Deeply saddened by this. More shocked about this than the OJ case (which everyone is comparing this to).

_________________

from what I have read, it seems there just a real lack of evidence to prove that she killed her...plenty of circumstantial, but no real motive, no murder weapon etc.....everyone that saw them together, said she was a loving mom....very dif from the OJ case....am I wrong?

Not really. What we have here is a jury that lacked common sense and lacked any understanding of what a reasonable doubt was.

The defense actually made this EASIER for the jury to find her guilty. They claimed she drowned and Casey and her father covered it up and hid the body. This story to me is just as likely as Caylee being killed by aliens from Mars. The father (George Anthony) said on the stand this wasn't true. No testimony was offered by anyone to suggest this was true. Casey rejected the very same theory YEARS ago when it was brought up to her by her mother. She scoffed at it.

Here is what logic tells you: since Casey was the last to see her alive and told all those lies about where her daughter was then you have 2 options: She did it or Caylee actually drowned. Her own excuse eliminates EVERYONE else from this crime. Unless, of course, you believe the alien theory.

In order for this theory to be credible and to give you a "reasonable doubt" then you would have to believe the following things are reasonable: That George and Casey Anthony took an accidental death of their beloved Caylee and hid the body in order for no one to get in trouble. Keep in mind the body was thrown in a trash bag and thrown into a swampy area. Those are the actions of people who love Caylee? Treating her like trash? Then, George himself decided to sell his daughter down the river by not admitting to it in court OR in the three years that followed the disappearance. Keep in mind he was a former cop. You would also have to be believe that Casey, the most self-centered woman alive, would stay in jail for almost three years knowing that she did nothing wrong and doing absolutely nothing about it. Remember, she maintained that an imaginary person took Caylee up until the body was found six months later. Why would she sit in jail to rot when all she had to say was, "My daughter drowned. Here is where the body is. Go find it. The autopsy will prove my story." No, they stall until the body decomposes completely so there is no way to prove the drowning? PEOPLE DONT MAKE ACCIDENTS LOOK LIKE MURDER. Casey's behavior following the death was one of happiness. She partied and partied and partied. She got a tattoo that said "Beautiful Life." Because obviously your life is beautiful once your daughter dies.

No person can believe such a story. That theory is downright unbelieveable. Once you make that conclusion, then there is only one place to go: Casey did it.

The jury also ignored all of this evidence:

Casey searched for "How to make choloroform" months earlier + Smell of decomposed body in the trunk of her car + traces of choloroform in trunk + a hair from Caylee that had a certain ring on it that ONLY happens when it is attached to a decomposing body+ duct tape from her home was found on the body + it was put around Caylee's mouth.

I'm sure there is more I am forgetting, but this is enough for me.

Remember, according to the court, this is all you needed to prove manslaughter. I bring this up because it was a lesser charge:



Why she couldn't get at least that is why that jury is as dumb as a box of rocks.

_________________

the grand jury rejected the lesser charges...again it is not up to Anthony to prove her innocence, it up to the DA to prove that she murdered her daughter...where is the proof...they couldn't even prove how she died...Again is seems like there was foul play here, but the DA needs to prove what actually happened, not just leave it to the jury to guess....you would not want to be convicted of any crime when the DA had hardly any proof, nor would I...unfortunately this is what happened. There was not DNA evidence showing that the little girls body was in the car, no fingerprints from the mom on the duct tape from her body, nothing that I have heard to prove that she was murdered by here mom...no real motive was given...she might have been a bad mom, but that is not enough to convict someone of murder is it ?

Crazy Florida justice. We let athletes off the hook so we might as well let regular people whose cases get sensationalized off the hook as well.

There is a justice higher than that of the American legal system. One day, Casey Anthony will have to face the Almighty Judge. And that Judge has ALL the evidence.

