I don't see how race plays into this. She got off because they didn't have a solid case against her, not cause of her skin color.

RKJCNE said:

I don't see how race plays into this. She got off because they didn't have a solid case against her, not cause of her skin color.

they would have fried her ass if she was a minority.

Identity said:

The jurors were obviously not as emotionally invested in the case as the general public. They examined the facts and the DA failed to dispel reasonable doubt, as required. For all we know it could have been an accidental death. But we shall never know because Casey is a habitual liar and why so? Did the dad traumatize her as a child? I can't be the only one who noticed something sinister about George Anthony's behavior.

He didn't come off as "sinister" to me but more like a man who had reached his emotional limit with a trial and accusations against him and his family. This is a man who found out his daughter was pretty much leading a double life; Caylee's father wasn't really her father, many of Casey's friends didn't exist, Zanny the nanny was fictitious, Caylee was missing for a month before Casey even said anything etc. Add to that the defense lawyer insinuating he molested his daughter and fathered his own granddaughter. The press were none too kind either. I can't imagine any man would be cordial and calm after having dealt with what George had to deal with. The jurors, or at least the alternate, has said that the prosecution didn't present a motive. The prosecution doesn't have to present a motive. I think the jurors needed an education in circumstantial evidence. I'm sure there are people in prison right now who were convicted on less evidence than was presented in Casey Anthony's trial. Honestly, I don't think they gave a fuck. They just wanted to go home.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

RKJCNE said:

I don't see how race plays into this. She got off because they didn't have a solid case against her, not cause of her skin color.

they would have fried her ass if she was a minority.

I agree.

I understand the anger, disappointment and rage by some over this non-guilty verdict. But this verdict has actually proven that our judicial system works, in spite of its flaws. Because in spite of three years of public outrage and pre-conviction by the media and public, the jury remained objective and only looked at what truly matters - the evidence.

Let's face it, prosecutors have failed miserably. They had zero solid evidence that Casey Anthony killed her daughter. There was no DNA. No murder weapon. Hell, we don't even know how Caylee died, when she died and what was the cause of her death. For all we know, she could indeed have drowned in the pool or died of SIDS.

Without even the cause of death, prosecutors had a very weak case for a First Degree murder charge, especially seeking death penalty. Jurors are obligated to focus on evidence, and without such evidence, it would have been completely irresponsible to find her guilty.

The prosecutors only have themselves to blame. They should have known better; without evidence and without a cause of death, they would never get a guilty verdict on a First Degree murder charge. They should have charged her with manslaughter and maybe the jury would have found her guilty .. but even that would have been hard to prove. Instead, prosecutors were banking on the public outrage over this case, they knew that the media and the public had already found Casey guilty before she was even tried. They hoped that the jury - even though not from Orlando - would already have made up their minds coming into this trial. The prosecutors knew that most people wanted to see blood, they wanted Casey on death row. And prosecutors paid for their arrogance with an embarrassing defeat.

In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. This is a noble judicial principle. Our priority should be to make sure that we do not send innocent people to death row, even if that means that sometimes a guilty person slips through the cracks of the system and walks free. Prosecutors did not prove that Casey was guilty of murdering her child. Sure, they proved that she was a slut, a constant lier, a party hore, a horrible mother. But she didn't stand trial for that (well, she was charged with lying to police, and she was found guilty for that.)

Did Casey kill her daughter? Maybe. I have a gut feeling, and my gut feeling tells me that she did it. But we don't send people to death row based on our gut feeling. We only send them to death row when we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty. And in this case, this definitely wasn't proven.

So while this verdict was a defeat for bringing justice for Caylee, it was a victory for our judicial system. Because this case has shown that even in a murder case that gets national attention, a case in which the public has long considered the defendent guilty based on emotion, gut feeling and speculation and thirst for revenge, a jury still managed to ignore this entire circus and focus on what they are supposed to do - look at the evidence and determine if there was enough evidence to find the defendent guilty. The jury has done just that.

