NOT GUILTY????

[Grey Colson]

My observation is that people these days don't know what "reasonable doubt" is. It is not that you know for 100% that a person did commit the crime. It does not have to be 100%. It is only that a resonable person believes that the person most likely committed the crime. On the other hand, I don't believe the state was able to prove 1st degree or felony murder, but aggravated chile abuse was a no brainer. I watched a good portion of the trial and I wouold have found "guilty" in that count.

God will be the final Judge in this case. I suspect she will walk on Thursday. Even though 4 misd count = 4 years, it's rare a judge will make a defendant serve consecutive sentences. He will run them concurrent and release her time served.

 

[Guard Dad]

The defense outgunned the prosecution, plain and simple.

 

[Madea]

I think they messed up making this a death penalty case. The evidence didn't rise to that level. Do I believe that child died at her mother's hands? Yes, I do. Do I believe it was malice murder? No, not really. Either way, it's devastating.

 

[atlantdav]

Too many factors in this case looking at the media. IMO, I think a few family members know what happened. Sadly a precious child was the victim. I bet another trial will come to lite accusing.............................

 

[naturegirl]

My observation is that people these days don't know what "reasonable doubt" is. It is not that you know for 100% that a person did commit the crime. It does not have to be 100%. It is only that a resonable person believes that the person most likely committed the crime. On the other hand, I don't believe the state was able to prove 1st degree or felony murder, but aggravated chile abuse was a no brainer. I watched a good portion of the trial and I wouold have found "guilty" in that count.

God will be the final Judge in this case. I suspect she will walk on Thursday. Even though 4 misd count = 4 years, it's rare a judge will make a defendant serve consecutive sentences. He will run them concurrent and release her time served.

I agree 100%. I think this jury watched to many CSI shows. No there wasn't a "smoking gun" but it is reasonable to believe she was responsible for this child's death. It's reasonable doubt not all doubt!! Yes, aggravated child abuse was a definite.

It's over, she got away with murder of her little girl. But Karma has a way of making it's way around. Look at OJ. When someone thinks they got away with such a heinous crime, they think they can't be caught or convicted of anything. She'll be back in jail for another serious crime before she turns 30.

 

[ShoeDiva]

My observation is that people these days don't know what "reasonable doubt" is. It is not that you know for 100% that a person did commit the crime. It does not have to be 100%. It is only that a resonable person believes that the person most likely committed the crime. On the other hand, I don't believe the state was able to prove 1st degree or felony murder, but aggravated chile abuse was a no brainer. I watched a good portion of the trial and I wouold have found "guilty" in that count.

God will be the final Judge in this case. I suspect she will walk on Thursday. Even though 4 misd count = 4 years, it's rare a judge will make a defendant serve consecutive sentences. He will run them concurrent and release her time served.

Hmmm, I agree that some might not understand the doubt vs reasonable doubt, but I believe in this instance there was more doubt then should be with a case that could send someone to prison for life or even to death.

On aggravated child abuse. I could have gone both ways. If I believe one theory of what happened, yes, if I believe the other, no. Since I really do not know what happened, and who did what, if I just go by photos and videos of Casey and Caylee and the ME stating that there were no fractures showing a history of abuse, I would have to really say no.

People need to remember that the jury was not privy to Nancy Grace and the 40 other talking heads, giving their spin, and info that the jury never saw or heard. I think the media created a frenzy with all the coverage.

Wouldn't 4 misdemeanors be up to four years? I agree she will walk with time served.

JR How do you feel about the "smell" science they were trying to introduce?

 

[Foxmeister]

I agree with whoever said earlier the DA should not have gone after the death penalty when starting this trial. I don't think anyone is going to convict someone to death if the cause of death death had not been determined. Though the death was ruled to be a homicide, the cause of her death was undetermined. In other words, the DA said Caylee was murdered, but never able to tell the jury how. This alone brings doubt to people's mind. Was it possible Caylee's death was the result of an action without the intent to kill her? That's very possible and if that is what happened, it would not be a premeditated murder, but involuntary manslaughter which is not a capital offense the prosecution was going for.

The DA's office was stupid for going after Casey for murder when the cause of death was undetermined. The best they could have hoped for was Involuntary Manslaughter, but even that would have been tough to get a conviction on as the cause of death was undetermined.

 

[mei lan]

I think they messed up making this a death penalty case. The evidence didn't rise to that level. Do I believe that child died at her mother's hands? Yes, I do. Do I believe it was malice murder? No, not really. Either way, it's devastating.

