Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Raising The Bar For Guilty Verdicts

July 12, 2011 by  

Raising The Bar For Guilty Verdicts

I thought Aphrodite Jones summed it up best on Hannity when she said that the jurors in the Casey Anthony trial had taken the concept of “reasonable doubt” and extended it to “shadow of a doubt.” If you look up the word “reasonable” in the dictionary, you find: “not exceeding the limit prescribed by reason; not excessive.” In this case, the jurors clearly exceeded the limit prescribed by reason.

In his closing remarks, Jose Baez turned reasonable doubt on its head and convinced the jurors they were obliged to convict only if they had no doubts. In other words, he successfully misled them as to the intent of the law.

If the bar for conviction is any doubt rather than reasonable doubt, we’re likely to see more verdicts like O.J. Simpson’s and Casey Anthony’s in the future. Based on F. Lee Bailey’s wild theory that Mark Fuhrman rolled up one of O.J.’s socks in his pant leg, I guess you could argue that it justified some doubt about O.J.’s guilt. But if the doubt is one in 10 million (which are the odds I would ascribe to Bailey’s totally unsubstantiated theory), that would exceed the limit prescribed by reason.

The fact is that O.J. was clearly guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And, don’t kid yourself, Johnny Cochran, F. Lee Bailey and all 12 jurors knew it. So did attorney Robert Shapiro, which is why he resigned from the case.

Let me be clear that I never want to see an innocent person put in prison, let alone executed. But it’s happened in the past and it will happen again, because — sorry, liberals — life isn’t perfect. It has often been said that it’s better that 99 murderers go free if it means saving the life of one person falsely accused of murder.

Perhaps. But what about 1,000 murderers going free in exchange for saving the life of one innocent person? Or 10,000 murderers going free in exchange for saving the life of one innocent person? Where do we draw the line? Answer: where the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you set the bar for conviction so high that defense attorneys know that it’s just a game of throwing enough legal excrement against the wall, they can always raise some doubt. But that’s not where the bar is supposed to be. The law clearly states reasonable doubt.

Set aside the chloroform; set aside the duct tape; set aside the claimed childhood sexual abuse; set aside George Anthony’s supposed affair. All these are secondary issues. The three key issues that are indisputable — and that represent evidence that makes Casey Anthony’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt — are:

First, in the history of the world, no mother, no matter how good or how bad she may have been in the past, ever went partying for 31 days after her child disappeared, never calling the police and never displaying any concern about her. To say this was just her way of dealing with emotional distress is not a reasonable conjecture.

All the DNA evidence in the world can’t stand up to common sense. Casey Anthony’s behavior was overwhelming circumstantial evidence that made her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Second, in the history of the world, no one ever sat in a prison cell for three years, claimed she didn’t know what happened to her child (in this case, after her Zanny-the-nanny tale was exposed), then, at her trial, told her attorney to tell the court that the child died as a result of a drowning accident. (I’m assuming here that Jose Baez didn’t make up this story on his own and subject himself to criminal prosecution.)

Again, you don’t need DNA here. If you blatantly lie about your child’s cause of death, it’s beyond a reasonable doubt that you killed her.

Third, in the history of the world, no mother, after finding her child drowned, ever decided not to call the police and instead wrap the child in a plastic bag and throw her in the woods. There is no reasonable explanation for even a world-class idiot turning a drowning accident into a potential death-penalty homicide. To believe someone could have done this is to go far beyond a reasonable doubt.

As a side note, if I learned anything from this case, I guess it’s that I will never again get suckered into believing that a quick jury verdict implies a conviction. How well I remember when the jury came back with a verdict in the O.J. trial after just three hours of “deliberation.”

At the time, Jeffrey Toobin, now a legal analyst for CNN, opined that such a quick verdict had to mean a conviction. He was so naïve that he didn’t realize that the jurors had decided they were going to acquit O.J. before the trial had even begun.

While I didn’t buy into Toobin’s opinion in the O.J. circus, I have to admit that in the Casey Anthony trial I did believe that the quick verdict meant a conviction. With such overwhelming evidence against her, there was no way the jury could arrive at an acquittal without many days of deliberating. This time around, I guess I proved to be just as naïve about juries as Toobin.

The reason one cannot draw any conclusion from a quick verdict is because the hype about how jurors, on the whole, are intelligent, deep-thinking people who carefully weigh the evidence is just another self-delusive example of American feel-good talk.

No doubt, some jurors are intelligent and well informed. But the politically incorrect reality is that a significant percentage of jurors are totally unqualified to make sound and honest judgments based on the law. Perhaps professional juries in high-profile cases are a possible alternative to some of the dolts who now sit on juries and insist on ignoring evidence that is beyond a reasonable doubt.

That said, the guy who should be really mad about the outcome of the Casey Anthony trial is Scott Peterson. He had much less evidence against him than she did, but, thanks to Mark Geragos’ obnoxious arrogance and puffery, Peterson ended up on death row.

In closing, I would also opine that the biggest giveaway to guilt is the one thing that Casey Anthony, O.J. Simpson and Scott Peterson all had in common: None of them showed a lick of grief or sorrow at any time.

Defense attorneys are fond of saying that no one can predict how he might act if he were under indictment for a murder he didn’t commit. Hokum, I say. Any person who’s had a loved one (or even an ex-spouse, as in the case of O.J.) murdered would be grief-stricken — and would show it. I wouldn’t say this one piece of circumstantial evidence demands a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt, but I’d wager that the emotionless person on trial would be guilty in 99 percent of the cases.

Final thought: Casey Anthony should work on repressing her laughter, because what lies ahead for her is a life of overwhelming problems and unhappiness. She’ll probably make a few million dollars quickly, but her story is likely to have a tragic ending.

There’s a part of me that almost feels sorry for this emotionally disturbed young lady, but the thought of how her 2-year-old daughter’s life ended makes that an impossibly high bar to clear.

–Robert Ringer

Robert Ringer

is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times. To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity, Click Here.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Raising The Bar For Guilty Verdicts”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Furby

    The woman may or may not have been guilty, but the evicence was not there. People who don’t know the law wants to take away all constitutional rights and go back to the Roman impar days. We have very little justice. I know a man who did several years in proson without a trial or without pleas of any kind except not guilty. What is your oppinion on that?

    • Vagabond

      furby you sound about as bright as a 10 wat bulb. the slimebag is guilty as sin and should be put to death.

      • Greg

        Vagabond,
        YOU MUST HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE MILLIONS THAT NEVER WATCHED ANY OF THE TRIAL, BUT KNOW THE VERDICT WAS WRONG. IF FURBY IS A 10 WATT BULB, THEN YOUR WATTAGE CAN NOT BE MEASURED.

        • Ref_Who

          I watched every single minute of the trial. Did you? I agree with the verdict. Does that mean I think she’s innocent? No, I do not. But you must weight the evidence, which wasn’t there. Blame the prosecution, not the jury.

          • smoothnu

            @ref well said. The evidence was not there! “Homicide by unknown means” What a crock of sh#%! How can you even call it a homicide without determining the cause first? The prosecution dropped the ball on this one big time.

            I think the slut gave this kid something to make her sleep, so she could go party and accidently over done it. Panic ensued and she dumped the body, more than likely with the help of her dad.

          • Old Henry

            smoothnu:

            You must be one of those brain-dead Soetoro people.

            There. Was, Duct tape. Over. Her. Mouth.

            Her mother spent 31 days doing whatever while her daughter was MISSING and she never reported it to authorities.

            All any thinking person can do is shake their heads at such ignorance.

          • http://donthaveone Beberoni

            I agree with Old Henry. I mean the guilt was all over her, evidenced by her own actions while this child was missing. And yet I agree with other posts that the prosecution did a terrible job presenting their case. But lawyers are the real scumbags. They dont care about justice and the truth. Its all a game they play to manipulate the system to get what they want. Kind of reminds me of democrats actually. But anyhow, I think she should now just hook up with OJ and they can live happily ever after. I mean, shoot, since neither one works, they can together collect food stamps, welfare, government housing, and maybe even tap into some social security money. According to the democrats, since they dont work, they are poor and the rest of us should take care of them the rest of their lives, because you know, theyre poor.

          • eyeswideopen

            Berb, here in Fl, we have repubs who can’t admit wrong doing, so the verdict was not a surprise.

        • Ken

          There is a perception gaining firm ground that you cannot get a trial by your peers any longer in the USA. I.E., our court system is a corrupt failure. The division of opinions in these comments suggest that a true verdict on the side of upholding a true trial was delivered. The jurors could not agree any more than the commentors here can agree. Police and prosecutors are running rampant in our country. We are already in a Police State we just haven’t realized it yet.