While Casey may be her daughter's killer, none of us can say that for sure. None of us, including those on this thread who claim to know for sure. And even if she did it - any of us one day may be in a situation and charged with murder that we did not commit. Circumstances and public opinion could be against us ... and we would expect tha jury to ignore public pressure and solely focus on the evidence presented against us. If there is no such evidence, we would also expect the jury to find us not guilty.

HotGritz said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

they would have fried her ass if she was a minority.

I agree.

Pure speculation. They didn't fry O.J.'s ass either, and the case against him was much, much stronger.

MrSoulpower said:

HotGritz said:

I agree.

Pure speculation. They didn't fry O.J.'s ass either, and the case against him was much, much stronger.

Exactly!

Serena said:

No one needs to be a witness to a murder, there was TONS of evidence in this case that this suckass jury didn't even bother to look at when they were deliberating.

Yea, like what? If you have such evidence, you should have contacted the prosecutors. They would have thanked you for it.

They just wanted to go home and took the easy way out.

That's quite presumptious of you. Do you have any proof for that?

I hope each and every one of them quickly have a rude awakening as to the wrong they have committed.

They have not "committed wrong." Finding someone guilty without solid evidence - that would have been wrong. I'm sure that the jurors struggled with their decision. Most likely, during deliberations, many of them argued that they think that Casey is guilty. Just like you think she is guilty. But a jury is not supposed to go by their gut feeling and mere opinion. They are supposed to go by evidence.

Their family and friends should shun them for their ignorant and lazy work on this case.

That's another very arrogant presumption from someone who apparently has no idea of how the judicial system works. Did you ever read jury instructions for a murder trial? I bet not. Your judgment is that from someone who has followed trial on TV and watched too many C.S.I. shows, but lacks understanding of the actual rules and guidelines a jury has to commit to. And sitting through a trial for six weeks and deliberating for more than ten hours does not look lazy to me.

MrSoulpower said:

HotGritz said:

I agree.

Pure speculation. They didn't fry O.J.'s ass either, and the case against him was much, much stronger.

Ahh but you're forgetting that OJ had those other two higly coveted commodities: celebrity and money.

There are three things that get you buy in life and free you from the stickiest jams: Celebrity, Money and White Privilege/Looks. Now for the latter hyphenated item I have to state that if Caylee were some busted back burner bitch with missing teeth and a weak chin she would have gone to prison in a heart beat.

P.S. OJ could have lived the la vida loca if his ass wasn't constantly out there cheezin, playing golf, cavorting with random beckys and hanging out with third tier mobsters. That fool is right where he belongs. Hopefully Casey will follow in his footsteps and fuck up over the next few years.

Serena said:

XxAxX said:

you're far more involved emotionally than i am over this issue. i'm just looking at the case with interest bordering on objectivity. i work at a law firm, we've talked about this case there.

as for engaging in a bit of back and forth with you over this? nope. i ain't got time for no fight up in here. agree to disagree. me 'n the jury will just chill and watch the backlash happen

Yeah, I tend to get emotional when someone gets away with murdering their child. But you keep on enjoying yourself with that ignorant jury.

I get emotional too, I have children myself. But that's why it would not be me who would decide over a suspect's fate, if something ever happened to one of my children. That's why we have a court and jury system with people who can look at the evidence objectively. We should never convict based on emotion and/or assumption.

HotGritz said:

MrSoulpower said:

Pure speculation. They didn't fry O.J.'s ass either, and the case against him was much, much stronger.

Ahh but you're forgetting that OJ had those other two higly coveted commodities: celebrity and money.

There are three things that get you buy in life and free you from the stickiest jams: Celebrity, Money and White Privilege/Looks. Now for the latter hyphenated item I have to state that if Caylee were some busted back burner bitch with missing teeth and a weak chin she would have gone to prison in a heart beat.

P.S. OJ could have lived the la vida loca if his ass wasn't constantly out there cheezin, playing golf, cavorting with random beckys and hanging out with third tier mobsters. That fool is right where he belongs. Hopefully Casey will follow in his footsteps and fuck up over the next few years.

