- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Washington Babies
Casey Anthony Verdict
They are announcing at 11:15 pacific time. I can't believe it was so quick! Any one else watching?
Update: Not guilty.
M + K = 05.16.09 | A.P. = 02.27.11
This discussion has been closed.
Re: Casey Anthony Verdict
Luckily work is slow for me, so I can watch. I think she is definitely guilty, but I'm not sure what they'll convict her on. I don't think she'll be guilty of any of the aggrevated counts, but probably the 1st degree murder one. We'll see!!! There is only ten minutes left!
Easter 2011
I would be willing to bet that many members of the jury THINK she is guilty and went with not guilty due to reasonable doubt. I believe that she is guilty; unfortunately this verdict did not surprise me.
This and I'm in complete shock. I really thought this was a no brainer.
I would be willing to bet that many members of the jury THINK she is guilty and went with not guilty due to reasonable doubt. I believe that she is guilty; unfortunately this verdict did not surprise me.
This, exactly. And also, I am sure they are telling themselves that there is just no way that a mother could do that to their child, although they know she probably did. I would HATE to have to live with that, and feel horribly for the jurors who were just doing their job to the extent the law requires of them.
What exactly does that do?? Nothing. She will be sentenced on Thursday, credited with time served and released. I'm not sure how that something is even close to being convicted of murdering her toddler.
This is really sickening and I appalled at the outcome. A sociopathic liar was found not guilty and will be let free. I cannot imagine how on earth those jurors came to that conclusion, especially so fast. What is wrong with them??
This, exactly. And also, I am sure they are telling themselves that there is just no way that a mother could do that to their child, although they know she probably did. I would HATE to have to live with that, and feel horribly for the jurors who were just doing their job to the extent the law requires of them.
I do NOT feel horribly for the jury. They took less than 2 days to deliberate charges on a murder charge. I think they did a horrible job, rushed this, and can't imagine how they would come up with the result they did.
i think it's better than saying that she was crazy/delusional, and that it was expected, and nothing happens at all with it. at least they know that she purposefully gave false information.
I do NOT feel horribly for the jury. They took less than 2 days to deliberate charges on a murder charge. I think they did a horrible job, rushed this, and can't imagine how they would come up with the result they did.
Don't blame the jury. I doubt they rushed the decision. They sat on a jury panel for weeks and listened to evidence. Going into deliberations they probably had their minds 75% made up based upon what was presented to them. No one can judge the jury because we did not sit in those chairs and nor did we watch every single second play out in this trial.
The test is beyond a reasonable doubt...that is a high threshold. if there is even a scintilla of doubt in the minds of a juror then they HAVE to, by law, find not guilty. And obviously they did....all 12.
This is not the jury's fault. This is a media issue, an evidence issue, and the presentation of evidence. I think that all the people who watched media coverage of this trial were tainted with the media's impression of this girl. If there is any dissonance in regards to this trial, blame it on the media, who would have burned her at the stake if they could. And why...because it bumped their ratings and made for good drama.
Don't blame the jury. I doubt they rushed the decision. They sat on a jury panel for weeks and listened to evidence. Going into deliberations they probably had their minds 75% made up based upon what was presented to them. No one can judge the jury because we did not sit in those chairs and nor did we watch every single second play out in this trial.
The test is beyond a reasonable doubt...that is a high threshold. if there is even a scintilla of doubt in the minds of a juror then they HAVE to, by law, find not guilty. And obviously they did....all 12.
This is not the jury's fault. This is a media issue, an evidence issue, and the presentation of evidence. I think that all the people who watched media coverage of this trial were tainted with the media's impression of this girl. If there is any dissonance in regards to this trial, blame it on the media, who would have burned her at the stake if they could. And why...because it bumped their ratings and made for good drama.
I disagree. A "scintilla" of doubt < reasonable doubt. And as far as how long they deliberated, they sure did rush this. Most trials of this nature deliberate 1 day per WEEK of trial. This jury deliberated about 1 HOUR per week. They completely ignored the defense's own claim that Casey was present at the death of her daughter, which they said was a drowning, and then covered up. While the evidence was only circumstantial, it is in fact still evidence, and should be used to make a logical conclusion. There is no way that they took the time to go through all of the evidence presented to come up with results on all charges based on everything that was presented to them.
I disagree. A "scintilla" of doubt < reasonable doubt. And as far as how long they deliberated, they sure did rush this. Most trials of this nature deliberate 1 day per WEEK of trial. This jury deliberated about 1 HOUR per week. They completely ignored the defense's own claim that Casey was present at the death of her daughter, which they said was a drowning, and then covered up. While the evidence was only circumstantial, it is in fact still evidence, and should be used to make a logical conclusion. There is no way that they took the time to go through all of the evidence presented to come up with results on all charges based on everything that was presented to them.