          • Ken

            correction:
            The jurors did agree that the police did not adequately do their job sufficient to find this woman guilty, and they would not find guilt without the prosecution presenting a reasonable case.

          • denniso

            In a ‘free’ society we have to err on the side of innocence,so the verdict looks to be correct. There was no actual evidence to connect the mother to the death of the poor little girl…not even a cause of death established by the State. In the absence of evidence and w/ only suspicion,you can’t convict on murder. The State also blew it by going for the death penalty because that made a possible conviction that much more serious. Life in prison,w/ the possibility that future evidence could show the mother not guilty, would have let the jurrors feel more free to convict.

          • vicki

            denniso writes:
            “In a ‘free’ society we have to err on the side of innocence,so the verdict looks to be correct. ”

            Impressive. I find myself in 100% agreement with denniso. :)

            It is better to let 10 guilty go free than to convict even 1 innocent.

          • Void1972

            Remember folks, we live in a society where good is bad and bad is good. This is how the Communist have brought down many great nations in the past. The evil behind these organizations have been the same families for hundreds of years, and by bringing down the moral standing of society, evil presides.
            I remember when OJ was found innocent, and the reaction of my fellow employees. Most, but not all of the Blacks were rejoicing and high fiveing over the acquittal , most, but not all of the Whites were in shock.
            This is where they win, by dividing the people into two groups. Those who Trust in God, and those who trust in man.
            Trust in God brings men and women to understand moral issues, and to make the proper decision when confronted by right and wrong.
            Trust in man will bring men and women to the same conclusion every time.
            There is no law greater then the law of God. Everyday we are all confronted with many issues that can corrupt us or free us. Most of us make the right choices, but when we are continually bombarded by a corrupt media and society, these choices become more difficult.
            Remember years ago when Hollywood created beautiful family programs, and every Sunday at 7pm, Mutual Omaha’s wild Kingdom and Disney, (before Disney was bought out by the corrupt ones), would show wonderful moral stories for the whole family to enjoy.
            Now we have Pregnant at 16, House wives of every demented county in America, Real Life(anything but)
            Mob wives, Brokeback mountain on every other channel. Almost everything on TV is aimed at bringing down moral standards. This is the new norm.
            Daily demented news, daily corruption, daily evil influence. Our kids don’t stand a chance.
            Normalize evil, and evil is accepted. Bad is good, and good is bad.
            Casey is just a product of a demented society. We hear stories daily of kids killing in school, murdering babies, killing, killing and more killing. Total insanity on a daily basis.
            This is what evil creates. Life copying so called art.
            Boycott Hollywood, Boycott Media, Boycott big banks, Boycott corrupt Politicians, Boycott evil, and evil will fail.
            Demand and accept only good, and good will be the norm.
            God Bless America, and those who fight for her!!!!

          • Old Henry

            Well Ken, Not Guilty is not even in the balpark with Innocent.

          • Old Henry

            Bravo Void1972, bravo.

            I watched a link today of the nit-wit Woopie on the View going nuts about Michelle Bachmann singing on to that pledge. Woopie and her ilk on that piece of crap show are exactly the kind of scum you talk about.

          • eyeswideopen

            denniso, I disagree, they should have found her guilty of Child neglect, abandonment, something of that sort. She was responsible for the well being of her child at all times, unless Casey was in the care of another family member, child care facility, good friend, or paid nanny. They are presently charging a mother with the death of her child who accidentally ate a pill on her nite stand. She is responsible for the childs safety. This woman got off, as the jurors didn’t listen to the judges instructions, dealing with her responsibility as a parent. Hey! it’s florida, we are living in the wild wild south, where facts and information don’t matter. Don’t ever move here as you would be horrified at how we run our state.

          • denniso

            Hi Eyes…If the prosecutor had charged her w/ neglect,abuse,abandonment,then there is little doubt she would have been convicted of something. But, they charged her w/ murder,w/ death as punishment,when they couldn’t even say how the poor little girl died. Once they charged her w/ capital murder they had to stick w/ that and couldn’t go after her on lesser charges…I would like to see them file neglect/abandonment charges and take her back to court.

          • http://google irene

            i am still outraged over the casey anthony verdict, i cannot believe with all the evidence, the jurors came up with the NOT GUILTY verdict, this is INSANE, to speak the least, all the evidence was there, what the heck trial were they watching,if, i did’nt know better, i would of thought GEORGE was the one on trial

          • Gary

            Its bad when people throw out a ton of lies and then the jury can’t figure out what is true and what isn’t…so it raises a doubt….where is the puishment for perjury.

          • ONTIME

            The standards are not there and we pay far to much for bad employees in almost all of government, the CYA and liars clubs are designed to keep you in the dark and give these laggards a way out before they are investigated or pointed out.

            If we can get control of the money by a flat tax or natl’s sales tax, remove the progressive tax and the IRS, we can begin the turn around the circumstances that have allowed elitism to ruin the quality we expect from those we trust to work as civil servants…..

          • Charles

            During the mid-90s, in Rockford, Illinois, the local District Attorney was quoted in the newspaper as saying, “the problem with jurors is they have been raised with the foolish belief that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty.” (After about fifteen years, I don’t remember the exact wording, but the meaning remains clear.)

            He eloquently stated what all prosecutors want. They want to be able to waltz into court with a guaranteed conviction unless the accused proves that he is innocent.

        • FreedomFighter

          Another example of the failure of our school system to educate the public and why the Dept of Education should be terminated.

          This woman displayed wanton disrecard for the wearabouts of a child, actually party going while her child was missing, as if she was celebrating her new found freedom from parenthood.

          That gentlemen is enough to convict.

          Laus Deo
          Semper Fi

          • George Smith

            Strange behavior on the part of a woman who is clearly mentally ill does not constitute guilt of murder.

          • FYI

            This is more important than this article:

            Liberal Billionaire Sways Media
            http://www.personalliberty.com/news/liberal-billionaire-sways-media-24469/

          • Karolyn

            It doesn’t matter what kind of education system we have. There will always be bad parents!

          • http://randall701jen@charter.net Working Man

            Like Captian Kirk radioed to the Enterprize: “Beam me up Scottie,
            there is no sign of intellengant life arround here”.

          • http://donthaveone Beberoni

            Common sense is not allowed in the law. Certain truths you are not allowed to reveal to the jury. Anymore, they make the prosecution, who really stunk in this case anyway, but they make them basically provide a picture of the person doing the crime, have an eye witness, or have the blood of them at the scene and the blood of the victim on them. Anyone who pulls off a “clean” crime like she did, gets to walk. I have no doubt in my mind she is guilty. Her body language proved that just as your post said. Without a doubt. But our penal system is broken, and when your limited as to what kind of questions you can ask, and what kind of evidence your allowed to use, or what your allowed to divulge to the jury is controlled. Its a broken system, ran by a bunch of crooked lawyers and judges. I would like to see a final tally on this, of who made what, and you will find these lawyers true motives to their work, and it is not sorting out right from wrong, its collecting dead presidents. Thats it.

          • RMCCD

            If the Charge was for being a BAD parent … then no jury would have aqquited, But the State Charged her With First degree homicide, and sought the Death Penalty.. then failed to even show cause of death… Who is To blame for that????

          • Ranger WW2

            Since no one else was on trial, and Caylee’s remains were found 6 months after she disappeared,and the person being tried, knew where the body was, went partying while people were searching,and she was found not guilty, this old guy figures that the only way it could have happened…her Mama was mean to her, so the poor little baby walked into the woods and commited suicide! Question for you psychologists’I wonder how many of you would even bother to post that it was a just verdict, if the person being tried was a middle-aged homely lady.. A murder was committed,to do what this person was accused of doing you have to be mentally unstable,that person should be in a hospital, not free.

        • 4mula1

          WOOOoooo.. ouch, thats gotta sting.

      • matt

        prove it the state could not connect her to the crime and the fact that she was alledge the last person to see her is just thst you still have to have physicle evidence to convict her and that they didnt have

        • http://donthaveone Beberoni

          So where did the dead body smell in her car come from? That isnt evidence? Just because she had the body wrapped so that DNA didnt leak out all over, your telling me that dead body smell just happened to get there all by itself? And then the body got out of the trunk all by itself? Come on man.

          • eyeswideopen

            Beberoni, hands clapping loudly.

      • vicki

        Vagabond writes:
        “furby you sound about as bright as a 10 wat bulb. the slimebag is guilty as sin and should be put to death.”

        not one but 2 ad hominem attacks. Not a really good way for you to further your case.

