Moemg
Gone but not forgotten
I was shocked . I thought at the very least they would find her guilty of child abuse .
I bet the judge's instructions to this poor jury amounted to a three-inch stack of paper.boy....the board sure missed the verdict on this one.
Yes, maybe we're also wrong on other subjects and should all return to w*rk ?...boy....the board sure missed the verdict on this one.
Kind of perverse as a child is gone, but I can see the book deals, tv interviews and magazine deals in the future . For her and the jurors.
I suppose this is why folks (us included) follow something like this. You never know what goes on inside the jury room.
I think she's guilty. I also agree with the jury. Being guilty and being PROVEN guilty are two very different things. Same with the OJ trial. Everyone was sure he was guilty but it wasn't proven. The verdit was appropriate IMO.
Have to agree with you about HER verdict(s). I think she's guilty of "something" to do with the child's death, but it was never proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Have to respectfully disagree with you about OJ. I DO think he was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I think the jury let the extraneous issues cloud their thinking (I also think they may have been looking for any excuse to acquit.) Still, I wasn't there for either trial and it's just my opinion. I have no problem with anyone who disagrees.
I did sit on a jury for which the consequences to the defendant were significant in terms of sentence (multiple count drug case). The jury members took it very seriously and took two very long days to decide the 5 counts. Emotions ran high even though, looking back, the facts did support our decisions. Jury duty is an awesome responsibility. It's funny how quickly the jurors left their every-day world of kids, j*bs, houses, hobbies, etc. and settled into the task at hand. It made me feel better about the "system" to see them (us) w*rk 13 hour days for $30/day. God bless America!!
I must take issue with a CNN headline about it:
"Casey Anthony verdict: Not a killer"
The jury was never asked whether they thought she was a killer. They were asked whether or not there existed enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to support a conviction. The two are very, very far from the same. "Not proven" is not the same as "not the killer" or "innocent".
Did everyone here voting (or opining) sit through the trial, see the evidence and attend the attorney arguments from each side?
Guilty, but not first degree murder...no smoking gun.
I must take issue with a CNN headline about it:
"Casey Anthony verdict: Not a killer"
The jury was never asked whether they thought she was a killer. They were asked whether or not there existed enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to support a conviction. The two are very, very far from the same. "Not proven" is not the same as "not the killer" or "innocent".
I'm with you as to what the verdict meant, but in terms of the actual words, the verdict was "Not guilty," which is the same, in this case, as "Not a killer."