_________________

That day won't come soon enough.

prior to the days of csi circumstantial evidence was what won and lost cases. you ask for motive and proof? lets put 2 and 2 together from the evidence...

baby goes missing. mom does not report it. mom is partying, gets a tattoo saying beautiful life. when confronted by police lies 4 different times. steers police away from the body. body is strategically dumped so that decay can destroy it. duct tape found on skull. anthony computer has searches for chloroform and neck breaking. casey asks for neighbors shovel. her car is abandoned, smells like a dead body. caylee dna found in trunk. its proven the grandmother lied about doing the searches (now facing perjury charges).

so lets see, mom is behaving like she is in celebration mode with her freedom. lies to police about this child that she apparently loves so much and was so great around. has stone cold looks as opposed to weeping at the sites of her only beloved child. you seriously can't use your own intelligence to piece together at the very least it was aggriavated manslaughter or child abuse?

guess what, that crazy woman in texas who drowned her two boys in their car and claimed insanity was also shown to be a loving and dedicated mom. showing happy pics does not preclude her from having the capability of killing her daughter.

seriously, if you can't piece together the story

Jammer seriously, if you think that is enough to get convicted of murder, it sounds like you should go to work for the Chinese judicial system!!!! There is zero evidence, get that, actual evidence that can show that A) Caylee was actually murdered B) that Casey killed her C) that Casey did anything other then lie to police. Your view of her supposed motive is because you seem to believe everything the prosecutor said. Not from any actual evidence, lets say of a journal written in Casey's handwriting, or on her personal computer that stated how she wanted to " be free of Caylee" etc. There was no crime scene, no murder weapon, hell the DA couldn't prove she was actually murdered, just that she was dead...there was no blood found under Casey's nail or under Caylee's nail that would show a struggle... absolutely zero !!! Our justice system requires actual proof..and there was none!!
Let's look at another high profile case, the OJ trial. There was a clear murder committed, the was a a ton of proof as to the motive, there was a ton of forensic evidence that linked OJ to the crime....

This was not the case in Caylee's death, and unfortunately, no conviction. But that is on the investigators, they needed to find the proof, if it existed, and they didn't. Just because someone acts like an butthole does not make them guilty of murder....

What Jammer said was spot on- let me add this one to the mix:

Early on, before the body was found, prosecutors offered Casey immunity if she gave them info to recover the body. She didn't say a word.

Now, if it was a drowning like she claimed, then why WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO STAY IN JAIL INSTEAD OF TAKING THAT DEAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Here is why: if the body was found sooner rather than later, Casey feared there would be evidence that proved she killed her kid.



END OF STORY.

_________________

There usually aren't bloody nails in cases of suffocating a child while the child is sleeping. Not hard to convince a two year old to breath something in if told it will make you feel good or take you to a happy dream land. Even if it wasn't meant to kill her, its child abuse and manslaughter.

I guess every murderer should just make sure they dump their victim in a swamp to ruin the examination because DNA is the only possible way they get convicted.

The OJ case has nothing do with the Anthony case so why bring it up other than it has a shocking conclusion? I don't recall OJ telling people he was going to kill his wife or showing signs he was capable of doing it before hand. You concluded the motive based on the circumstantial evidence just like the prosecution and others concluded that Casey's actions and lies were a sign she no longer wanted the responsibility of Caylee. She found a way out and wanted to stay on that course.

Its a fact that Caylee's death was ruled a homicide and that the last person she was seen with was her mother. You can label me harsh if you want but I'm not afraid to actually think about the evidence presented and not just be handed some answer. Caylee's hair was found in the trunk but of course the defense used the logic of "well maybe it was accidentally there." If they found blood would you then believe the defense if they said well maybe Caylee cut her finger while playing and walked over to an open trunk and some blood dripped in there...? Do you believe Caylee just found a piece of duct tape and walked into a swamp and the rest is history?