        Unless you were there (at the murder) you can not possibly ‘Know’ that the person is ‘guilty as sin’ or guilty at all.

      • Lost in Paradise

        Would you rather return to the days when an angry mob, would be judge, jury, and executioner? A good ole fashioned lynching? You are a nut case and should be under supervision.

      • George Smith

        Vagabond, you sound like a character in an old western movie who can’t wait to get a rope and hang the first suspect. Fortunately, our justice system is designed to protect people from those who would promote mob justice.

        • RMCCD

          It Was also Designed to protect the Citizen From the tyranny of the State… the State Accusing Someone of a crime isn’t Sufficient to Convict.. reasonable Evidence Must be presented… I personally don’t wish to return to the dicates of the ruler.. being sufficient for arrest torture and execution..system may not be perfect as it is .. but its far better than the alternative!

      • moonbeam

        Vagabond, everybody KNOWS she is guilty as sin, but the PROOF is lacking. Don’t worry, she didn’t get away with it. There is no where she can go, no where to hide no matter where they send her or where she goes. She forgets who her ultimate judge is. The Lord God Almighty!

        Can’t hide from Him no way, no how.

        • http://donthaveone Beberoni

          She will pay indeed. For now, her and OJ need to hook up. Misery loves company.

          • Just Me

            OJ is in prison in Nevada for armed robbery…

      • Searcher

        Do I think she was responsible for the death of her daughter? YES
        But it’s kind of hard to convict someone of murder, when you can’t even say what caused the childs death. JMHO

    • Mushin

      Dear Furby – the evidence WAS there as stated and was poorly presented to the court. Sadly most of the jurors had the same level of intelligence as you – which I’m sure the defense was tickled to discover.

      A complete idiot could see she was guilty as sin just by looking at how she enjoyed herself in the photographs taken of her right after her daughters death.

      With nimrods like you it’s no wonder the powers that be call us “sheep”.

      Anyone who could kill a sweet and innocent child deserves a fate worse than death.

      • Frank

        They couldn’t even establish cause of death so how does anyone KNOW that she was murdered much less that Casey did it? Granted, the duck tape hints that she was murdered. But it could have been an accidental death. Once a mother was hiding from the German SS and her baby kept crying. So she covered the babies mouth with her hand and the baby suffocated. Not saying that Caylee’s death was an accident just that without cause of death you can’t claim that she was in fact murdered.

        Then prosecution put up that lame decomposing material in the trunk and the scientist had to admit that he could say whether it was animal or vegetable. So there goes that credability.

        All I do know is a sweet little girl is dead. RIP Caylee, you are in a much better place where you are loved.

        • Barbc

          Decaying flesh has a very different order from decaying plant matter. Having grown up on a farm and having smelled a number of each event there is no mistaking one for the other.

          • matt

            you could have had a piece of meet in that trash bag that could have rotted. which could explained the maggots because most maggots eat dead tissue yep the same ones they use in maggot therapy to eat away dead tissue aroun an open wound

      • vicki

        Mushin writes:
        “A complete idiot could see she was guilty as sin just by looking at how she enjoyed herself in the photographs taken of her right after her daughters death.”

        Really? Was the daughters dead body there in the background? Who took the pics? Were they the accomplices? You are right about one thing. Only a complete idiot would assign guilt just by looking at someones apparent emotional state in a photograph.

        • Mushin

          Uh huh – you and Furby must have the same intelligence genes. If YOU lost a child during the same month would YOU be out laughing and having a good time competing in a “hot body” contest at a nightclub? Your another retard!

          “Casey did not report that her daughter was missing until a month after Caylee had disappeared. Casey and her defense team claim that Caylee drowned in the family’s swimming pool. (Joe Burbank/Orlando Sentinel)”

          Would you wait one month to report your child missing?

          Can you get it?! ONE MONTH?! The lights are on but nobody’s home is there?!

          “Accused by witnesses and police as showing little to no emotion while her daughter was missing, Anthony broke down in the courtroom in Orlando, Fla., on July 22, 2008. Anthony was arrested on child-neglect and other charges after Orange County sheriff detectives accused her of telling a string of lies about her daughter’s disappearance, which was reported to police on July 15. (Red Huber/Orlando Sentinel/MCT)”

          Not convinced somethings amiss?! Now would you wait ONE MONTH to tell police your child was missing? Lie to police concerning the disappearance of your child? Why would you refuse to testify?! Did you see the testimony of her mother concerning questioning Casey about where Calee was?!

          As others have stated here, the case poorly presented was the cause of her acquittal – and just because this woman was acquitted doesn’t mean she isn’t guilty, only that she managed to avoid the fate she deserved due to lack of evidence connecting her to the death of her daughter.
          Ford said jurors were crying and “sick to their stomachs” – Can you get why the jurors were “sick to their stomachs”? Let me spell it out for you – WE KNOW SHE’S GUILTY, BUT WE CAN’T SAY SHE IS FOR LACK OF “HARD” EVIDENCE.

          She has been called a “pathological liar” by the prosecution and that is obvious.

          I suppose you believe O.J. Simpson was innocent as well?!

          • Earl

            RE: the OJ case. I have a friend who is a criminal defense attorney. We were discussing the OJ case one day as it related to the Anthony case. He commented that in his opinion OJ didn’t kill the victims, but he knew who DID. The conversation centered around culpability by OJ’s son, who stood to loose out on 9 million dollars in eventual inheritance if she divorced OJ and took his money. Protecting his son might explain some of the discrepancies, like the glove that didn’t fit, etc.

            Perhaps Anthony’s mother DID carelessly allow Caylee to drown. That might create a situation where she was protecting mommy? By ascribing the death to a phantom person that would deflect attention from both. That might explain to a degree here partying since she herself didn’t do the deed, and thinking the whole thing might blow over. Also consider that the subject of the case was barely 20 at the time. Fear can be a powerful motivator.

            All these things are still criminal, but don’t rise to capital murder status……Add a botched investigation in both cases, and here we are!

            Just one more scenario………..

          • apf2

            Mushin, your penchant for insulting anyone that does not agree with you demonstrates that the mentally hobbled poster is none other than yourself.

            Either you think you are God and know everything just by your mere existence, or you are incredibly stupid and lack the intellectual capacity to understand any other point of view, or you are a troll whose goal is to insult and incite the decent posters here. Whatever, the case may be, people should stop responding to your ignorant spew.

      • Lost in Paradise

        Mushin, I myself do not understand how anyone could kill a sweet innocent child, but there was not enough evidence to get a conviction, and was all circumstancial. Would you like to be convicted of something on circumstancial evidence only? I surly would not. This is the one time the system worked as it is supposed to. If she really did kill her child, sometime in her future, she will disintigrate,and her own death will be near. Prematurly of course. IF she is a “party girl”,like so many her life will be nothing, but one bar to another, and the same with men. If all this does not kill her, then her guilt will.

        • Mushin

          Well said; I concur.

      • George Smith

        The prosecution could not even establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a murder had been committed. While a “complete idiot” could see that she was guilty, intelligent people guided by the evidence presented and reason rather than raw emotion saw that the evidence was clearly lacking.

        • Mushin

          I’m CAN tell that your a brainless twit! Someone mentioned this ONE point Georgie – if you can’t fathom any other point (I’m trying to help the stupid people here) – Caylee is responsible for her daughter (as ANY parent would be) PERIOD.

          In plenty of other cases if would be called NEGLECT for not being totally responsible for the whereabouts and well-being of her daughter…. never mind the fact that she consistently LIED and misled police INTENTIONALLY, didn’t tell her mother that Caylee was missing for a month and refused to testify (for fear of incriminating herself).

          I could care less what you think George as your just one of the mindless masses ….regardless, Caycee has to look at herself in the mirror every morning, knowing what she did.

          • Ranger WW2

            I thought Caylee was the baby.Just asking since you’re just trying to help us stupid people out..Mushin.

    • Greg

      WELL SAID REGARDING THE EVIDENCE. THE PROCECUTION OVER CHARGED THE INDICTMENT TRYING TO SCORE POLITICSL POINTS. OOPS.

      • SJvet

        This is a totally empty argument. They had lesser charges on which they could have convicted, including second-degree manslaughter and aggravated child abuse. The prosecution presented a fine case with much evidence. Unfortunately, the average IQ of most people doesn’t permit them to process information properly.

        • Frank

          They couldn’t prove cause of death so how do you convict anyone of second degree manslaughter?

