set free because of those people on the jury who just "can't make up their freakin minds."
You know these people are guilty how? I would say it is a very good thing that YOU are not sitting on a jury, as you represent everything that is wrong with the jury system.
[This message has been edited by Mary B. (7/4/2011)]
Posted by (+375) 11 years ago
I'm sorry I'm living in america and have freedom of speech!!! I think the bitch is guilty don't tell me how to make my decision!
Posted by (+375) 11 years ago
Oh and I know damn well my OPINION does not matter in the court room but I'm still allowed to voice it!!
Posted by (+15122) 11 years ago
And do you know how many guilty people are set free because of those people on the jury who just "can't make up their freakin minds." You can sit and watch the trial on the television and hear the same things the jury does.
If I were a juror in the court room, reviewed all of the evidence, participated in the jury deliberations, I could easily make up my "freakin" mind. They haven't even finished closing arguments and you are ready to hang someone and use the corpse for target practice. None of us are in the courtroom. The verdict should be left to those who are...
Posted by (+6172) 11 years ago
And do you know how manyguiltyinnocent peoplearehave beenset freewrongly sentenced to death because of those people on the jury who just"can't make up their freakin minds."make a decision based on their own prejudices."
There, fixed it for you.
Posted by (+9307) 11 years ago
Is there any point to following this case? Do you really care beyond seeing the punishment meted out? It's another sort of porn for another sort of voyour.
Posted by (+92) 11 years ago
she's guilty. her defense team sucked so bad they tried at the last minute to say she's not fit to stand trial & i think it's because they feel they lost the case. i don't believe her father had anything to do with it. she's guilty
Posted by (+1808) 11 years ago
I'm just glad the trials finally over...she was running out of nose hairs to pull to make her eyes/nose water when she need to look like she gave a crap...
Having said that ~ I don't think the jury will/can come back with the murder 1 everyone expects. I'll bet on it being the 3rd degree charge, or even manslaughter.
Having said that ~ I don't think the jury will/can come back with the murder 1 everyone expects. I'll bet on it being the 3rd degree charge, or even manslaughter.
Posted by (+239) 11 years ago
I believe she is guilty, she may have not purposely killed Caylee, but if it was an accident, why not just tell the truth! All the evidence is circumstantial, meaning she will probably not be found guilty of the first degree murder charge.
Posted by (+178) 11 years ago
Either way...if she serves just prison time it will be a death sentence. Knowing what usually happens to people in prison that have even been accused of child abuse, it would probably be more humane to give her the needle then to let the prisonmates have at her.
Posted by (+239) 11 years ago
I'm thinking first degree murder will be not guilty, but she'll get at least the aggravated manslaughter of a child or the aggravated child abuse (those each have a 30 prison sentence. Then I hope she is found guilty of all four charges of lying to law enforcement, which only gets her four years.
Posted by (+9307) 11 years ago
It's too bad people can't get this excited over punishing lawbreakers when it's something that actually matters beyond the narrow scope of an individual murder trial.
Posted by (+1808) 11 years ago
W-O-W!!! NOT GUILTY on all counts, except lying to the police!!!
Posted by (+15122) 11 years ago
And that Ladies and Gentlemen is why being in the actual courtroom is important. 
Posted by (+4950) 11 years ago
Obviously the jury feels that there is more to the story that the prosecution didn't provide?? Just a guess...According to our constitution, she was innocent until proven guilty, and the jury didn't feel the state met their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt...
Posted by (+239) 11 years ago
exactly Howdy! Everything was circumstantial, if you take the emotion of it being a child, she shouldn't have been convicted. If she was found guilty on nothing solid, it should scare you! Whoever wronged this innocent child will be judged in the end.
Posted by (+103) 11 years ago
The thing that is hard for me is that someone did this. Someone is going to live free knowing they murdered a child and no one else will ever know what really happened.
Posted by (+6172) 11 years ago
I'm with Bridgier. It's acceptable porn for the masses. You'd be better off watching My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding.
Posted by (+5101) 11 years ago
I wonder if Nancy Grace's head exploded upon seeing the verdict. (Let's hope so).
I watched as little of the TV coverage as possible, so I don't have a dog in the fight.
If the Mom committed the murder, she'll suffer for the rest of her life even though she was found not guilty by the jury.
I watched as little of the TV coverage as possible, so I don't have a dog in the fight.
If the Mom committed the murder, she'll suffer for the rest of her life even though she was found not guilty by the jury.
Posted by (+668) 11 years ago
I wonder if Nancy Grace's head exploded upon seeing the verdict. (Let's hope so).
Posted by (+92) 11 years ago
I agree that if Dexter was on this case, many more people would've been pleased. love that pic.
Posted by (+3154) 11 years ago
Those who are blessed with children and then kill them will have a reckoning when they die. I don't want to be anywhere close! Whether you believe in God, Buddha, whoever, there is a time when you will be held accountable.
I agree that too many parents have gotten away with killing their children. The sad thing is many aren't even arrested and never go to trial.
I don't know if she killed Caylee. It wasn't my call to make.
I agree that too many parents have gotten away with killing their children. The sad thing is many aren't even arrested and never go to trial.
I don't know if she killed Caylee. It wasn't my call to make.
Posted by (+3707) 10 years ago
I agree that too many parents have gotten away with killing their children. The sad thing is many aren't even arrested and never go to trial.
You know these people? I'm curious what you are basing this statement on.
Posted by (+3154) 10 years ago
Yes. I do. But as the legal system is severely messed up it won't do any good to go into on here!