You're allowing attorneys to use a system against you and tricking you into believing you can't think for yourself. I can raise doubt by pulling things out of nowhere in just about any criminal case, doesn't mean that alone should be enough to convince you. If you want to come to your own conclusion I respect it, but don't tell the rest of us we are wrong because we see something you don't.

Like I said before, the case was made rather simple due to Casey's actions. Either she killed her daughter or her daughter actually drowned like her defense claimed.

I've said it before, and I will say it again. In order for you to believe the drowning theory, you have to accept ALL of this:

1) That a former cop (the father) would take an accidental death and not report it.
2) Then, he takes his beloved granddaughter's body and puts in in a trash bag and throws it in a swamp (eventually).
3) Then, he instructs Casey to lie about it for as long as she can. He allows her to be seen asking for a shovel, and allows her to keep the body in her trunk for god knows how long.
4) Then, he sets up his own daughter to make her look like a murderer. (When whole reason for the "cover up" in the first place was for Casey to not get in trouble)
5) Then, Casey willingly sits in jail.
6) That in the numerous jail house videos that have been released, George Anthony is putting on an act when he implores his daughter to tell the police everything she knows.
7) Next, Casey ignores an immunity offer from the prosecution when this very offer would get her out of jail and clear her of any murder charge.
8) Remember, Casey is on video scoffing at the notion that her daughter drowned- she is lying because.... why?
9) George Anthony then spends most of his days in public searching for his missing granddaughter, recruiting many people to help him, inviting an unbearable amount of media coverage and scrutiny on his family. He does this while he knows his Caylee is dead and where her remains are.
10) George almost kills himself and instead of his note being a deathbed confession, he uses it to incriminate his daughter even more by openly asking "Where is Caylee? What happened to her?" (When whole reason for the "cover up" in the first place was for Casey to not get in trouble)
11) George remains silent throughout the trial knowing his daughter was this close to getting the death penalty for NO REASON. (When whole reason for the "cover up" in the first place was for Casey to not get in trouble)
12) Did I mention that Casey willingly sits in jail?????


I find such a theory to be as plausible as aliens killing Caylee.

_________________

Good example I heard about circumstantial evidence.

You go to bed at night and your lawn is clear. You wake up the next morning and find snow on the ground. You didn't witness the snowfall, nor did your neighbors. Is it reasonable to conclude there was a snowfall that evening?

So with Casey you have a body, suspicious and incriminating activity by someone already know to be a pathological liar, and evidence of tools and strategy to kill, hide and dispose of a body. Is it reasonable to conclude she killed her daughter and tried to hide it?

The debate shouldn't be over whether or not it was a slam dunk in either direction. The point of trials is to get as close to the truth as possible. If you aren't allowed to come to conclusions through your own thought then the truth will be missed too frequently because its too easy to taint DNA or destroy visual/sound evidence.

84, you seem to act as if you can read Casey's mind, when in fact you can't! Making your font larger don't refute the point that there were very little facts to get a conviction in this case.

Jammer, the biggest point that you seem to miss is this...the DA never could prove how she died, that in fact she was murdered. So unlike your snow falling at night scenario, where even without seeing it, the snow itself is the proof it fell, the body of Caylee in this case was not proof of a murder. There was zero evidence to support her being strangled, let alone in her sleep as 84 with his Obi Wan powers seems to state as a fact that happened,. It was ruled a homicide, but cause of death could not be determined.84 seems to feel that it was up to Casey to prove her innocence, it wasn't. It was up to the prosecutor to prove she committed a murder. They couldn't. You would have to believe that Casey was smart and calculating enough to plan this s"murder" and execute her plan flawlessly, and then lose he mind and act completely crazy afterwards with the partying and what not...that makes zero sense as well. Unfortunately, as disgusting as this seems, a parent definitely has the most opportunities to kill their own child, and because that is such a far fetched concept, it makes proving a case like this very difficult. There was no blood found anywhere, and the fact it took 6 months to find the body could not have been planned on by whoever disposed of the body, given the exhaustive search that was performed, so I don't think it makes sense to act like that was part of a plot. Both you and 84 seem to by the DA's theory hook line and sinker, I on the other hand don't and neither did the jury, as they have stated a huge part of their acquittal was based on the fact that the DA in this case didn't even prove she was murdered. Cause of death wasn't proven , so how can you convict anyone of murder, if you haven't even proved this was an actual murder???