          • Push comes to shove

            As you make these statements, keep in mind that people have been convicted of murder when there was no body found at all. Circumstantial evidence was used to convict in all those cases.

            In the Casey trial there was plenty of good circumstantial evidence for a conviction, but lesser charges should have been included in the case. What a travesty that this woman will go free.

            May GOD have mercy on her soul, as she will ultimately be judged.

        • Lost in Paradise

          By the way, What is your I.Q ??

        • George Smith

          The prosecution did a very good job in making their presentation, but the evidence was weak at best. The MSM used emotion to convict Casey, but feeling that someone is guilty dose not make her so.

    • SJvet

      Obviously, your reading comprehension level is on par with the jurors in this case.

    • Ref_Who

      I agree. The evidence was not there. I watched every single moment of the trial. I knew exactly what would happen. These “arm-chair” lawyers are making statements based on their legal knowledge. What people need to remember, these are ordinary citizens. If you’ve never been on a jury in charge of deciding guilt or innocence, you have no right to discuss how this jury handled the case. I’ve been there, done that. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” has different meanings and degrees than what you think. I agree with the verdict. Blame the prosecution. There is so much more they could have presented to PROVE guilt. Why wasn’t the DNA of the maggots tested? When they ingest things, the DNA remains in their bodies. That could have PROVEN the body was in Casey’s car. Plain and simple…she may have been guilty…but it’s the State of Florida that blew this case and allowed her to go free. Shame on them!!!! But do not punish this jury.

      • hicusdicus

        I agree with you. I also think they could have convicted her on lesser charges and got her jail time. Since murder has no statute of limitations in time the truth would have prevailed. The woman’s life is over and she will have a life time of suffering. This will be a just reward for her small psychotic brain. In my case if I was ever offered a jury trial I think I would just ask for a firing squad.

      • cwely1

        The BIG error in this case (Casey Anthony) lies with the Grand Jury.
        If I were in charge of that Jury, I could not have issued a True Bill.
        The evidence was in the least tenuous, at most totally incomplete. No Prosecutor could win a case on the grounds given to him. The GJ did not find a murder (only suspected murder), by person or persons unknown, using methods not determined (only suggested.) I agree with the decisions, all 7 of those rendered by this Jury. They did a fine job considering what they had to work with. I judge them from personal experience. In New Jersey, I served in 10 different years on 2 Murder cases (1 Nolo Contendere, 1 Conviction First Degree), twice on the Grand Jury, 10 different Petite Jury Panels with many cases. I was Foreman 3 times. The State has given Casey Anthony a precious gift that she should never forget: she cannot be tried again for this murder.

    • Sues

      Furby you need to read this article once more. The intelligence of this man eclipses yours by light years. Please refrain from giving your opinion too much as it illustrates my point exactly.

      • apf2

        Or you and many more like you are trolls or the conservative movement is infested by ignorant, raving idiots. Your insults to the intelligence of furby are hilarious, since it is obviously you and a couple others posting here that are so blinded by emotion or have your heads so far up that dark sunless cavity that you cannot or will not understand that the law is what protects our liberties. The law is not a weapon of emotion to wield against all that we disagree with or despise. The law must be fairly applied, based on evidence, to demonstrate guilt–not prove innocence.
        Your assertion that she is guilty of First Degree Murder because she didn’t report her child missing is absurd. They could not say how the child died, nor who was present when she died. It is completely plausible that the mother was present and did something to kill the child. But you cannot convict on “plausible”. It is also plausible that someone was present during the death of the poor baby–with or without the mother. But this plausibility only confirms the existence of reasonable doubt.

        Your insults of those that don’t agree with mindless (as in not requiring use of the brain) analysis are only demonstration of your own faults and failings. You are not apparently a reasonable person and I would hope you are never called to jury duty. I would also hope that you never have to face a mindless jury such as the once your desired for this case.
        For

        • apf2

          I am sorry. I didn’t finish my first point–distracted by the kids…

          We need to educate the people in the conservative movement so that they not only know in their hearts what is right but can use their heads to argue and articulate it.
          These mindless insulting rants against people that understand the law (and the POTENTIAL injustice in this case) is more typical of the liberal/progressive jerks that will always try to bully and shout down those that disagree with them–then they have the gall to say that they are intellectually superior to the bullied. If you are a Christian and/or conservative, I implore you to open your mind and use that God-given gift of a brain to actually think through the situation. Read up on the law. Read up on the Founders. Understand that they feared trials where innocence was not presumed. They feared trials that were tried in the court of public opinion.

          Don’t be part of the problem. Educate yourself so you may part of the solution–we must take back our great nation and again secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    • George Smith

      Casey Anthony is clearly mentally ill, and most people, including the author of this article, frequently interpret signs of mental illness as evidence of guilt. Judgmental people want to punish Casey for her strange behavior and are willing to execute her for it. Unfortunately for them, reasonable doubt is sustained only if her mentally ill behavior is considered proof of her guilt. Absent the emotional misinterpretation of that behavior, there is clearly more than a reasonable doubt in the weak evidence presented by the prosecution.

      • RMCCD

        Well Said

    • Harold Olsen

      I agree. I just do not believe the prosecution made its case. They could not even say how the child died, though they offered their opinion, which is all it was and that is not evidence. Without a cause of death, how can you convict someone of murder, or that a murder had been committed?

      I really believed that there would be a guilty verdict but not on the evidence. I thought they’d convict her because of how she acted after her child went missing. She acted like an unfeeling b**ch and didn’t seem to care that Cayley was missing. I also thought that they’d convict because they didn’t like her dirt bag attorney and his tactics. Such things do happen.

      I believe the jury gave the only verdict they could. Even though I am convince Casey Anthony killed Cayley, had I been on that jury, I’d have voted not guilty as well.

      What further convinced me of her guilt was the celebrating after the verdict. Her child is dead but she and her attorneys are celebrating. No remorse about her daughter being dead. She clearly doesn’t care. It also makes me wonder if her attorney’s KNOW their client killed her daughter.

    • Eli

      Furby : Hate to put it like this to you, but you need to learn to spell or get yourself a dictionary. Your credibility is tubal with all the errors you submitted with your statement!

    • James

      Furby, a few years back, when DNA became available, 28 death-row inmates in a Chicago prison had their blood re-tested, and 13 were then adjusged to be innocent and released. One wonders how many innocent people have been put to death?
      In the Casey Anthony trial, the cause of death could not be established – the body was too decomposed. The story tendered was that Casey stumbled into the family pool and drowned, but that couldn’t be proven either. I personally believe that the child died in the trunk of her mother’s car. The taped mouth and nose appeared to be there to reduce any sound she might make before dying, but it couldn’t be established by any evidence that the child died in the car, either. That’s the problem. I don’t disagree with the verdict, someone could have strangled Casey, taped her mouth and nose, and stashed her in her mother’s trunk to fame her. If there was any doubt at all of her mother’s guilt, for first-degree murder, the verdict should have been ‘Not Guilty.’

      • Mushin

        “And THEN taped her mouth and nose”? another dope. And why would anyone do this after the fact? This is hopeless and so are you.

        • vicki

          Having read several of your comments I have observed that you have no useful evidence and simply resort to ad hominem attacks. This indicates you may well be the complete idiot (ad homenim :) that could see that she was guilty.

      • James

        The baby’s name was Caylee, and her mother’s Casey, sorry for the error.

    • Carol J

      So they turn her loose and then another jury gives a man life for protecting himself. It’s not justice at all

    • EddieW

      Furby, I didn’t really watch the case, but I porayed that if she is guilty, that she would be found guilty, but if she is not guilty, that she would be found so!! I don’t have a clue whether she is guiltuy or not…Yes, I would like to be judgemental and say, “Hang her,” but would I be right in my judgement, or totally in error!! I would rather err on the good side!!

    • CJM

      Furby: There WAS a great deal of evidence, both circumstantial AND hard, presented in this case. What we have, in this situation is what is called a rogue jury–one that disregards the judge’s instructions and the testimonies provided by both sides, fails to request clarification on issues the members did not understand (as in: what is the difference between reasonable doubt and shadow of doubt), fails in setting aside the punishment phase (remember, this was the trial phase where ONLY THE EVIDENCE is to be considered but this jury deliberated on the punishment phase, which is the judge’s job), and makes the determination based on which attorney they best identified with (so far, each juror who has come forth has alluded praise to Baez, whom they believe had a ‘monumental task’ in defending his client–it mattered not that Baez had put George Anthony on trial rather than his own client). Yes, some folks are sent to prison and that individual is truly innocent but it happens–sometimes it is a deliberate plan by the prosecution and police, sometimes it isn’t. It is up to society to continue to investigate those whom we believe are imprisoned wrongfully–and believe it or not, there are a couple agencies out there who do just that.