Did you look at every US jury trial and take the average of days it took for a deliberation as to the number of weeks per trial? I doubt it. No one can predict what a jury is going to do. No one can predict how much time it will take. That is the US justice system.
Did you look at every US jury trial and take the average of days it took for a deliberation as to the number of weeks per trial? I doubt it. No one can predict what a jury is going to do. No one can predict how much time it will take. That is the US justice system.
Yes, you are correct. And, with the time that they spent, the possibility of them being able to go over all evidence in a case, and spending time "deliberating" about the information that was given to them since the trial began BACK IN MAY, it is highly unlikely, that they were able to do DUE JUSTICE and make sure that everything was considered in relation to their verdicts. I'm glad you think the jurors did such a stellar job. I did not.
SO SO true. I honestly think the only true winner in all of this was the media. This was a goldmine for them.
Ah yes, it's all the media's fault. How could they follow the story of a poor girl who was murdered, and keep people updated with the "evidence." How on earth could they dream of assuming poor Casey was guilty. It's totally normal to lie about your child being kidnapped for a month, lying to family, police, etc. They sure did make her look like a monster to bump their ratings. Not like she did any of it herself...
Looks like some of us will have to agree to disagree.
Wow. I don't think she's "poor Casey" at all. She dug her own grave (and likely her daughter's too). In fact, I think she's guilty. That wasn't the point though. I think Savannah Guthrie said it best, "This moment seems apt to remind: in the law, "not guilty" not the same concept as "innocent". Jurors may simply have not been convinced beyond reasonable doubt."
There's a reason why jurors are often sequestered from the influence of the media. All Kiltlifter is saying is that the jurors were asked to do a job and they did it. If she was on trial via the media's courtroom, of course we would've all convicted her. We all submit to the legal process and we have to accept the outcome even when it's not the favorable one we want. A finding of "not guilty" is not a finding of innocent. It's simply that given the charges, the prosecution failed to prove their case.
It's a sad day all around. I can't believe Casey was smiling after all that.
I get what you're saying. It really is sad and no one is a winner in this situation (other than Casey?) But I don't think blaming the media is fair. They gave the people what they wanted. Most of us were intrigued at this case and wanted coverage. They didn't make her out to be a monster. She did that herself. And I followed the trial from the beginning and there was evidence presented. I could understand the jury "maybe" letting her off on murder in the first, but, seriously, all of the serious charges? The jurors were in there for what, 11 hours? They asked no questions, needed no clarifications, and managed to come back with a decision unanimously in that amount of time? I won't go on and on about what the jurors did or did not do, but it was a huge injustice to Caylee.
I won't even get started with the defense team out partying and celebrating at a bar after...
She is a sociopath. It's not like she is going to think of Caylee every day of her life. She is going to make money on this with book deals, interviews, pictures, etc. All I can say is I hope she gets what is coming to her and I am appalled that the jury didn't want to waste more of their precious time going over the evidence presented to them.
I am just not understanding the jury blame. There are 12 people which all came to the same judgement very quickly which tells me they were no where near proving her guilt. I didn't follow the trial closely but it seemed to be a circus which even the judge admitted he had little control of. If you want to blame someone, then you should blame the person who's job it is to prove guilt... not the people looking at what is presented to them.
Edit: 48 hours is on at 10 and is on Casey Anthony.
Different jury, different day, different decision. And a quick decision in a case that was such a long trial is a big sign that they didn't spend time going over notes, evidence, etc that was presented from day 1. It was an 8 week trial and there were tons of witnesses, experts, and so on that spoke. It definitely looked like to me and many out there that they had gone into deliberations with their mind made up and ready to get out of there and continue with their lives. And just because the trial was a "circus", does not mean that the jurors duties have changed. if you think they did a good job, great. If you think she is innocent, that's also your opinion, which you are entitled to. I am sticking by my opinion on this.
I also don't think it was the jury's fault. It's up to the prosecution to make a case that will convince a jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This prosecutor did not do that. If anyone is at fault for this, it was the prosecutor.
Juries making decisions based on emotions are NOT good juries. Just because you think something happened a certain way doesn't mean it actually happened that way. Jurors should never ever base a decision on a gut feeling or because they don't like the defendant or whatever other reason not in any way connected with the evidence they are given during the trial.
Personally, I don't think she intentionally killed Caylee. I think Caylee died by some sort of accident and Casey panicked and covered it up. I also don't think Casey gave a rip about Caylee's death, which in an of itself is infuriating.
Unable to even.
********************
You don't understand the appeal of Benedict Cumberbatch / think he's fug / don't know who he is? WATCH SHERLOCK. Until you do, your negative opinion of him will not be taken seriously.
