Poll: Casey Anthony

[Moemg]

I was shocked . I thought at the very least they would find her guilty of child abuse .

 

[Mulligan]

Maybe in today's world juries need DNA, surveillance video, and or definite motive to convict to murder one level. I wonder if this happened 50 years ago if the result would have been the same.

 

[Nords]

boy....the board sure missed the verdict on this one.

I bet the judge's instructions to this poor jury amounted to a three-inch stack of paper.

The jury does the best they can with the tools that the prosecution and the judge can put together. I think they'd rather get it as right as they can the first time instead of having to watch the trial be done all over again.

I'm surprised it got to a trial in the first place.

 

[ls99]

I had not voted in this poll.

Whatever the charge, always choose to be tried by 12 rather than to be carried by six.
It will be interesting to read the trial transcripts during the long winter months.

 

[Sue J]

Stunned. Maybe the baby isn't really dead. Or Caylee never existed, she was just another of Casey's lies to make her parents think they were grandparents so they wouldn't make Casey go to college or get a job.

Reminds me of that scene from "Dallas", I think it was. One of the main characters was killed in a season cliff hanger and then in the first episode of the next season he was shown coming out of the shower and it was all just a dream.

Too bad real life isn't like that.

This puts George and Cindy in a very strange position. They lost their grandbaby, they know what a HORRIBLE PERSON their daughter is and now she will be free to come back home and live her "beautiful life" in their home.

She's publicly accused her father of sexually molesting her in childhood. Her mother lied on the stand for her. So did her father. In a way they all deserve each other.

The commentators say that George and Cindy were there for the verdict and then quietly slipped out of the courthouse. I think they went home to change all the locks on the house.

 

[rescueme]

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 ?...

 

[eytonxav]

While I do not think she is a danger to the general populace, I think she should be sterilized so there is no chance she can do this again.

 

[easysurfer]

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.

 

[East Texas]

The youngest just called - she watched the verdict being read. She said Cindy and George got up and walked out of the courtroom as soon as the "Not Guilty" verdicts were read.

 

[Purron]

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 served as a juror three times. One case was particularly difficult - charges of kidnapping and assult (stabbed with a knife - we saw the bloody clothes and the knife in court). These experiences changed my view of the legal system. Not in a bad way though. I just understand how different it is to be a juror because your decision impacts other human beings.

Because of this, I'm perhaps more fastinated with cases like this. Now it's over, we should consider justice to have been served. Anthony may or may not be guilty, but it wasn't proven to the jury.

I loved how one of the defense attorneys let the "TV lawyers" have it. Basically said they should be ashamed for playing this up for ratings and how they drew concusions based on their own opinions - not the facts. Nancy Grace must be pretty unhappy about what he said.

 

[Koolau]

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!!

 

[Purron]

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!!

Thank you! Jury duty is a big deal and a big part of a fair legal system. It's not easy at all and involves sacrifice.

 

[52andout]

I was shocked myself but having recently sat on a jury I can understand. It is a huge responsibility to make a decision that could possibly end a persons life or send them to prison. You really have to be sure.

It was also surprising it only took them eleven hours after weeks of testimony and evidence.

 

[ziggy29]

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".

 

[mountaintosea]

Unless you were one of the jurors you don't know what what conclusion you would reach. Personally I didn't pay too much attention to this case. I couldn't figure out why the media decided to hype it like they did. They really pumped it for all they could get out of it. Homicides happen. We are a country of over 300 million. I believe this was a Florida case? I live on the opposite coast. There are more important new stories.

 

[Texas Proud]

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".

Yes, people forget that the decision was 'NOT GUILTY'.... not INNOCENT... and the not guilty is of the crime that is charged... and the prosecution can mess up...

As an example, if the charges say that there was a deadly weapon involved and they did not prove that a deadly weapon existed, then you are supposed to acquit even if you think they are guilty as sin... and it is what I would do on a jury....

 

[Texas Proud]

One of the problems being on a jury is if there is someone who will not discuss the case at all...

I was on a jury for armed robbery... it was a high school kid that was walking to the bus stop and someone came from the apartment units with a gun and brought him to a place and stole his wallet and jewerly... we listed to a few days of testimony...

Now, we get into the jury room and decided to get the 'easy' parts of the charges out of the way... do we all agree that a crime was commeted.. yes... do we all agree that there was a gun.... no...

WHAT... The kid said there was a gun... he did not know what kind it was, but saw a gun... no other evidence to say otherwise..... so how can you believe there was not a gun

The answer "well, I just do not think there was a gun"... this was 10 minutes into the deliberations and I alread knew we had a hung jury... we then spent the next few days sitting around, sending the judge notes every now and then saying we will not reach a verdict....

Yes, it can be difficult...

 

[youbet]

Did everyone here voting (or opining) sit through the trial, see the evidence and attend the attorney arguments from each side?

Most definitely and without exception.

 

[mickeyd]

Guilty, but not first degree murder...no smoking gun.

I think I nailed it.

 

[TromboneAl]

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."

 

[JDARNELL]

While I do think she did it and voted reasonable doubt after what I saw there appeared to be a lot of chap and flare and I didn't think the defense proved its point.

Tomcat98

 

[Rustic23]

As was pointed out after the OJ trial, a Not Guilty verdict does not mean Innocent. Not sure I agree with that, but it was in all the papers.

 

[ERD50]

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."

Why do the words mean "Not a killer"? To me, the words simply mean "not enough evidence for the jury to convict". That does not mean she didn't do it, and if she did it, she is a 'killer'. The word still applies (as a possibility), and maybe only she knows.

-ERD50

 

[haha]

Gotta love the internets.

 

[steelyman]

Does this topic have anything to do with early retirement?