      • apf2

        Why is it so hard for some people to understand. With all the “evidence” presented they lacked some very basic and absolutely necessary facts: How did the child die? Who was present when the child died? From what I have seen/heard, they can’t even say when the child died.

        How can you convict ANYONE when such basic information is not available?

  • http://personalliberty.com Bill Beach

    Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “Better ninety nine guilty go free than that one innocent man should suffer.” If you don’t believe that, you would be perfectly at home in a police state. Before you can convict someone of murder, a prosecutor must first prove that a murder was committed. These people were unable to determine how Caley died much less that she was murdered. You and I and Nancy Grace and probably a vast majority of the people think Casey was guilty. That isn’t sufficient for a guilty verdict, you need solid evidence and these low grade prosecutors didn’t have it.

    • Frank

      Bingo. We can discuss this all day but none of us were on the jury. But I agree with your points

      • Push comes to shove

        How she died was not the point, how someone dies is inconsequintial when you ask yourself one question…..

        How did she end up in that swamp with duct tape covering the mouth and nose areas in a plastic bag?

        Do not forget there was a plastic bag that was only open because of scavenger animals.

        • Frank

          Duct tape over the nose and mouth was the prosecutions theory. Finding duct tape at the site where Caylee’s body was found is not proof of that theory, but the basis for that theory. An adult does not need chloroform and duct tape to smother a child.

          • Void1972

            Frank
            You still don’t get it! All of you morons still don’t get it!!!!
            Lord, please help the ignorant on this site, and give us all redemption for our ignorance.
            God Bless America, and those who fight for her!!!!

    • Bob

      Holmes must have been a fool and so is anyone who believes his statement. The damage caused by the 99 who go free would far outweigh the damage done to one innocent person. The verdict returned by the morons in this case shocks the conscience and frees this woman to injure or kill another child.

      • Sues

        Exactly Bob. And if your recall a day or two after her freedom was announced she declared her desire to have another child. Oy vey! And didn’t you just love how she winked at her constituents? What a gal.

      • Lost in Paradise

        You do not know that for sure either Bob! One life is a very precious item. That much I do know.

      • jreb

        “Holmes must have been a fool and so is anyone who believes his statement. The damage caused by the 99 who go free would far outweigh the damage done to one innocent person. The verdict returned by the morons in this case shocks the conscience and frees this woman to injure or kill another child.”

        I hope in the future, if you should be charged with a crime you did not commit, and you are standing trial and face conviction that you remember your comment here. I wonder if then you will think that justice is served if you an innocent man face imprisonment or perhaps execution for a crime you did not commit.

        I’m no liberal, I’m a former police officer, and if this jury found that the prosecution did not present proof beyond a reasonable doubt then you should be angry at the prosecution for not presenting a competently investigated case based on evidence. From what I can gather there seems to be an abundance of physical evidence but it was not investigated; no cause of death was even established. That is sloppy police work, and even worse the prosecution should have known that they did not have enough to convict and should have insisted upon a competent investigation before proceeding. Instead, it seems, that they intended to proceed and hope that the outrage over the death of a small child would be enough to convict; instead of delivering justice, it seems, they hoped that the jury would act as a lynch mob and deliver a conviction based upon emotion rather than a reasonable examination of facts.

        Perhaps more disturbing than the police and prosecutors lack of competence is the suggestion by the author of the article that we need professional jurors; jurors that will deliver a guilty verdict reliably, regardless of the evidence or lack thereof.

        Wake up people, we are proceeding down the path to abject tyranny, and are much further down that path than most realize.

        • RMCCD

          Jreb i couldn’t have said it better myself… in this day and age where more of the citizens rights and freedoms are being stripped for security of the state… its refreshing to see that a jury is willing to hold the State to its proper place of HAVING TO PROVE THE CASE WITH EVIDENCE!!!! it would be too easy, just to hate and execute this entirely unsypathic woman.Just for the way she carries herself and behaves, lucky is she cooler heads prevailed, sad for Florida that sloppy investigation and prosecution are Par for the course!

      • Eli

        lighten up Bob were you on the jury or even in the courtroom? Did you see any of the so called physical evidence or did you just liberally believe what you read!!!!?????

      • Lueder

        Bob, I wonder if you would still say that if you were the innocent person being wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death.

        I can’t say much on this because I didn’t know that the trial was being televised so didn’t watch any of it. I also have never had the opportunity to serve on a jury. Not that I haven’t been summoned but when I have been, the cases have always been dismissed or settled before I reported for duty. However, I will say this: our legal and justice system were set up the way they were for a reason. Do I believe them to be corrupt now? YES!! But, if the prosecution didn’t present enough evidence to ensure reasonable doubt, then the jury had no choice but to return a not guilty verdict.

    • Ref_Who

      Agree 100%. BLAME THE STATE, NOT THE JURY.

      • eddie47d

        Nancy Grace thinks everyone is guilty and demands vigilante justice.She is a show boater who is making money off of peoples emotions. That is asking for a police state or at least a guilty verdict without the necessary proof to send someone to prison. I believe Casey was guilty because of that gut feeling that she didn’t report the child missing within a couple of hours. Which a normal headed reasonable person would have done. We also don’t convict a person in America by gut feelings so I will grudgingly accept the juries verdict.

        • RMCCD

          Good Call.

        • denniso

          Our system is far from perfect…we have convicted many innocent people and even sent them to death row,w/ little doubt executing some. Many of the guilty are never even caught,and many are not convicted because of lousy prosecution or lack of hard evidence. We have to abide by having evidence to convict,not just a gut feeling or suspicion,since conviction and imprisonment are serious,to say the least. This case had essentially no real evidence to convict on murder,and the prosecution should have charged w/ a lesser crime that probably would have resulted in conviction.

          Nancy Grace thinks she’s the Grand Inquisitor and is making big money filling that role to people looking for justice in a violent society. The poor daughter is dead,and there is nothing that changes that…conviction or not.

    • Eli

      Well said Mr. Billbeach and I agree with your comment!

  • Tazio2013

    The prosecution and MSM failed to make their case, therefore, 12 open-minded and responsible jurors arrived at their not guilty decision in less than 10 hours.

    • TIME

      Tazio,
      I agree with you 100%.

    • Sues

      You’re right Tazio. And a few of them are actually cashing in on it too. Lucky devils.

  • terry

    I believe everyone agrees with you.

    • Sues

      Well Terry, I believe your beliefs are a little marred.

      • Lost in Paradise

        What are your beliefs Sue?

  • James

    I am about tired of all the Monday morning armchair jurors who are saying what the verdict should have been. They evidently had their doubts and they have spoken. You were not on the jury so shut up.
    There’s a part of all of us that almost feels sorry for this emotionally disturbed young lady.
    God will be her final judge.

    • Mushin

      Jimmy,you “feel sorry” for her?! What would you “feel” for her if that were YOUR child she killed?! are you okay?!

      This is exactly the problem we have with our society today! If someone commit’s such a heinous act as killing an innocent child, such an act deserves zero empathy. ZERO.

      You bleeding heart liberals make me sick. Somehow you find a way to justify anything, from homosexuality to an innocent child’s murder. She knew FULLY WELL what she was doing and did it with malicious intent.

      One thing I do concur with – God have mercy on her soul.

      • Frank

        They never proved that Caylee was murdered as they could not determine cause of death.

        • Maureen

          Ya, Caylee wasn’t murdered – she taped up her own mouth with ducttape and crawled into the trash back ….really????

          • Sues

            Good post Maureen. I’m with you.

          • Karolyn

            THERE WAS NO CAUSE OF DEATH; consequently, there could be no murder! If you can’t provide cause of death, there can be no proof that it was murder!

        • JOAN

          iF the child was not murdered how do you suppose the tape got wraped around her face with a stickey heart do think the child commited suicide??????

          • shar40

            You are so right—–They just gave manslaughter in the trial where the couple’s pet python killed their baby. The couple will the rest of their life in jail becuase the jury used their head. Manslaghter because the snake was in the house and was able to get to the baby and kill it. that was neglect and Casey killed her little two year old becuase no one else would have done it and she was with her last. She should be tried again in another court like OJ was.

          • Mushin

            Well Joan (and Shar) it’s readily apparent why Hitler said “What luck for rulers that men do not think” – because the proof is all over with the idiots that have posted on this page….