How folks LOVE trotting OJ out to say "he's black and got off" as if he is representative of the average black defendant is completely ridiculous.

HotGritz said:

MrSoulpower said:

Pure speculation. They didn't fry O.J.'s ass either, and the case against him was much, much stronger.

Ahh but you're forgetting that OJ had those other two higly coveted commodities: celebrity and money.

There are three things that get you buy in life and free you from the stickiest jams: Celebrity, Money and White Privilege/Looks. Now for the latter hyphenated item I have to state that if Caylee were some busted back burner bitch with missing teeth and a weak chin she would have gone to prison in a heart beat.

P.S. OJ could have lived the la vida loca if his ass wasn't constantly out there cheezin, playing golf, cavorting with random beckys and hanging out with third tier mobsters. That fool is right where he belongs. Hopefully Casey will follow in his footsteps and fuck up over the next few years.

You're right about O.J., because his celebrity status definitely played a role.

But you're wrong about Casey being convicted of First Degree Murder, if she has been "some busted back burner bitch with missing teeth and a weak chin." Because without evidence, even a busted back burner bitch cannot be convicted.

In my day job, I work as a newspaper reporter, and one of my fields is crime & courts. I've covered countless murder trials, and I have seen poor and ugly black folks walk due to a lack of evidence or a jury that could not reach a verdict.

To automatically assume that Casey walked because she's young and pretty (I don't even think she's pretty) is too easy, especially when you ignore the lack of evidence.

MrSoulpower said:

HotGritz said:

I agree.

Pure speculation. They didn't fry O.J.'s ass either, and the case against him was much, much stronger.

Money.

The majority of minority women in this position wouldn't be superstars. Makes all the difference.

SCNDLS said:

HotGritz said:

Ahh but you're forgetting that OJ had those other two higly coveted commodities: celebrity and money.

There are three things that get you buy in life and free you from the stickiest jams: Celebrity, Money and White Privilege/Looks. Now for the latter hyphenated item I have to state that if Caylee were some busted back burner bitch with missing teeth and a weak chin she would have gone to prison in a heart beat.

P.S. OJ could have lived the la vida loca if his ass wasn't constantly out there cheezin, playing golf, cavorting with random beckys and hanging out with third tier mobsters. That fool is right where he belongs. Hopefully Casey will follow in his footsteps and fuck up over the next few years.

How folks LOVE trotting OJ out to say "he's black and got off" as if he is representative of the average black defendant is completely ridiculous.

I love it how folks automatically assume that other folks "LOVE trotting OJ out to say "he's black and got off" as if he is representative of the average black defendant."

I used O.J. as an example not just because he was a minority, but because he was the last hi-profile murder case in America before the Casey Anthony case, and because he, too, got off. So maybe you should ask me first before making uninformed assumptions about my motives. Thank you.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

MrSoulpower said:

Pure speculation. They didn't fry O.J.'s ass either, and the case against him was much, much stronger.

Money.

The majority of minority women in this position wouldn't be superstars. Makes all the difference.

That's true .. but both O.J. and Casey Anthony were high profile cases. Casey became a "star" in her own right, due to the extensive media attention of her case.

MrSoulpower said:

SCNDLS said:

How folks LOVE trotting OJ out to say "he's black and got off" as if he is representative of the average black defendant is completely ridiculous.

I love it how folks automatically assume that other folks "LOVE trotting OJ out to say "he's black and got off" as if he is representative of the average black defendant."

I used O.J. as an example not just because he was a minority, but because he was the last hi-profile murder case in America before the Casey Anthony case, and because he, too, got off. So maybe you should ask me first before making uninformed assumptions about my motives. Thank you.

Who said I was even talking about your comment? YOU weren't the first person who brought OJ up and I wasn't even talking about in this case as it is a COMMON comparison. So take your bullshit elsewhere

[Edited 7/6/11 11:16am]

MrSoulpower said:

HotGritz said:

Ahh but you're forgetting that OJ had those other two higly coveted commodities: celebrity and money.