In OJ's case the documented stalk , physical abuse and his fits of rage where not circumstantial, they were facts that could be backed up by documentation and eye witness accounts.

Where there witnesses that heard Casey state how she wanted to be free of her parental responsibilities? Or a journal from Casey stating this? Or any history of abuse etc?? No, in fact there was testimony stating Casey was a loving mom, although irresponsible at times...the DA tried to use her actions after Caylee was missing as proof of motive, but that is making the assumption that every person would act a certain way given the same circumstances and that we now for a fact is not the case. Their never proving a motive was another factor in the jury's mind.
I think we all agree that if Caylee was murdered, then either Casey or her Dad are the only two reasonable culprits here, but you need proof to get a conviction and there simply wasn't enough. Maybe the DA rushed this to the grand jury and could have built more of a case...I don't know, but where do you get that she was suffocated while sleeping? or insinuate something like a bag was used ??? Zero evidence of this....purely speculation on your part....yet you seem to think speculation is enough to convict... thank God it is not is this country.

You seem to think I have allowed the attorney's to trick me into believing something, in fact it's the opposite..I have no idea what actually happened, neither do you, and the DA didn't prove what happened either. You on the other hand seem to take everything the prosecutors say as fact and expect Casey to prove her innocence. I think the jury did their job and actually looked at the facts and evidence presented in this case, and as they stated, they were sicked by a lot of Casey's action, there just wasn't enough proof to convict her.

I'm not missing any points, I just agree with the prosecution that she killed Caylee. I don't need video or DNA evidence to prove that Casey was capable of this, her actions, lies and behavior were enough for me. 84 does have a good point that if it was an accident why wouldn't you just report it. You're being offered immunity.

Caylee's body was not the evidence I was comparing with the snow. It was the sequence of actions, behavior and lies. Casey wasn't seen killing her child, but the evidence at hand suggests that she did.

If she loved her child so much and was such a good mom why would she not report her daughter missing? You claim I'm missing points but you have yet to produce an answer for that. I'm sorry, but the way it works is that if I'm on a jury I can use that to help me make a decision. There are too many coincidences for Casey to be innocent.

Now I can understand the jury fearing putting someone to death and maybe the prosecution overreached there, and the defense used that to their advantage. But that is different. Haven't the jurors already stated not guilty does not mean innocent? As I said, aggrivated manslaughter or child abuse seem very reasonable and the partying lifestyle is the answer to your question of motive.

I have never stated she is innocent, merely that the DA didn't present enough evidence to prove her guilt. And yes he behavior, including the partying and lying etc. make her look guilty as hell, but the DA couldn't even prove Caylee was murdered, hence how can anyone be convicted of her murder? My understanding is that the grand jury rejected the lesser charges, so they were not available to the DA to file,not sure exactly how that works in FL, but that is what I read. As I have stated if Caylee was murdered there are only 2 people in the world that could have done it, but based upon what was presented, I don't think anybody, including Casey, or you, or me should get convicted with that little evidence against them. There is a higher justice then man's and if she did kill her daughter she will be judged, and if she didn't she is fine....but based on what was presented the jury got it right. You still have nothing to say about the fact that the DA never could prove how she died....that's kinda important in a murder case, and saying it could have been in her sleep or coaxing her to put her head in a bag in pure speculation. This whole case was so sensationalized that maybe the DA rushed into this , maybe they could have built a stronger case....but in the end, with what was actually presented the jury has stated they had no choice but to find her not guilty, and it sickened them. I feel they did there job and in this case it was the DA's office that screwed the pooch, so to speak.