            I heard about the case of the child and the pet python. Anyone who would keep a 9 foot snake ANYWHERE near a child is brainless turd – AND I’m confident Furby, Karolyn, and George (and a host of other geniuses) would disagree. The parent’s aren’t responsible, it’s all the snakes fault!

            Are people really this thoughtless? I mean….really?!

          • apf2

            Shar40: Those parents were found guilty of the CORRECT charge. They will not spend “the rest of their lives in prison” as manslaughter doesn’t carry that harsh of a sentence. But it is a the correct charge for the crime. First Degree Murder can not fit a case where they haven’t even established that there has been a murder. No cause of death–no murder. They should have gone for manslaughter–you only have to prove that her actions, although indirectly, caused her death. Much easier to prove and a better fit for a case with a cause of death.
            Mushin: Go home already. You are so blinded by hate, emotion and yes, stupidity that you will never grasp the idea that with out a cause of death there is no murder under US law. Your hatred for the mother is far from sufficient to merit a conviction. And a good thing for you, since anyone as vocally insulting as you seem to be is sure to have a lot of enemies that could under your logic get your ass fried in the electric chair!

        • Barbc

          Two year olds tend not to commit suicide. It would be very hard for small child to tear off a strip of duct tape. Someone murdered this child.
          The mother and grandparents all should be brought on neglect charges at the very least.
          They all knew she was not at the house. The fact they did not know where she was is abhorrent and yet they did nothing to find her. Makes me wonder what and when they knew something.
          Granted certain specifics are not known but there is plenty of known information in general indicates, a preponderance of circumstantial evidence all pointing to one conclusion. When this happens then reasonable doubt is not there. The mother and or the grandparents are guilty.

          • Sues

            Barbc – I believe Joan was injecting a little sarcasm into the mix of liberal idealism.

      • Karolyn

        Oh! You were there! Why didn’t you come forward!

      • http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/civil-liberty/raising-the-bar-for-guilty-verdicts/?eiid&rmid=2011_07_12_PLA_%5BP11349313%5D&rrid=387324393&replytocom=488083#respond Len65

        Mushin says:

        Jimmy,you “feel sorry” for her?! What would you “feel” for her if that were YOUR child she killed?! are you okay?!

        This is exactly the problem we have with our society today! If someone commit’s such a heinous act as killing an innocent child, such an act deserves zero empathy. ZERO

        Tell me how you fee about the millions of babies that are killed by abortion? Where is the outrage over this injustice?

    • Eli

      Amen,and Amen!

    • James

      I’m not the ‘James’ that wrote this, I’m the James that wrote above.

  • Cawmun Cents

    Nobody found her to be innocent.They could not convict her of so serious a charge,on circumstantial evidence.The degree of guilt is what is debated.So she was not convicted of murder 1,and the only way to make the bulk of the charges stick is to get the first one to stick.The DA knew the risks and gambled away the case.It happens.The state of Florida crapped out.Guilt assumes that Casey committed murder.Only She knows if that is the case.No matter…the outcome for her is certain.Her life will be a wreck,and lead to tragedy if she is guilty.But tragically,it is ruined no matter what else happens to her.Whether or not she deserves guilt,it will always be assumed by most that she is guilty of murder.She was found not guilty in court,but guilty in the court of public opinion.Either way she is going to serve a life sentence.-CC.

    • Vagabond

      CC what human being would go two days let alone 31 days without reporting a child missing?? that right there is enough for me to find her GUILTY,

      • skippy

        very well said Vagabond! what kind of mother is that??!! Loving…my ass!!

        • Cawmun Cents

          I would never come to the defence of the perveyor of so heinous a crime.But the DA had bupkiss.Evidence required for such a conviction would neccesarily be bountiful.There was no such evidence produced.Regardless,whether I assume she is a deplorable excuse for a human being or not,that is the onus of the matter.Evidence.Not of poor character…I’d have to put half the world or more to death for that.Aquittal is the least of her issues now.-CC.

      • Karolyn

        Well, then, I hope you’re never picked to be on a murder trial jury! You would be convicting someone on the basis of personal feelings for something having to do with her personality or lack of morals. That is not right!

        • Mushin

          It’s not about personal feeling you nimrod, it’s about discerning one’s personality PERIOD – LET’S TRY TO HELP THE SLOW ONE’S HERE – lying to the police, lying to the police, lying to the police.

          Waiting ONE MONTH to tell police your daughter is missing, ( I just can’t bring myself to repeat this one again).

          Partying it up a couple weeks after your daughter is missing instead of spending every waking minute looking for her under every rock, bush and tree!

          I’m sorry, how is it that you can even have the wit’s to breathe?!

      • Skeptic

        Vagabond said:
        “CC what human being would go two days let alone 31 days without reporting a child missing?? that right there is enough for me to find her GUILTY”

        Casey knew she was already dead – no need to report a child missing.

        Does that make her guilty of murder – NO! Need more evidence for that.

    • Citizens Rights

      Pundits like this guy Robert Ringer who wrote this article disgust the hell out of me. They set themselves up as Judge and Jury and then tell us there version of what really happened. Our founding fathers recognizing the prosecutorial abuse in Europe; imprisonment without trial and other injustices that robbed people of their freedom and human dignity, made absolutely sure that as citizens of this great new nation any and all jurisdictions would have many hurdles to clear before they could imprison a citizen, not the least of which was conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. They intended that supposition, conjecture, hypothesis, and theory would not have standing with a jury of peers. As Cawmun Cents (like the word play) so artfully pointed out; the Prosecutor’s reached for the stars with murder 1 and did everyone a disservice. This girl, guilty or innocent, will serve a life sentence of public scorn, accusations and possibly physical attack.

      • Ref_Who

        Oh, I so agree with you. These articles just do not need to be written. These jury members now fear for their safety. THAT IS RIDICULOUS. These “journalists”, “lawyers”, and Nancy Grace need to be condemned for inciting the public against these jurors. They made their decision based on what they saw and heard. Listen to the foreman to find out, that they thought she was guilty, but they cannot go on emotions or beliefs. They MUST go by the evidence. I think this article and the writer should be banned for downing the jury and their verdict. I’d like to know how many juries this “journalist” has been on?

        • eddie47d

          It has to be guilt by evidence not emotions,so well said. We are an incarceration nation. We trump up evidence and add a few charges to see which ones will stick. Maybe the jury saw through the evidence that was presented and said whoa wait a minute that isn’t good enough. The trial turned into a circus because of the media,the prosecution and the defense. It’s possible that the jury saw through that and turned against the hollowing crowd.

        • PeteRFNY

          Oh pleas…get off your smug high horse. You know, I was at the point where I had accepted that the jurors were just doing what they though was right, blah blah blah – until I saw two alternate jurors interviewed on Dateline. They were both as dumb as a box of rocks and sounded like it. Now it is pretty obvious how this jury came to this conclusion – they were watching a trial from an alternate universe where babies kill themselves and everyone has goatees.

          • Sues

            Oh PeteRFNY – You have no idea how really right you are. I live on the border of Pinellas and Pasco counties. If you think that jury was slow on the uptake, be glad they didn’t pull from Pasco. There’d be a lot more than just goatees. Just watch juror number three, who can’t seem to get enough face time on TV. You must be from NY as your name implies. I left NYC for this place many years ago and believe me, culture shock doesn’t even begin to describe this place. It truly is across the universe from any I’ve been to in my life.

        • Eli

          To Citizens Rights and Ref Who That is the sorry Liberal media for you! They applaud the death award in many facets! Good example they support abortion and the killing of innocence therefore they support death to all but their own ignorant selves!

      • Sues

        Well C.R. – If you were REALLY so concerned about the rights of others and the “founding fathers” (I love how people drop the founding father thing these days as if they have some sort of subliminal link to them – boring) you would agree after rereading your own post, that you too, are treading on the same human rights you accuse Mr. Ringer. Yawn. You’re another ‘do as I say, not as I do’ liberal. Here’s an idea, since you’re so concerned for her (Casey) safety, why not apply to be one of her many, many, body guards. She’s going to need them according to you. Frankly, I don’t give a rat’s behind about her safety. Certainly OJ wasn’t about his, as he played golf everyday instead of finding the “real” killer, and look at him now. If Casey Anthony is of true moral ineptitude then she will become a victim of her own lifestyle – eventually. Just like OJ.

        • moonbeam

          “I left NYC for this place many years ago and believe me, culture shock doesn’t even begin to describe this place. It truly is across the universe from any I’ve been to in my life.”