There are three things that get you buy in life and free you from the stickiest jams: Celebrity, Money and White Privilege/Looks. Now for the latter hyphenated item I have to state that if Caylee were some busted back burner bitch with missing teeth and a weak chin she would have gone to prison in a heart beat.

P.S. OJ could have lived the la vida loca if his ass wasn't constantly out there cheezin, playing golf, cavorting with random beckys and hanging out with third tier mobsters. That fool is right where he belongs. Hopefully Casey will follow in his footsteps and fuck up over the next few years.

You're right about O.J., because his celebrity status definitely played a role.

But you're wrong about Casey being convicted of First Degree Murder, if she has been "some busted back burner bitch with missing teeth and a weak chin." Because without evidence, even a busted back burner bitch cannot be convicted.

In my day job, I work as a newspaper reporter, and one of my fields is crime & courts. I've covered countless murder trials, and I have seen poor and ugly black folks walk due to a lack of evidence or a jury that could not reach a verdict.

To automatically assume that Casey walked because she's young and pretty (I don't even think she's pretty) is too easy, especially when you ignore the lack of evidence.

The problem I have with this case is there was enough evidence to convict her.

Think about it:

No other suspects

No one else charged

No other child murders with similar circumstances in the same area around that same time

She didn't report her child missing for over a month

She lied about who she left her child with

She lied about whether the child was even alive or dead

She lied about who the child's father was

She partied and drank and got tatted up all while her child was missing/dead

The baby was buried NEAR her home

The computer contained internet searches for chloroform.

She had motive even though motive was not needed to prove the case against her

I mean damn, what more do we need? The evidence may have been skimpy but when is a child murder case ever so clear cut and easy?

The only thing working against the prosecution was that the child's body was badly decayed. Casey is a smart bitch I give her that.

SCNDLS said:

MrSoulpower said:

I love it how folks automatically assume that other folks "LOVE trotting OJ out to say "he's black and got off" as if he is representative of the average black defendant."

I used O.J. as an example not just because he was a minority, but because he was the last hi-profile murder case in America before the Casey Anthony case, and because he, too, got off. So maybe you should ask me first before making uninformed assumptions about my motives. Thank you.

Who said I was even talking about your comment? YOU weren't the first person who brought OJ up and I wasn't even talking about in this case as it is a COMMON comparison. So take your bullshit elsewhere

[Edited 7/6/11 11:16am]

So I guess you weren't commenting on someone's post that was a direct response to my post about O.J. My bad.

MrSoulpower said:

SCNDLS said:

Who said I was even talking about your comment? YOU weren't the first person who brought OJ up and I wasn't even talking about in this case as it is a COMMON comparison. So take your bullshit elsewhere

[Edited 7/6/11 11:16am]

So I guess you weren't commenting on someone's post that was a direct response to my post about O.J. My bad.

You're bad for sure.

HotGritz said:

MrSoulpower said:

You're right about O.J., because his celebrity status definitely played a role.

But you're wrong about Casey being convicted of First Degree Murder, if she has been "some busted back burner bitch with missing teeth and a weak chin." Because without evidence, even a busted back burner bitch cannot be convicted.

In my day job, I work as a newspaper reporter, and one of my fields is crime & courts. I've covered countless murder trials, and I have seen poor and ugly black folks walk due to a lack of evidence or a jury that could not reach a verdict.

To automatically assume that Casey walked because she's young and pretty (I don't even think she's pretty) is too easy, especially when you ignore the lack of evidence.

The problem I have with this case is there was enough evidence to convict her.

Think about it:

No other suspects

No one else charged

No other child murders with similar circumstances in the same area around that same time

She didn't report her child missing for over a month

She lied about who she left her child with

She lied about whether the child was even alive or dead

She lied about who the child's father was

She partied and drank and got tatted up all while her child was missing/dead

The baby was buried NEAR her home

The computer contained internet searches for chloroform.