Yeppers, to all.

 

[mei lan]

She'll be back in jail for another serious crime before she turns 30.

ED ZACHARY. I said the same thing yesterday.

 

[Madea]

She'll be back in jail for another serious crime before she turns 30.

I think she'll be dead before then. Have you seen the photo of her outside the courthouse with a HUGE smile? I think the minute she is out it will be PAR-TAY time! I don't think Mom and Dad will be lending her a hand. On her own, she will perish.

 

[mei lan]

She'll be back in jail for another serious crime before she turns 30.

I think she'll be dead before then. Have you seen the photo of her outside the courthouse with a HUGE smile? I think the minute she is out it will be PAR-TAY time! I don't think Mom and Dad will be lending her a hand. On her own, she will perish.

HA! That's the other thing I said yesterday. She'll either be back in jail for a serious crime, or dead in some bar fight or other in the not-too-distant future.

 

[Grey Colson]

My observation is that people these days don't know what "reasonable doubt" is. It is not that you know for 100% that a person did commit the crime. It does not have to be 100%. It is only that a resonable person believes that the person most likely committed the crime. On the other hand, I don't believe the state was able to prove 1st degree or felony murder, but aggravated chile abuse was a no brainer. I watched a good portion of the trial and I wouold have found "guilty" in that count.

God will be the final Judge in this case. I suspect she will walk on Thursday. Even though 4 misd count = 4 years, it's rare a judge will make a defendant serve consecutive sentences. He will run them concurrent and release her time served.

Hmmm, I agree that some might not understand the doubt vs reasonable doubt, but I believe in this instance there was more doubt then should be with a case that could send someone to prison for life or even to death.

On aggravated child abuse. I could have gone both ways. If I believe one theory of what happened, yes, if I believe the other, no. Since I really do not know what happened, and who did what, if I just go by photos and videos of Casey and Caylee and the ME stating that there were no fractures showing a history of abuse, I would have to really say no.

People need to remember that the jury was not privy to Nancy Grace and the 40 other talking heads, giving their spin, and info that the jury never saw or heard. I think the media created a frenzy with all the coverage.

Wouldn't 4 misdemeanors be up to four years? I agree she will walk with time served.

JR How do you feel about the "smell" science they were trying to introduce?

Yes, the 4 can add up to 4 years, but in most cases a judge will run all four counts together instead of consecutive. He CAN do it, but I don't believe he will.

This "smell" evidence is something I haven't heard much of prior to this case. Now that type of aroma is VERY much one of it's own, even different from a morgue. We walked in on one that had been dead for several days last month. It is a very unique smell, but I still don't think a person smelling it without a body being present should be viewed a "hard evidence". I would give far more weight to a positive hit by a cadaver dog. Their alert is a thousand times more reliable. I didn't see all the case. Did they use a cadaver dog?

 

[Foxmeister]

My observation is that people these days don't know what "reasonable doubt" is. It is not that you know for 100% that a person did commit the crime. It does not have to be 100%. It is only that a resonable person believes that the person most likely committed the crime. On the other hand, I don't believe the state was able to prove 1st degree or felony murder, but aggravated chile abuse was a no brainer. I watched a good portion of the trial and I wouold have found "guilty" in that count.

God will be the final Judge in this case. I suspect she will walk on Thursday. Even though 4 misd count = 4 years, it's rare a judge will make a defendant serve consecutive sentences. He will run them concurrent and release her time served.

Hmmm, I agree that some might not understand the doubt vs reasonable doubt, but I believe in this instance there was more doubt then should be with a case that could send someone to prison for life or even to death.

On aggravated child abuse. I could have gone both ways. If I believe one theory of what happened, yes, if I believe the other, no. Since I really do not know what happened, and who did what, if I just go by photos and videos of Casey and Caylee and the ME stating that there were no fractures showing a history of abuse, I would have to really say no.

People need to remember that the jury was not privy to Nancy Grace and the 40 other talking heads, giving their spin, and info that the jury never saw or heard. I think the media created a frenzy with all the coverage.

Wouldn't 4 misdemeanors be up to four years? I agree she will walk with time served.

JR How do you feel about the "smell" science they were trying to introduce?

Yes, the 4 can add up to 4 years, but in most cases a judge will run all four counts together instead of consecutive. He CAN do it, but I don't believe he will.