Once again, can you give me ANY CREDIBLE reason why an innocent person would not take an immunity deal? You can't.

Like Jammer, I do buy the states case. To not, I have to ignore a huge chunk of evidence and then buy the drowning theory, which I have already outlined. The duct tape was the murder weapon. There is no other reason for it to be on her face.

Question #2 for you: Why does the drowning theory seem plausible to you? Im curious why.

Also, let me say this again: She did not love her child. Yes, my Jedi Mind tells me this becasue of HOW SHE REACTED AFTER CAYLEE DIED. This whole "she just grieved differently" is bull^&*$. Jeez, a Vulcan (to use another sci fi epic) would show more emotion than she did at the trial.

Dolphan74, I want you to think of the person you love most. You tell me if you could bring yourself to throwing his/her body in a trash bag and then throw it in a swamp and then party like you've never partied before for a full freaking month.

She acted this way becasue she killed her kid and didn't have any regret over it. Her life was now great. Hence, the beautiful life tattoo.

_________________

This particular myth needs to be debunked once and more all:

The jury could have found her guilty of murder one, 2, three or manslaughter. They had options.

_________________

84 your missing the point, I or anyone on the jury doesn't have to buy the drowning theory...but the DA has to prove she was murdered. The duct tape was the murder weapon???? so they tried to say her mom duct taped her mouth and nose to suffocate her? I am assuming her hands would have to be duct taped as well...did they find her hands or more duct tape with her body? No. More likely the mouth was duct taped post mortem to prevent fluid from leaking in whatever vehicle she was transported in...that makes more sense then to say she was suffocated with duct tape....maybe they thought she chloroformed her first, since she looked that up on the internet, but did they show proof of her buying or possessing chloroform? again that would have been proof... but this was not shown....again the biggest issue the jury said was that they were not convinced that this was a murder....and it could have been an accidental death that was covered up badly....the fact is the jury also had a problem with the credibility of the father...again, the only facts that are known are as follows..
1. Caylee is dead.
2. Someone in her family was with her when she died
3. Her body was disposed of in the swamp
4. Her mom acted atrociously throughout this whole tragedy
5. There was no direct evidence linking Casey to killing her daughter( ie fingerprints on duct tape, etc.)
6.Prior to this, that Casey had ever mentioned not wanting to have Caylee


Everything else is speculation......and the biggest issue again, was that the DA didn't prove she was murdered...she had to be found not guilty, which doesn't mean innocent, just that the state didn't prove it's case. So with no clear murder, not clear motive what else could the jury do?

This is what I have been saying all along...lack of evidence it why this verdict occurred, not a jury that wasn't paying attention

Thats fine, but I find their reasoning very weak. The fact that they didn't consider her behavior in their decision tells me everything I need to know about them. Her behavior shows motivation, her actions and lies show capability and probability. The fact that two of them were convinced enough to find her guilty only strengthens the argument that circumstatantial evidence was enough. If they think the father was involved then fine, but it doesn't get Casey off the hook.

wow, the initial straw poll had it 10-2 for acquittal, and you take from that something that " 2 of them had it right"..jeez...things that you over look that don't fit in with your idea of" because she is a liar and possibly a tramp that means she is capable of being a murder"

1. that the Dad's mistress testified that he told her it was all an accident that snowballed out of control
2. that Caylee was found the exact same way the family buried there pets in the back yard
3. that the body was less then a quarter mile from the family house, so since the testimony showed Casey took Caylee with her that night from the house, you belief is what she pulled over a couple blocks from the house and killed her in the car???
4.that the Mom admitted being the one looking up chloroform on the internet not Casey
5. that the video shown at trial, shot a week before Casey went missing, Casey and Caylee were very loving, a normal Mom and daughter, yet somehow we are to believe something changed suddenly and she wanted to kill her own daughter to go party....