She had motive even though motive was not needed to prove the case against her

I mean damn, what more do we need? The evidence may have been skimpy but when is a child murder case ever so clear cut and easy?

The only thing working against the prosecution was that the child's body was badly decayed. Casey is a smart bitch I give her that.

This is at best evidence that she was aware of her child's death and covered it up.

But none of this is evidence that she killer her daughter. It's just one of the many conclusions you might draw from this ... but this conclusion wouldn't hold up in court, and it didn't.

Like I said, Caylee may have died from SIDS.

She may have drowned.

Her grandfather could have killed her.

She may have fallen from a tree and broken her neck.

The problem is that prosecutors could not even provide proof that Caylee was murdered.

Without that, you don't have a death penalty case. Prosecutors were either extremely stupid or overly confident - or both.

Again, I too think that she killer her daughter. But none of what you mentioned above is actual evidence that would support this theory.

MrSoulpower said:

HotGritz said:

I agree.

Pure speculation. They didn't fry O.J.'s ass either, and the case against him was much, much stronger.

This case, was a death penalty case, where O.J.'s wasn't. The mere fact that they were seeking the death penalty played a part in why she got off. This caused them to look at the evidence more carefully because, somebody's life was as stake. When you are forced to look at the evidence that closely, the chances of there being doubt is greater.

shorttrini said:

MrSoulpower said:

Pure speculation. They didn't fry O.J.'s ass either, and the case against him was much, much stronger.

This case, was a death penalty case, where O.J.'s wasn't. The mere fact that they were seeking the death penalty played a part in why she got off. This caused them to look at the evidence more carefully because, somebody's life was as stake. When you are forced to look at the evidence that closely, the chances of there being doubt is greater.

I agree.

MrSoulpower said:

HotGritz said:

The problem I have with this case is there was enough evidence to convict her.

Think about it:

No other suspects

No one else charged

No other child murders with similar circumstances in the same area around that same time

She didn't report her child missing for over a month

She lied about who she left her child with

She lied about whether the child was even alive or dead

She lied about who the child's father was

She partied and drank and got tatted up all while her child was missing/dead

The baby was buried NEAR her home

The computer contained internet searches for chloroform.

She had motive even though motive was not needed to prove the case against her

I mean damn, what more do we need? The evidence may have been skimpy but when is a child murder case ever so clear cut and easy?

The only thing working against the prosecution was that the child's body was badly decayed. Casey is a smart bitch I give her that.

This is at best evidence that she was aware of her child's death and covered it up.

But none of this is evidence that she killer her daughter. It's just one of the many conclusions you might draw from this ... but this conclusion wouldn't hold up in court, and it didn't.

Like I said, Caylee may have died from SIDS.

She may have drowned.

Her grandfather could have killed her.

She may have fallen from a tree and broken her neck.

The problem is that prosecutors could not even provide proof that Caylee was murdered.

Without that, you don't have a death penalty case. Prosecutors were either extremely stupid or overly confident - or both.

Again, I too think that she killer her daughter. But none of what you mentioned above is actual evidence that would support this theory.

Ok fair enough. But um...wasn't one of the other charges against Casey child neglect? How is it not neglect if you leave a 3 year old child unattended to either drown or fall out of a tree and break their neck then somehow that child just ends up in a body bag with duct tape over their mouth and buried in some swamp area? The jurors were a bunch of pea brains. I

Here is, imo, a good explanation of the lack of enough evidence to find her guilty of murder:

From an article in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/20...tml?ref=us

MrSoulpower said:

I understand the anger, disappointment and rage by some over this non-guilty verdict. But this verdict has actually proven that our judicial system works, in spite of its flaws. Because in spite of three years of public outrage and pre-conviction by the media and public, the jury remained objective and only looked at what truly matters - the evidence.

Let's face it, prosecutors have failed miserably. They had zero solid evidence that Casey Anthony killed her daughter. There was no DNA. No murder weapon. Hell, we don't even know how Caylee died, when she died and what was the cause of her death. For all we know, she could indeed have drowned in the pool or died of SIDS.

