Not guilty of 1st or 2nd degree murder or child abuse.
She was conviced of a few counts of lying to police though.
Printable View
Not guilty of 1st or 2nd degree murder or child abuse.
She was conviced of a few counts of lying to police though.
Here's me commenting , and yet not caring.
That's how the cookie crumbles.
moving on.
just another example of our JS failing. Add her to the list of OJ and M. jackson. :rolleyes:
OJ was jury nullification and Jackson's accuser's family were professional plaintiffs with zero credibility. But I'm really surprised by this one. Just her partying for 31 days while her daughter was 'missing' was proof enough. I'm dying to see what the jurors say when they speak to the media and of course get their book deals.
All the evidence was circumstantial. I'm saw this coming.
who cares for a piece of trash.
she is yet another example of subhumans who exist in the world today.
nothing but a walking bag of trash.
Apparently it wasn't. This is the prosecution's fault for not putting together an adequate case. They decided to go through with circumstance. They had 3 years and yet still couldn't piece together proof of how she actually died. That ought to tell you something, like maybe everyone is wrong. That is called reasonable doubt. And that is all it takes. In this country you're innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around. Like the verdict or not, the system worked as intended.
This is why we have the system we do. None of us were in the courtroom so we don't know. If you left it to the mob mentality in this country she'd have been stoned to death. I'll take our system as is.
I agree with you about our system SoCo. One of the Founders said something along the lines of, 'Its better for 100 guilty men to go free than 1 innocent man to be convicted'. So I agree that our "Innocent until proven guilty" system is the best in the world. I'm not questioning our system, I'm questioning the logic of those 12 people. I just can't fathom a parent not calling 911 for a whole month when their child is missing and 12 people saying that isn't proof of a crime. And I don't even have kids. It's just unfathomable to me.
Things that tripped up the jury:
-No cause of death
-Possibility that the death was accidental (That would explain a LOT, but this trial couldn't address that)
-No evidence of premeditation
And...
Spencer said she was not surprised by the verdict. She cited the lack of direct evidence, including any incriminating DNA found on tape attached to the little girl's skull. Forensics evidence, she said, "backfired" on prosecutors.
"I think that this verdict was the only logical verdict," prominent defense attorney Mark Geragos told CNN's Cooper. "The prosecution woefully fell flat in this case at all times. They're the ones who invested themselves in this guilt-by-character-assassination ... they didn't have actual evidence."
Something DOES smell rotten in the state of Denmark, but the evidence was crap, and they might have very well been chasing the wrong charges.
They actually had that one covered by presenting the Internet history, searches, etc. Those searches were done before the little girl disappeared.
I initially felt the mom was trying to put the kid to sleep with the chloroform so she could go out and party and she accidentally killed her. After the prosecution showed the Internet searches also had stuff like 'broken necks' and other similar terms, I then felt it was likely intentional.
I'm not following the case, don't care about the case. She was found not-guilty, means she is not guilty. Simple as that.
I wasn't big on following the case, so I wouldn't have been surprised if the verdict had gone either way.
I will say that the prosecution really screwed up when they put the death penalty on the table. It seemed pretty clear from the get-go that the chance of the DP for her was remote to begin with. I'm sure that was a big factor in finding her not guilty of murder.
Ultimately justice will be served. -It may not be today or tomorrow or with the public watching but rest assured, justice will prevail. Karma, and the human conscience, has a way of coming full circle when one least expects it!
I have children and if one of my children went missing I would have notified the authorities immediately (not wait 30 days to do so)... any normal parent would.
I am not saying she is or isn't guilty... what I am saying is that if she was involved somehow, she'll get hers eventually;)
As I've said, that's the part that convinced me.
I'd like any of you parents here to give me just one scenario where you would not report your 2 year old missing for 31 days. And I'm not trying to argue, I just cannot fathom a mother not reporting her 2 year old being missing for 31 days. And on top of that, she didn't even report the child being missing, the child's grandmother made the 911 call.
looking at her face when the verdict was announced was appauling. any true loving parent would have still been mourning and having a finish to the ordeal would have brought it all back hard, she should have been crying not jumping for joy and looking like she just got off splash mountain.
some ninja needs to poison her beer.
You are assuming she is a normally rationalizing individual. I don't buy into the crap about her father abusing her, but she still is quite bat sh!t crazy. Reactions for "normal" people run a pretty wide range. Not everyone shows grief in the same ways. Lots of women fall into denial of anything every happening. And its quite clear this girl is NOT normal. So really, who can say how she'd react. I've worked with a lot of psychiatric/behavioral patients before. They all react in some pretty abnormal ways. But that doesn't mean she killed her. She is the most logical target. But that's not how things work. Has to be beyond all reasonable doubt, which just isn't the case here. And it doesn't help that from out pov we have all the media frenzied BS. I like how Nancy Supercunt was complaining about how the jury seemed to have already made up their minds, yet she's the moron that has been throwing gasoline on this forest fire from day 1.
i totally get what you are saying...i did not follow this story at all, i learned about this yesterday and read the rundown of 'evidence' and all that so i dont really know all the details. but...I just feel any truly loving parent would react differently...perhaps she just did not really loved her child all that much. or she is 'nuts' like you are saying...idk, but my gut says she is involved in a bad way. i tend to trust my gut more than a court of law :eek:
the duct tape on the mouth really got in my head. you just wouldnt do that to a dead body, crazy or sane.
i getcha tho
this isn't a suprise at all... all these fake lawyer wannabees on tv embarassing themselves...