Posted by (+4950) 10 years ago
Our legal system IMO, works the way our founders intended...The burden of proof is a hard thing to meet...the prosecutos overcharged in this matter and suffered the consequences IMO...it probably never was a capitol crime (1st degree murder) and shouldn't have been charged as such...the jury obviously didn't feel the proof was there...the justice system isn't there to provide justice but to sort out if the evidence is there beyond a reasonable doubt...Correct me if I am wrong Wendy (since you are an atty), but that is how I see it anyway...
Posted by (+292) 10 years ago
Casey will have to answer to a higher justice system someday....!
God bless baby Caylee....she knows the answer and so does God.
God bless baby Caylee....she knows the answer and so does God.
Posted by (+9307) 10 years ago
And apparently, so do you. It's too bad the prosecution wasn't able to fly you down so you could share your knowledge with the jury.
Posted by (+15122) 10 years ago
I am borrowing this quote from elsewhere but it is dead on and accurately summarizes my thoughts:
The best quote I've seen in regard to this Casey Anthony circus show..."But further, I am always amused (if amusement is the right word-and I don't think it is) when people are so dismissive of a jury verdict like this, but somehow convinced that all the people we execute are dead-bang guilty. If the system is so flawed to let this woman wrongly slide, why are they not skeptical about the people sent to the chair?"
Posted by (+6172) 10 years ago
Because essentially people like to hear about the misfortunes of others. The Germans call it schadenfreude.
Posted by (+758) 10 years ago
A couple things I still wonder about all this:
Who is Caylee's father and what's his opinion? Is her father and grandfather the same person, or is he maybe also her uncle? What a mess.
What was all that about Casey borrowing the neighbor's shovel? How did that ever figure in, and why did the cadaver sniffing dogs freak out next to the playhouse?
Who is Caylee's father and what's his opinion? Is her father and grandfather the same person, or is he maybe also her uncle? What a mess.
What was all that about Casey borrowing the neighbor's shovel? How did that ever figure in, and why did the cadaver sniffing dogs freak out next to the playhouse?
Posted by (+1808) 10 years ago
Jeff: There actually was a paternity test done on the grandfather and Casey's brother. If Casey KNOWS who the father is, she's not saying. Some woman has come out of the woodwork claiming her son is the papa..no test done yet.
It was suggested the shovel was borrowed from the neighbor to initially bury the child under her playhouse in the backyard~but the digging was too difficult for princess Casey.
Also speculated ~ the dogs picked up the scent where she had placed the child's body as she attempted to bury it.
Hope that answers your questions! I'd like to think I didn't just waste a month watching the trial for nothing
It was suggested the shovel was borrowed from the neighbor to initially bury the child under her playhouse in the backyard~but the digging was too difficult for princess Casey.
Also speculated ~ the dogs picked up the scent where she had placed the child's body as she attempted to bury it.
Hope that answers your questions! I'd like to think I didn't just waste a month watching the trial for nothing
Posted by (+17769) 10 years ago
I'd like to think I didn't just waste a month watching the trial for nothing
I'm afraid I have some bad news for you....
Posted by (+5101) 10 years ago
K. Duffy wrote:I'd like to think I didn't just waste a month watching the trial for nothing
Could be worse...you could be watching the Tour de France or something...
[This message has been edited by Bob L. (7/7/2011)]
Posted by (+15122) 10 years ago
Wasting a month watching that trial is far worse that watching NASCAR. Watching the Yankees or fillies... now that is a different matter. 
Posted by (+33) 10 years ago
I think the syndicated columnist in the Friday's edition of the Star made a good point about the Casey Anthony case. Her opinion is that the prosecutor went too far too fast to OVER CHARGE and OVERPROSECUTE because of the publicity. If they would have charged her with voluntary manslaughter, they would probably have found her guilty. She said reasonable doubt has a different meaning when it's a life or death decision. Howdy pointed out the same thing in an earlier comment.
[This message has been edited by Lisa McRae (7/9/2011)]
[This message has been edited by Lisa McRae (7/9/2011)]
Posted by (+4458) 10 years ago
http://online.wsj.com/art...16492.html
Thought this was a good read on the topic. I think people need to remember that being acquitted doesn't prove innocence. It's just the inability to assign guilt.
I'm usually the type that ignores this kind of story as much as possible though.
Thought this was a good read on the topic. I think people need to remember that being acquitted doesn't prove innocence. It's just the inability to assign guilt.
I'm usually the type that ignores this kind of story as much as possible though.
Posted by (+371) 10 years ago
Scott Peterson was convicted of killing his wife and son. No murder weapon. No known cause of death. He had a girlfriend (doesn't mean he was a killer). Was it the way the case was presented that convicted him?
Posted by (+4456) 10 years ago
Scott Peterson's wife was murdered. You can't convict someone of first degree murder if you can't prove the victim was murdered. It's that simple.
Posted by (+1808) 10 years ago
I hope you're still checking this thread ~ I vaguely recall a legal stipulation on how charges can be presented. Please clear it up for me.
Isn't there something about if the Prosecution decides to go with the 1st degree, they can't include any alternate choices, like Jose presented ~ Failure to report accident/death, obstruction of justice (beyond the counts of lying to police officers)?
Isn't there something about if the Prosecution decides to go with the 1st degree, they can't include any alternate choices, like Jose presented ~ Failure to report accident/death, obstruction of justice (beyond the counts of lying to police officers)?
Posted by (+6172) 10 years ago
K.Duffy,
I've been out of the prosecution business way too long to be able to answer your question. Double Jeopardy is an issue and I also believe that the states may differ as to how a charge can be brought.
I've been out of the prosecution business way too long to be able to answer your question. Double Jeopardy is an issue and I also believe that the states may differ as to how a charge can be brought.