Without even the cause of death, prosecutors had a very weak case for a First Degree murder charge, especially seeking death penalty. Jurors are obligated to focus on evidence, and without such evidence, it would have been completely irresponsible to find her guilty.

The prosecutors only have themselves to blame. They should have known better; without evidence and without a cause of death, they would never get a guilty verdict on a First Degree murder charge. They should have charged her with manslaughter and maybe the jury would have found her guilty .. but even that would have been hard to prove. Instead, prosecutors were banking on the public outrage over this case, they knew that the media and the public had already found Casey guilty before she was even tried. They hoped that the jury - even though not from Orlando - would already have made up their minds coming into this trial. The prosecutors knew that most people wanted to see blood, they wanted Casey on death row. And prosecutors paid for their arrogance with an embarrassing defeat.

In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. This is a noble judicial principle. Our priority should be to make sure that we do not send innocent people to death row, even if that means that sometimes a guilty person slips through the cracks of the system and walks free. Prosecutors did not prove that Casey was guilty of murdering her child. Sure, they proved that she was a slut, a constant lier, a party hore, a horrible mother. But she didn't stand trial for that (well, she was charged with lying to police, and she was found guilty for that.)

Did Casey kill her daughter? Maybe. I have a gut feeling, and my gut feeling tells me that she did it. But we don't send people to death row based on our gut feeling. We only send them to death row when we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty. And in this case, this definitely wasn't proven.

So while this verdict was a defeat for bringing justice for Caylee, it was a victory for our judicial system. Because this case has shown that even in a murder case that gets national attention, a case in which the public has long considered the defendent guilty based on emotion, gut feeling and speculation and thirst for revenge, a jury still managed to ignore this entire circus and focus on what they are supposed to do - look at the evidence and determine if there was enough evidence to find the defendent guilty. The jury has done just that.

While Casey may be her daughter's killer, none of us can say that for sure. None of us, including those on this thread who claim to know for sure. And even if she did it - any of us one day may be in a situation and charged with murder that we did not commit. Circumstances and public opinion could be against us ... and we would expect tha jury to ignore public pressure and solely focus on the evidence presented against us. If there is no such evidence, we would also expect the jury to find us not guilty.

If only the rest of the country would look at things that way.

The public's emotional attachment to the case has clouded their judgement.

Honestly, I don't give a fuck either way. As bad as it sounds, she only killed her own child. If she had taken a life from an innocent family I would feel differently about the verdict.

minneapolisFunq said:

MrSoulpower said:

I understand the anger, disappointment and rage by some over this non-guilty verdict. But this verdict has actually proven that our judicial system works, in spite of its flaws. Because in spite of three years of public outrage and pre-conviction by the media and public, the jury remained objective and only looked at what truly matters - the evidence.

Let's face it, prosecutors have failed miserably. They had zero solid evidence that Casey Anthony killed her daughter. There was no DNA. No murder weapon. Hell, we don't even know how Caylee died, when she died and what was the cause of her death. For all we know, she could indeed have drowned in the pool or died of SIDS.

Without even the cause of death, prosecutors had a very weak case for a First Degree murder charge, especially seeking death penalty. Jurors are obligated to focus on evidence, and without such evidence, it would have been completely irresponsible to find her guilty.

The prosecutors only have themselves to blame. They should have known better; without evidence and without a cause of death, they would never get a guilty verdict on a First Degree murder charge. They should have charged her with manslaughter and maybe the jury would have found her guilty .. but even that would have been hard to prove. Instead, prosecutors were banking on the public outrage over this case, they knew that the media and the public had already found Casey guilty before she was even tried. They hoped that the jury - even though not from Orlando - would already have made up their minds coming into this trial. The prosecutors knew that most people wanted to see blood, they wanted Casey on death row. And prosecutors paid for their arrogance with an embarrassing defeat.