the prosecution did not make their case... and even having watched a lil bit of the media circus, unavoidable since it was on every fukcing channel, didnt skew me... its very simple, the prosecution didnt answer any crucial questions... they tried a death penalty case to get a pro crime and punishment jury and that was the first huge mistake... you dont try(sp?) circumstancial death penalty cases... you just dont...
is casey anthony guilty of something? hell yeah... but there is more than reasonable doubt about weather she even killed her kid or just tarded out after an accident... nobody here can answer that question and its just that simple...
this is a win for the legal system and you people should be proud... coz whether shes guilty or not, the case wasnt made, character assasination is not equal to proving murder... clearly the whole fam are halfwitt retards, no questuion... but murderers? not shown beyond any definition of reasonable doubt...
if she had been convicted it would have been for the wrong reasons, even if she did really do it... and that would have been a gross miscarriage of justice. even worse than letting a murderer go... enough people already get railroaded by overzealous prosecutors and pi$$ed off overworked police, the court is supposed to protect them from that... if yall start convicting on hunches, feelings and other emotional responses you will have far worse happen... i mean, it already does happen... read grishams "the innocent man" and you will see a perfect example of what should never EVER happen... but it does, all the time... there are a ton of people who are in prison for crimes they didnt do... and thats wrong, even if they were bad people and the cops just did what they had to do to get em off the street... its wrong...
i would have been very dissapointed if she had been convicted of anything other than obstruction and the like...
what is most unfortunate is that the prosecution cant touch her now... and she is guilty of something... the state failed caylee, bottom line... its their job to find out what happened and they allowed outside interference to cloud the better judgement that i hope they posess...
also, i think nancy grace is one of the worst influences on tv EVER... she is a joke... law and order my a$$, shes 100% emotional response... the best lawyers are robots that can act like they care about stuff, not the other way around...
im so tired of hearing broken down prosecutors claim these great records... since 99.9% of the folks in court are guilty, anything less than a 90 - 95 % success rate isnt that great IMO... she isnt special... find me a defence attorney with a record of even 50% and i'll show you a great lawyer...
also i feel women make better defence lawyers than men... by far... my lawyer almost went to jail for me once and not only did she win but the crown was reprimanded afterwards... it was tense tho... but they were over-reaching... i was guilty, but not of what they were saying... i did participate and finish a pretty brutal violent act, but i didnt start it and i didnt see any other way out alive... when somebody stabs you and you actually win the fight, its very dissapointing to get charged for it and be named as the instigator... now i can laugh about it, but back then it really pi$$ed me off... dude deserved what he got... not my fault he cant think the same anymore, shouldnt have cut me from behind...
yeah i think thats the most likely charge... child abuse that is... but they didnt show one way or the other... there was no evidence to suggest it was murder or an accident, or anything for that matter... all they showed was that she had a crazy fam, she was a twiit and caylee died and was dumped by somebody... thatys not enough... you dont convict on hunches and feelings blue... even tho sometimes it feels unfair, its alot more unfair when you are actually inopcent and getting railroaded... you cant tell me you have those answers blue... we jjst dont know... not guilty... sucks, but better than the alternative... the jury system we use in canada is very similar and its our best choice under the circumstances...
you cannot convict of one or the other when you dunno if it was one or the other... or anything at all for that matter... im sure like everyone else, you have waaaaay more questions than answers....
Nancy Grace tried and convicted the women before she even finished her trial.
People don't put any thought into who or what they choose to cast their negative energies upon.
that's a waste of good negative energy that could be cast in even more deserving places.
Nancy Grace is scum of the earth. You better believe it.
The fact that she didn't ever report her own 2-year old daughter missing for 31 days was admitted to by the defense. As I've said before, innocent people do not do that.
Also, an innocent person does not wait til they are on trial for murder to accuse their father and brother of molesting them.
I don't know about that case. Wanna fill me in?
I'm not defending Nancy Grace, but there is a reason she takes these cases so personal and gets so emotional about them. She was going to major in English until her then fiance was murdered. She decided to become a lawyer and victim's rights advocate. So in my book she is one of the few people to go to law school for the right reasons.
look, im not saying shes clean... im just saying the case wasnt proven beyond a reasonable doubt and the right verdict was reached... none of that tells us what happened... thats called reasonable doubt... by the letter, man...
not really... look it up... its a big story, grisham wrote a book about it... basically dude got railroaded and put on death row for being a drunk scummy guy... the cops and the DA did whatever they had to do, right or wrong, top convict him of a crime he very clearly did not commit... which was shown years later... but they btroke a man who was having trouble anyways... very sad story... wiki it, get the rundown...Quote:
I don't know about that case. Wanna fill me in?
edit: here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inn...n_a_Small_Town
actually i believe the opposite... the less emotion in law, the better... we have enough zealots running around as it is... one more and i may start hurting people... ;)
she never gets tired of exploiting that story either... anger is no reason to be a prosecutor... it leads to injustice EVERY SINGLE TIME in some way or another... true justice is balanced and emotionless...
Depends. The Innocence Project is staffed by emotional people and they do alot of good. Jerry Spence is also very emotional, and he saved Randy Weaver from being railroaded.
Again, I'm not defending her. I'm just giving her credit for having a good reason to become a lawyer. I'd rather have more lawyers like her than John Edwards types who just entered law to get rich and have a career in politics or those ambulance chasing injury lawyer types who advertise on tv. I believe people who bring passion into their work are better than those who dont.