All of this. I think the jury *thinks* she did it, but you cannot convict someone just because you *think* they did. Prosecuters lost the case, the jury didn't lose the case.
Just because one does not blame the jury doesn't mean they don't think Casey did it. We all know she did it, there just wasn't any HARD evidence against her. There was definitely evidence against her, but no DNA anywhere putting her as the murderer. Plus, one thing against the prosecution is they don't know how she died. That is a big hole in the case.
The media absolutely can sway people's opinions and lead them to feel a certain way! And, the media gives what gets ratings and yes, perhaps Casey is a monster, but no one would have known that without the media presenting it.
And, what the media presents is not held to the same standards as the information given to a jury and the requirements with which they have to evaluate that information. The media can portray the information they get (heresay or otherwise) in any way they wish as long as it isn't slanderous. Watching the trial on TV (which I'm sure has biased commentary) is not the same as being in the courtroom.
The jury may have only deliberated for 11 hours, but they sat on that panel for 8 weeks listening, reviewing, and evaluating the evidence as it was presented to them. Do you honestly think that they hadn't already come to their decision individually before they convened? I don't envy their job and I think they did the best they could with what they were given.
I'm very familiar with the judicial system as well as courtroom standards versus media standards. Thanks, though. You can blame the media all you want for their portrayals of Casey. But if you are going to blame them, then blame yourself, and every other person who showed interest in the trial and kept watching with interest to see if Caylee would turn up alive and waiting for a trial of a woman, who whether innocent or guilty, let a month go by before being forced to report it to the police.
Like I said, some of us are just going to have to agree to disagree, but I'm quite familiar with the systems at play here and am entitled to my opinion.
You are entitled to your opinion, as are we. And you are also entitled to drink the Nancy..Grace kool aid if you wish.
This poor little girl did not receive justice, there's no doubt about that. The sadder fact is that she was not loved and cherished the way a child should have been.
As we are all mothers, or wanting to be, that's infuriating.
That having been said, I have to agree with placing the blame, if there is to be blame, at the feet of the Prosecutors. Even then...I hate to place blame for this. I have no doubt that the prosecutors wanted to nail her to the wall. I have no doubt the investigators wanted to find every last shred of evidence. I am also sure the jurors would have loved to convicted her if they could have. And I also believe that sensationalism sells - and the media will serve up what people will buy.
It all really just comes down to this poor little girl and the tragedy that no one loved her the way she should have been loved and a mother who got away with it, however it happened.
She is not the first mother that has and will hardly be the last. And that's hard to stomach.
Actually, I didn't say that I blame anyone. I said that the media plays a role in how we the public perceive what is going on. I was stating my opinion, which despite the tone of your posts, the rest of us are entitled to as well.
Based on your response, it definitely sounded like you think the media and their standards allows them to report on issues and say whatever they want, and spread whatever they want, as long as it's not slander (or libel.) Do you think that credible media sources were out there to "make Casey a monster" and to sway the viewers to believe that she is a bad person? Casey did that to herself. It was her behavior, lies and waiting so long to call the police that got the attention of the media and drew the public's interest.
I'm sorry if my posts had a tone that led you to believe that you are not entitled to your opinion. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Debating something like this is intriguing because of all the various opinions. Even the people who say justice was served "becuz she is 2 hott 2 die" can think that (I only mention it because someone said it.) And just like the OJ case, it can be debated for years regarding the outcome. In the end, she got off, and if she did this and is the monster that she appears to be, she will have to live with herself.
Ultimately, I think everyone here agrees that Casey is guilty (whether her actions were intentional or negligent). And there is no doubt that justice was not served and that poor Caylee deserved much, much better. But frankly, I think the debate over who is to blame is ridiculous and pointless.
Be upset about the verdict. And if you feel that you need to place blame somewhere, then be upset at the jurors / prosecutors / media / whomever. But don't say that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and then get b!tchy when someone says something that doesn't support your perspective.
Bio & Blog | The Chic Bambino | Bumps & Babies Fair
I think we owe it to the jury to let them explain what happened and why they came to the decision they did, before we all off and feed them to the lions! Basically people are saying they find the jury "guilty" but have not even heard their side? Interesting.
Soooooooo, correct me if I'm wrong.......but I think this thread can be summed up like this:
"I am so ANGRY!"
"But I promise you, I am ANGRIER than you."
"No way dude, because I am a mother so I'm even more Angry."
"Nope, not angrier than me."
"Well I know more about this than you so I'm even angrier."
"But I am the angriest."
"You are entitled to your opinion but I promise you, I'm angrier-er."
.....
*Sigh*
Let's just all agree that we're bothered by this woman, this trial, this verdict and call it a day, mkay? ;-)
Haha I luv ya!