          You said a mouthful there for sure! I moved down here years ago from Pittsburgh and let me tell you, the ignorance and backwardness is absolutely unbelievable. Although I love living here, I am ecstatic I wasn’t born and raised here.

          Forget about having intelligent conversation. You must explain every dog-gone thing you say as people here understand nothing. For instance, I made a reference to the old saying “Sweet nothings.” to a guy I was getting to know. Do you know he actually freaking thought I was trying to offend him??? So, I had to explain this lovely saying and he STILL didn’t get it! I finally just said to him “ya know, this isn’t going to work. I will be damned if I have to sit and explain everything to you.” This was just 1 week of knowing him. Quickly grew tired of explaining even my facial expressions. Raising an eyebrow needed explanation. Too freaking ignorant and backward for my tastes!

          It is refreshingly exuberant when I can talk with someone from up north or anyone who is NOT from here. The conversation is cerebral, intelligent, flowing and I don’t have to stop and explain every little thing I say.

          • apf2

            And then there are those that think they are so much smarter than everyone else that they must demonstrate it constantly-and in doing so they demonstrate how absolutely lacking they are. North is not smarter than south, city not better than rural. Cultural differences exist and those that refuse to respect them and take them into account are the real losers.

            Perhaps, you have such a strange face that what you think you are expressing just doesn’t come off. Or maybe the man you were trying to impress was unaccustomed to snooty, condescending smugness.

            In short, you come off as detestable, intolerant elitist snob–one I am glad not to have to deal with on a daily basis.

          • libertytrain

            apf2 -you said it. I don’t know why these people don’t stay in the North. It would keep it nicer for those of us that appreciate and understand that we have moved into a different area and respect it as such.

          • Mushin

            I know exactly what you mean my dear….

      • Push comes to shove

        You know opinions are like A__holes, we all have one. Mr. Ringer did no such thing as set himself up as judge, jury and executioner, he merely gave his opinion on the case that the evidence presented. That is what writers do they give thier views and opinions.

        Just as you did in your comment, where you are playing judge and jury of his opinion. We all have strong beliefs about this case yours mine or his it makes no difference as the seated jury made thiers even though i believe they were wrong.

        GOD will judge her soon enough and that should be enough for all of us.

  • Melissa

    It is hard to believe that there are mothers who harm their children much less do what she did. I know that if one of my children drown, the grief would be consuming. It isn’t something you ever really get over. I have lost people I love, lost two children and her behavior is unbelievable. Grief is a long road and I agree with the author here. Justice was not served in this case but mocked.

  • http://foundersrevolution.blogspot.com patriot1776

    I know I will be chastized for saying this but, I think that everyone is looking at this wrong. Let me start by saying that I think that Casey Anthony is probably guilty of fatal neglect if not murder. However the jury, in my opinion did NOT have EVIDENCE beyond a reasonable doubt. This is clear even in this article. I have three beautiful children and I am torn to the core thinking about little Caylee’s life cut short by an unfit mother who would rather have fun than be a mom. It’s disgusting.
    However, The real problem here lies with those who are charged with the task of collecting the EVIDENCE. They had a high profile case where everyone wanted this woman hanged yesterday! The pressure to get this woman in court and convict, I believe, was why we saw the verdict we did. The jury did their job, as they were supposed to. It was the police, investigators, and the prosecuters who failed.
    During the trial of Casey Anthony, the prosecution managed to establish what people already knew:

    The skeletal remains found were those of Caylee and there was duct tape sticking to her skull;
    Casey lied to the police about a number of things;
    Casey denied murdering her daughter;
    Casey was not a person of the highest character.
    Some of those things are damning indictments if a woman applies for the Mother of the Year Award or is trying to be a role model to young women. I would hope that none of my daughters turns out to be like Casey Anthony.
    However, having a bad character does not mean one is a murderer. If that were so, then Washington, D.C., would be the murder capital of the world. (Come to think of it, not long ago, D.C. WAS the murder capital of the world, and it is true that bad character abounds in that city. Nonetheless, my original point stands.)
    Seizing on the duct tape, prosecutors then claimed that Casey smothered her child with it in order to get rid of her so that she could be a Big Party Animal. The problem was that they had no idea if the child were smothered with duct tape or not, none. They were engaging in conjecture, and any jury that takes its job seriously is not going to convict on the basis of a pretty loose conjecture.
    Now, had Casey’s DNA been found on the duct tape, that might have demonstrated a connection to the prosecution’s narrative, but, alas, they found nothing of the sort. What they had was a little girl’s skeletal remains and a mother of less-than-savory character.
    In the end, the jury did convict Casey Anthony of the obvious: she lied to the police. The crimes are misdemeanors, and the maximum she could get if the sentences for each of the four counts are run consecutively is four years, and she already has been jailed for three. Thus, whatever time she will spend in jail almost is over.
    Certainly, the Usual Suspects in the media will denounce what they see as a wrongful acquittal. Yet, what I see is a jury that did its job. Prosecutors demanded that jurors engage in speculation, and the jurors refused to do that, and I applaud them for their integrity. Maybe Casey Anthony did murder her daughter, but the prosecution never proved it, and jurors are supposed to acquit when that happens. And it happened.

    • Karolyn

      Absolutely agree.

    • TIME

      Patriot,
      No what you posted is all totaly within reason, any one who thinks in a logical way would agree with your post 100%. As would anyone who is a “True American who follows the rules of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.”

      It may also be of interest to all to put yourself in the shoes of anyone who stands in a courtroom accused of anything.
      You would hope that {12 open minded persons} would be on hand to review your case rather than 12 persons who think your guilty before you were given your day in court. Keep in mind that you are not guilty until proven otherwise by a jury of your peers. Thats the way our system was set up.

      Saddly what we have elvoleved into is a nation where “YOUR guilty until proven otherwise.”
      Thats 100% Totaly wrong in all respects. Now with that in mind ask yourself this one question, can you now understand why we have Barry sitting in the WH?

      What a sad nation we have become, we allow criminals in suits to run this nation by way of eating the fluffy worthless Rhetoric they so eloquently dispence at you, we eat this rotten festering waste material as if they were words of wisdom from God himself.

      Thats in fact the very reason we have a POTUS that we know not a single damm thing about, as in nothing!
      Thats alone speaks volumes about how low as a nation we have fallen.

      This case was tried in the “PUBLIC Court” of opinion by way of the spin factor media long before it was taken to the level of a Courtroom.
      Thats 100% totaly wrong as well creates the base of a Police state mind set. Of what saddly many find well within their liking.

      What I have seen of the media’s spin on this case has been nothing short of a lynch mob. How bloody sad is that in a naition where Justice & Honor was the courner stone of our foundation.

      • eddie47d

        Time says he would be reasonable in the Casey trial and that the media hyped it up . I agree but then he wants to be judge,jury and executioner and hang Obama in the “Public Court”. Sorry Time you have pronounced him guilty and wouldn’t necessary make a good jurist.

        • TIME

          Manzier 47 D cup,
          WOW BUBBA Buffoon – you again prove your as stupid as box of rocks, as a matter of fact you really make rocks look very smart indeed!
          Thus what else can one expect for an nano wit like yourslef but the mindless post you proudly present daily.

          Now Bubba Buffoon what jury was I on again.

      • Dan az

        Time
        I agree 100% This case is good for the criminal-justice system and here’s why: if people actually read the jury instructions about reasonable doubt, there would be a lot more acquittals…What this verdict does is demonstrate that unless the prosecution is able to show us how, why, when, and where the crime was committed, a jury is not going reach a decision that could end up sending a defendant to his death.
        We should take nothing we see in the media at face value: In spite of decades of evidence to the contrary, many people still think that they can make well-informed decisions about things based on what they’re given through television “news” programs. In fact, we the viewers are purely at the mercy of what the anchors and produces want us to see. All of the Americans who think that they followed the case “closely” still have access to only a fraction of the information available to jurors. Even someone who watched every single minute of the trial via live video feed can still only see what the camera is showing at any given minute, and can only hear what the microphones pick up.
        Government prosecutors are not to be trusted. Does this point even need to repeated? Prosecutors routinely make prosecutions for political reasons. Cushy political appointments, elected offices and jobs as state and federal judges are at stake. The Duke Lacrosse Team, Tim Masters, and Lisl Auman can tell you all about it. In addition, prosecutors are virtually never held accountable for anything. The disbarment of Michael Nifong is a rare case of this, and his punishment amounts to little more than a slap on the wrist compared to what he wanted to do to the accused.