Again thank god people like you weren't on the jury, people that convicted her before the trial, who didn't want to actually judge the evidence, but rather lept to conclusions based upon the media and what the DA's office leaked to the press..all the DA really did was try to get a guilty verdict based on character assassination, and that has worked at times, it didn't in this case..thankfully we have a system that worked here, because to me I think you need to be able to prove what happened before you convict someone, especially of murder and the sad truth is we still don't know what really happened, and probably never will...the on ly thing we know for sure is that Caylee is dead, may God rest her soul, and I believe he will be the final judge in this matter.

Just a quick point here: you do realize the mom lied on the stand about the searches, right? It was proven that she was at work.

_________________

When you start resorting to this crap the conversation ends for me.

sorry, but the fact is all you have brought up are Casey's character...basically nothing more....so no, I don't think people that pre judge and make up their mind from the media should be on juries!!!

84, she said she came home at times during work...but even if she lied, which it sounds like she did, it doesn't prove Casey made the searches.....that's my point, there is a lack of proof across the board in this case...

The fact that you can't distinguish prejudging from forming a conclusion based on behavior and actions (and history of character) presented during the trial pretty much disqualifies you from being worth further discussion.

I like a good debate and usually learn a lot from other opinions (often times can change mine), but when you resort to your standard of trashing and labeling people who disagree it pretty much makes this a waste of time.

sorry, but you based you opinion solely on her actions after Caylee died, and you act like your a trained physiologist who can determine exactly what those behavior patterns mean...not very logical, and all the factual points I have brought up you simply refute by going back to the character assassination line.... because just like in this case, there are no facts to back up your point of view. Nothing in the DA's case could really be proven if not disputed...yet you claim to know she did it...funny how that worked out. The DA couldn't prove

A) how Caylee died
B) where she died
c) who killed her if she was killed
D) who disposed of the body
E) motive..why did a previously well documented loving Mom suddenly decide the party was more important then her daughter?

None of these had single shred of evidence to prove them, yet you know she did it..what because she's a liar? and I believe a check forger ? And probably a slut ? yeah because she is the only woman that acts like that so that makes her a murderer!!!! Real logical there, backed up by evidence...
The difference between us is I admit I don't know what really happened, but based on the evidence know that the jury had no choice but to let her go, but you who saw and heard less then the jury, know exactly what happened and why....yeah, of course you didn't pre-judge this case, of course the media didn't help you form your opinion...

You see, you are not even willing to go this far, which is part of your overall pattern in this case.

She lied. Cindy was logged into her work computer during the time the searches took place. Not only that, though, as work was actually being done on Cindy's work computer, under her login name, during the time the searches took place. Also, her whole story on why she did the searches (a really lame story, if you ask me) was debunked by the prosecution as no other search terms that she claimed led to the choloroform was found. She lied on the stand to try to save her daughter. Also, other web sites visited around the same time as those searches were sites like Facebook and MySpace, which Cindy did not have.

No one else did the searches. If you want to say it was George or Lee then why didn't any of them admit to doing the searches? Why did Cindy say she saw one of them do the searches instead of making up a story? Why should Cindy open herself up to perjury charges instead of George or Lee telling the truth? Because, George or Lee didn't search for them: CASEY did.

Traces of cholorform didn't end up in George's car, or Cindy's car, or Lee's car, but Casey's car. Jeez, what more do you need?

_________________

but what you fail to see is that the DA can't tell or show when the traces of chloroform got in the car, or who was driving the car when the chloroform was in the car....again other people had access to the computer and car, that is proof of what exactly? Why did the single piece of hair in the trunk not make a positive match for the duct tape hair, they were stated to be similar, but not a DNA match? Why did the DA chose to use some obscure toxicologist rather then one from the FBI or the State's Forensic lab?????