In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. This is a noble judicial principle. Our priority should be to make sure that we do not send innocent people to death row, even if that means that sometimes a guilty person slips through the cracks of the system and walks free. Prosecutors did not prove that Casey was guilty of murdering her child. Sure, they proved that she was a slut, a constant lier, a party hore, a horrible mother. But she didn't stand trial for that (well, she was charged with lying to police, and she was found guilty for that.)

Did Casey kill her daughter? Maybe. I have a gut feeling, and my gut feeling tells me that she did it. But we don't send people to death row based on our gut feeling. We only send them to death row when we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty. And in this case, this definitely wasn't proven.

So while this verdict was a defeat for bringing justice for Caylee, it was a victory for our judicial system. Because this case has shown that even in a murder case that gets national attention, a case in which the public has long considered the defendent guilty based on emotion, gut feeling and speculation and thirst for revenge, a jury still managed to ignore this entire circus and focus on what they are supposed to do - look at the evidence and determine if there was enough evidence to find the defendent guilty. The jury has done just that.

While Casey may be her daughter's killer, none of us can say that for sure. None of us, including those on this thread who claim to know for sure. And even if she did it - any of us one day may be in a situation and charged with murder that we did not commit. Circumstances and public opinion could be against us ... and we would expect tha jury to ignore public pressure and solely focus on the evidence presented against us. If there is no such evidence, we would also expect the jury to find us not guilty.

If only the rest of the country would look at things that way.

The public's emotional attachment to the case has clouded their judgement.

Honestly, I don't give a fuck either way. As bad as it sounds, she only killed her own child. If she had taken a life from an innocent family I would feel differently about the verdict.

So basically fuck that little dead girl cuz she wasn't really innocent?

HotGritz said:

minneapolisFunq said:

If only the rest of the country would look at things that way.

The public's emotional attachment to the case has clouded their judgement.

Honestly, I don't give a fuck either way. As bad as it sounds, she only killed her own child. If she had taken a life from an innocent family I would feel differently about the verdict.

So basically fuck that little dead girl cuz she wasn't really innocent?

Sorry Minneapolis...but I think that you need to explain what exactly you mean by that.

If Caylee was black her body wouldnt even have been found. Casey would have spent the last 3 years living it up.

lazycrockett said:

If Caylee was black her body wouldnt even have been found. Casey would have spent the last 3 years living it up.

And some black dude would be sitting in prison for alleged kidnapping and murder. Possibly.

HotGritz said:

MrSoulpower said:

This is at best evidence that she was aware of her child's death and covered it up.

But none of this is evidence that she killer her daughter. It's just one of the many conclusions you might draw from this ... but this conclusion wouldn't hold up in court, and it didn't.

Like I said, Caylee may have died from SIDS.

She may have drowned.

Her grandfather could have killed her.

She may have fallen from a tree and broken her neck.

The problem is that prosecutors could not even provide proof that Caylee was murdered.

Without that, you don't have a death penalty case. Prosecutors were either extremely stupid or overly confident - or both.

Again, I too think that she killer her daughter. But none of what you mentioned above is actual evidence that would support this theory.

Ok fair enough. But um...wasn't one of the other charges against Casey child neglect? How is it not neglect if you leave a 3 year old child unattended to either drown or fall out of a tree and break their neck then somehow that child just ends up in a body bag with duct tape over their mouth and buried in some swamp area? The jurors were a bunch of pea brains. I

I agree, the child neglect charge is a tricky one. But even though Casey is the parent, the circumstances around Caylee's disappearance are so unclear that it would be hard to nail her down for that, too. Because technically, the child could have been with someone else when she disappeared. The law allows the defendent to remain silent, and the jury is not allowed to hold that against her. So there is little they could have done.

I do find it very presumptious to call the jurors "a bunch of pea brains." Again, I assume that you too have not read the jury instructions and you were not present at deliberations. I agree that they MAY have at least convicted her on child neglect, but I only say that because I am not aware of the actual evidence prosecutors have presented for this particular charge.

Look, I agree Casey is a scumbag, and she probably did it. But prosecutors did not only fail to present proper evidence, they also had a terrible strategy that backfired.