This "smell" evidence is something I haven't heard much of prior to this case. Now that type of aroma is VERY much one of it's own, even different from a morgue. We walked in on one that had been dead for several days last month. It is a very unique smell, but I still don't think a person smelling it without a body being present should be viewed a "hard evidence". I would give far more weight to a positive hit by a cadaver dog. Their alert is a thousand times more reliable. I didn't see all the case. Did they use a cadaver dog?

I read the body was found because someone just happened upon it.

 

[kittycat]

My observation is that people these days don't know what "reasonable doubt" is. It is not that you know for 100% that a person did commit the crime. It does not have to be 100%. It is only that a resonable person believes that the person most likely committed the crime. On the other hand, I don't believe the state was able to prove 1st degree or felony murder, but aggravated chile abuse was a no brainer. I watched a good portion of the trial and I wouold have found "guilty" in that count.

God will be the final Judge in this case. I suspect she will walk on Thursday. Even though 4 misd count = 4 years, it's rare a judge will make a defendant serve consecutive sentences. He will run them concurrent and release her time served.

Hmmm, I agree that some might not understand the doubt vs reasonable doubt, but I believe in this instance there was more doubt then should be with a case that could send someone to prison for life or even to death.

On aggravated child abuse. I could have gone both ways. If I believe one theory of what happened, yes, if I believe the other, no. Since I really do not know what happened, and who did what, if I just go by photos and videos of Casey and Caylee and the ME stating that there were no fractures showing a history of abuse, I would have to really say no.

People need to remember that the jury was not privy to Nancy Grace and the 40 other talking heads, giving their spin, and info that the jury never saw or heard. I think the media created a frenzy with all the coverage.

Wouldn't 4 misdemeanors be up to four years? I agree she will walk with time served.

JR How do you feel about the "smell" science they were trying to introduce?

Yes, the 4 can add up to 4 years, but in most cases a judge will run all four counts together instead of consecutive. He CAN do it, but I don't believe he will.

This "smell" evidence is something I haven't heard much of prior to this case. Now that type of aroma is VERY much one of it's own, even different from a morgue. We walked in on one that had been dead for several days last month. It is a very unique smell, but I still don't think a person smelling it without a body being present should be viewed a "hard evidence". I would give far more weight to a positive hit by a cadaver dog. Their alert is a thousand times more reliable. I didn't see all the case. Did they use a cadaver dog?

The dog that was used picked up smell in trunk and also the back yard near the play house....which I believe at first she was was going to bury the baby in the back yard near the pet graves....

 

[lotstodo]

To me the four main pieces of circumstantial evidence can lead to only one reasonable conclusion.

1) She didn't report her daughter's death and multiple stories were inconsistent with each other and the evidence.

2) She said the child drowned but there was no evidence of pool water in her lungs.

3) Duct tape on her mouth and skull and other pieces of tape found at the scene of the body dump same brand found in the Anthony household and on a gas can in the trunk of Anthony's car. You don't duct tape the mouth of a dead person.

4) Smell of decomp and a hair from Caylee in the trunk of Anthony's car that showed post-mortem banding.

The standard is "reasonable" doubt, not no doubt whatsoever. She could have been abducted by aliens, but that is falls outside the "reasonability" standard, as does drowning. JMHO. Would it have been better with a certain cause of death? Sure it would. it would have also been better with a videotape of the murder found posted on Youtube, but the fact is that not every crime has a smoking gun. Murder convictions are obtained without even a body for crying out loud. I didn't see the trial, so perhaps the prosecution was as incompetent as OJ's, but I am still flabbergasted.

 

[ShoeDiva]

To me the four main pieces of circumstantial evidence can lead to only one reasonable conclusion.

1) She didn't report her daughter's death and multiple stories were inconsistent with each other and the evidence.

2) She said the child drowned but there was no evidence of pool water in her lungs.

3) Duct tape on her mouth and skull and other pieces of tape found at the scene of the body dump same brand found in the Anthony household and on a gas can in the trunk of Anthony's car. You don't duct tape the mouth of a dead person.

4) Smell of decomp and a hair from Caylee in the trunk of Anthony's car that showed post-mortem banding.

The standard is "reasonable" doubt, not no doubt whatsoever. She could have been abducted by aliens, but that is falls outside the "reasonability" standard, as does drowning. JMHO. Would it have been better with a certain cause of death? Sure it would. it would have also been better with a videotape of the murder found posted on Youtube, but the fact is that not every crime has a smoking gun. Murder convictions are obtained without even a body for crying out loud. I didn't see the trial, so perhaps the prosecution was as incompetent as OJ's, but I am still flabbergasted.