So you believe that Cindy who made a very incriminating 911 call suddenly had a change of heart and lied for her daughter? Even though the defense had accused her husband of being a child molester? Why the change of heart? Why when the defense produced evidence and witnesses to show Casey was a loving mom, why the sudden change of heart into a cold blooded murderer? Why would George's mistress get on the stand and say George told her it was " an accident that snowballed out of control?" Where was she killed if she was murdered ? Why would she have buried her body so close to the house when if she did the crime she could have driven anywhere in the state??? Where is it shown that someone who is a liar( which we agree she is), that this means she has the ability to kill her child? Given there is zero violence in her background and no accounts of prior child abuse???? Please answer these questions as from what I read these are some of the things that didn't make sense to the jury...

The difference between us that I accpet alternative opinions. You continue to be an emotional, thick headed crank.

Sad part is that I think you've made a good case, but have a difficult time with disagreement. Thats called arrogance and thick headedness (if thats a word)

The best way I can finish this is asking if she was convicted of manslaughter or child abuse, would you be adament in your protest of the justice system? I doubt it.

I read an article that stated as the trial was going that the DA was blowing it by focusing on the murder 1 because the evidence was so thin and the premeditation part was based on the chloroform searches....turns out they were right...what you fail to see Jammer, is that I have never said she was innocent, I really don't know, but I am sure she had something to do with this whole thing...it's a terrible tragedy and we will never know the truth. And as I saw what come to light in the trial , I felt that this was a very weak case against her, yet she was basically spit roasted by the media before the trial began. This case to me is emblematic of one of the big problems in our country, this so called micro wave society. Everyone rushed to judgement, not bothering to actually look at the evidence the DA presented...which was pretty weak. So I definitely am not supporting her actions, I do support her right to a fair trial and feel that she got one and based on the lack of the DA's office proving their case she was found not guilty. And all the comments from the jury seem to support that although it pained them to render that verdict, they really had no choice based on what was presented. What is annoying is the people that seem to feel she needed to prove her innocence, which she does not. You don't like the verdict, cool I get that, but you have personally attacked the jury members as basically incompetent, yet everything that they have stated so far has been on point and true. You, my friend, seem to have the emotional attachment to this case, and have basically not provided to any rebuttal of the numerous points I have previously brought up.So before you start calling me names and act as I am the hysterical one, please re-read this entire thread.....

Once again, I'm not failing to see anything and yes I can tell you are skeptical of her innocence. My argument is against absolutes. You can't just say she can't be found guilty because they didn't have A or B. That leaves no room for interpretation. The prosecution made a case where you could conclude that she killed her daughter. That is my read based on the evidence.

I didn't even realize part of the jury was ready to convict her. It shows this wasn't a slam dunk in either direction.

Think most attorneys would say a 10-2 straw pull is very convincing...the problem I have with your argument is that the only way you could have found her guilty was to believe literally every thing the DA said, not what they could prove,and in the end, you need to be able to prove it, not just say it.

No. If I believed everything the DA said then I would be saying it is impossible for them to not have secured 1st degree murder conviction. If I haven't been clear then I will clarify, I think there were enough pieces of evidence for someone to reasonably conclude that Casey was involved in her daughter's death and that conviction of manslaughter and child abuse would not have shocked anyone. The DA decided to go in a more extreme direction for whatever reason. I wasn't sitting with them in case preparation so I can't answer why they opted for that. Hindsight has me wishing they did things differently.

The fact that the jury only took 10 hours to reach their verdict suggests to me that most of their minds were made up from the start that they wanted black and white DNA/video/name your evidence to say guilty. They made their decision and I accept it. Doesn't mean I have to like it and that I can't make a case to say they could have gone in another direction. This doesn't make me an extremist as you tried to label me early on. Nor does it make me some prejudging, irrational person incapable of sitting on a jury.

I've moved on, but I couldn't resist posting this.

I'm sure Casey Anythony supporters would no doubt call this grieving as well, no?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/1 ... 02212.html

_________________