#1 Would go along with the drowning theory. She didn't report her missing because the baby drowned.
#2 Did not happen. There were no lungs to look at.
#3 I question because of the animals. That is how they buried them. IF Caylee drowned and they planned on burying her they might have done the same thing.
#4 The smell "might" have been body decomposition or not. That was one of the things that was questionable.

I am not arguing your points just putting out some other options to yours and some reasons why the not guilty happened. I don't think there did need to be a smoking gun, but so many stories, so many lies, so many theories, and no actual firm cause of death created much doubt.

 

[mei lan]

To me the four main pieces of circumstantial evidence can lead to only one reasonable conclusion.

1) She didn't report her daughter's death and multiple stories were inconsistent with each other and the evidence.

2) She said the child drowned but there was no evidence of pool water in her lungs.

3) Duct tape on her mouth and skull and other pieces of tape found at the scene of the body dump same brand found in the Anthony household and on a gas can in the trunk of Anthony's car. You don't duct tape the mouth of a dead person.

4) Smell of decomp and a hair from Caylee in the trunk of Anthony's car that showed post-mortem banding.

The standard is "reasonable" doubt, not no doubt whatsoever. She could have been abducted by aliens, but that is falls outside the "reasonability" standard, as does drowning. JMHO. Would it have been better with a certain cause of death? Sure it would. it would have also been better with a videotape of the murder found posted on Youtube, but the fact is that not every crime has a smoking gun. Murder convictions are obtained without even a body for crying out loud. I didn't see the trial, so perhaps the prosecution was as incompetent as OJ's, but I am still flabbergasted.

Well said. I think she's guilty as hades, but all is not lost - she will still have to stand before the Ultimate Judge. And I wouldn't want to be her when that happens...He does not look kindly upon the death of innocents.

 

[Foxmeister]

As I said earlier, her death was ruled a homicide, but the cause of death was undetermined. I've seen cases where people have been convicted of murder without the discovery of the body, but there was other evidence to prove the murder did take place.

I worked for short period of time as a criminal investigator specializing in homicide for a law firm. We had a case where our defendent was accused of a murder, but no body was ever recovered even though an eyewitness to the "murder" saw where the body was placed. This is a case I'm currently writing my book on. What was found instead, was the carcass of an ostrich. Our trial ended up with a hung jury. Interestingly enough, some of the jurors talked to us afterward and told us some of the other jurors who were voting guilty all said the defendent probably didn't kill anyone, but looked like the type who was guilty of something. This just goes to prove that not all jurors listen to the facts in a case, but base their decision on how the defendent may look.

 

[Foxmeister]

To me the four main pieces of circumstantial evidence can lead to only one reasonable conclusion.

1) She didn't report her daughter's death and multiple stories were inconsistent with each other and the evidence.

2) She said the child drowned but there was no evidence of pool water in her lungs.

3) Duct tape on her mouth and skull and other pieces of tape found at the scene of the body dump same brand found in the Anthony household and on a gas can in the trunk of Anthony's car. You don't duct tape the mouth of a dead person.

4) Smell of decomp and a hair from Caylee in the trunk of Anthony's car that showed post-mortem banding.

The standard is "reasonable" doubt, not no doubt whatsoever. She could have been abducted by aliens, but that is falls outside the "reasonability" standard, as does drowning. JMHO. Would it have been better with a certain cause of death? Sure it would. it would have also been better with a videotape of the murder found posted on Youtube, but the fact is that not every crime has a smoking gun. Murder convictions are obtained without even a body for crying out loud. I didn't see the trial, so perhaps the prosecution was as incompetent as OJ's, but I am still flabbergasted.

Well said. I think she's guilty as hades, but all is not lost - she will still have to stand before the Ultimate Judge. And I wouldn't want to be her when that happens...He does not look kindly upon the death of innocents.

Let me ask you something; if she accepts Jesus Christ as her Saviour and asks God for forgiveness, will she enter Heaven when she dies?

 

[lotstodo]

SD, I believe that I read that traces of chlorine should be detectible in the torso for months after death if the body is not devoid of tissue. i don't know for a fact if that is true. None was detected. Of course you can't prove a negative (the presence of chlorine would support her defense, but the absence of chlorine does nothing for the prosecution) and her defense attorneys knew that.

Fox the only thing sure about a jury trial is that you can't be sure of anything. I sat on one jury where two jurors stated their intention to ignore the charge from the judge because they didn't like the way the law applied to the case. What should have taken a few hours to deliberate turned into a 3 day ordeal.