        • eddie47d

          I have met Tim Masters and have read much about him.Even gave him some money when he was first released to help him get on with his life. Prosecutors really dropped the ball on that one.Haven’t heard the name Lisl Auman in years and who was falsely targeted by police.I hope she is doing well.

    • Frank

      Points well taken. Another, an adult does not need chloroform and duct tape to smother a 2 year old child. On the other hand, Cindy probably would need chloroform to render her cheating husband defenseless. She did testify that she searched for chloroform. I believe her. Problem with the prosecutions theory. Start with a wrong theory and it is difficult to make your case. Example: O.J. Simpson. I think he was guilty but did not act alone! Problem with the prosecutions case. Being a party girl does not in itself make someone a bad mother or murderer. I know wonderful mothers who like to party!

    • Navigator30

      Some of you have watched too many CSI episodes. It is unreasonable to expect the police to determine a cause of death on a body that is in such an advanced state of decomposition. Caseys lies and a thunderstorm effectively delayed the recovery of the body long enough for her to benefit. If my child were missing, it would take about 10 minutes to report to police. There was plenty of circumstantial evidence to convict. As some have pointed out, many convictions have been obtained without any body at all.

  • Maggiemoo

    Furby, What in the world are you talking about? The evidence was overwhelming that she was guilty as hell. I am disgusted with the idiots on the jury, but then again, the same kind of idiots elected B.O. and will likely do it again (in the face of overwhelming evidence that he is out to destroy our country.)

    • Vagabond

      Maggiemoo. my sentiments exactly. and I’ll bet they all voted for obummer and from what I am reading here so did a lot of the readers,

    • Les

      What overwhelming evidence?

    • Mushin

      Just one more human being who is capable of rational thinking against the hordes of idiots in this country – let’s move to someplace safe like Uganda – too scary to live here anymore!

  • gunnersmith

    There was no reasonable evidence or a motive to base a conviction on. If you want to convict somebody of a crime how about the put the prosecution on trial for failing in the job and wasting the tax payers money on a case they could not win. It’s ok to be mad about this, but let’s put the blame on the ones that failed to get the job done.

  • Annie

    He just gave you the evidence. Just the fact that she left with a child and came back 31 days later is guilt in my book……..

    • http://foundersrevolution.blogspot.com patriot1776

      Thats why you are not on a jury! God help the innocent person who is on trial if you ever sit on a jury.

      • TIME

        Patriot,
        More powerful words than your post can not be written!

      • Dan az

        patriot
        Frankly, when awake and aware lovers of liberty choose not to serve on a jury, they are leaving the battlefield with Goliath still standing, jeering at them as they walk away. By not serving, they are denying to themselves one of the critical “boxes of freedom” and a chance to sling one right between Leviathan’s eyes. If they don’t take that shot, what is left? Not much. The ballot box is a joke, the soap box, while still there, is also under relentless attack, with mainstream media now nothing more than Mordor’s mouthpiece. Why give up the jury box to the enemy? You know what comes next.

        Serving on a jury should be viewed as a form of liberty guerrilla warfare in the current “soft” or cold war between the forces of liberty and the forces of tyranny. We’d better use it while we can before the war goes hot. Besides, It’s good practice. We need to exercise our liberty muscles and our own cunning and resolve in the face of adversity. Step into the ring!

        We must close with the enemy and battle him in every arena, including in the courtroom. Give Leviathan no safe place, no place to let down his guard, and instead take the fight straight to him in a place where he thought he was supreme and could not be defeated. One juror, just one, can shut down all the gears, all the levers, and all the apparatus of unjust power, and make it stop. One juror can throw a critical monkey-wrench into the works. And if enough jurors do that, the cursed machine will be prevented from working at all. Just you, a lone liberty guerrilla, in a peaceful, bloodless, mini-revolution of conscience, can drive a dagger into the soft underbelly of the beast and set someone free. Talk about focus of effort! There can be no better time spent in the struggle to directly stop oppression.

        • http://foundersrevolution.blogspot.com patriot1776

          I like you Dan az. I like the way you think. Thank you for the comment.

  • Ken

    Having set on a few Jury’s in my lifetime I find the comments against this jury repulsive. 12 members listened to the evidence and came back with a not guilty verdict. Jury Not Guilty.

    • http://foundersrevolution.blogspot.com patriot1776

      Here, Here!

  • Ty

    Mr. Ringer, your article is insulting, and unjustly derides our judicial system, and namely the jurors in this case. I still believe our judicial system, with all it’s faults, is the best in the world. You ridicule the jurors in this case without a shred of evidence to back up your claim “that a significant percentage of jurors are totally unqualified”. They were chosen as a jury of her piers. What other qualifications are required, under the law?

    Now, as for the trial and the verdict… By finding Casey Anthony not guilty, the jury is not saying she is innocent. They are simply saying, in their best judgement, that the prosecution did not provide enough evidence to convict her of first degree murder and possibly sentence her to death. Make no mistake, I am a proponent of the death penalty, but one mustn’t leave ANY room for doubt when passing that judgement. There’s no room to say “oops” later.

    Is Casey Anthony a nasty ho? Skanky party girl? Was she involved in the death of her daughter, somehow, someway? The answers to those questions is “probably”. But, she was not charged with being a nasty ho.

    I’m in no way defending Casey Anthony, but I am defending our judicial system. Despite it’s flaws, I truly believe it’s the best in the world.

    • Citizens Rights

      I agree whole heartedly with you as I did with “Cawmun Cents” what you believe as opposed to what can be proven is the basis of our jury system.

    • Mushin

      You obviously have little education and have spent little to no time in a courtroom.

      • Mushin

        And just for something to chew on {in your head (gotta make sure I explain everything carefullyhere)}.

        A recent court case in Indiana went to the Supreme court after police mistakenly broke into the wrong home. The man owning the home attempted to keep police from entering telling them they had the wrong house. Short story – they broke in, arrested him in his own home, charged him with resisting arrest! He took the case ALL the WAY to the supreme court and LOST THE CASE. The supreme court said “Yes, the police broke the law, BUT we aren’t doing anything about it. There goes your theory of “The greatest country and court system” right out the goddam window.

        • Dan az

          mushin
          I agree the system is broke,its called a police state.check out this site!
          http://www.cato.org/raidmap/
          Its going on in every state just click on the little tabs in your state or another one to see what is going on every day.

      • American Citizen

        It’s been said that the trial we saw on TV was not the trial the jurors witnessed. Words were said and things happened we were not privy to. Unless you were there physically and could see everything the jury saw and heard, plus were able to go over all the evidence again, you cannot sit in judgment.

  • http://www.easyinvest.co.za peter

    “Innocent until proven guilty” is the term and guilt was clearly not established. Opinions and interpretations are of no use to anybody as they are simply argumentative and misleading as all good lawyers know.Known as tricks of the trade.Comment Sustained?

  • bill

    The reason Casey Anthony is found guilty in the court of public opinion is because the MSMs have pumped this pseudo righteous indignation all over the American people and all the while never mentioning the hundreds of women who kill their unborn children every day.America,I just don’t know you any more.

  • Carl

    I disagree completely with Mr. Ringer. I saw no clear evidence whatsoever that could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey was guilty of anything beyond felony stupidity and lying to investigators. There was no conclusive evidence proving that she was guilty of murder or negligence, and I think the prosecutors knew it. I’m baffled by the media attention given to this case, but I think it was because of this attention that the prosecutors staged this dog-and-pony show at a hefty expense to us taxpayers.

  • Dan

    I agree that the problem is inept and insincere prosecutors and defense attorneys. You’ve got one side trying to send somebody to jail and the other side trying to get somebody off, but no one is trying to find out the truth. So we end up with superficial investigations that only uncover enough “evidence” to support a predetermined conclusion. Lawyers today are spin doctors rather than defenders of justice.

  • http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/civil-liberty/raising-the-bar-for-guilty-verdicts/?eiid=&rmid=2011_07_12_PLA_P11349313&rrid=387598159 Don Graeme

    I thought reasonable doubt applied to the defense proving that there is reasonable doubt as to a person`s guilt of each charge; not the prossecution proving reasonable doubt as to a person being innocent. A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty under the law. Lets say you have reasonable doubt as to her innocence; but, her defense team throws in reasonable doubt as to her guilt. What then. If you have reasonable doubt on both sides, isn`t “PRESUMED INNOCENT’ SUPPOSED TO BE THE TRUMP CARD?

    • patrick H.T. paine

      “To conquer, first divide.”

      Well Don, that was rather a confused muddle, which poses a straw man
      and finally ends up in the right place.

      1.) presumption of innocence.
      2.) it is the prosecution’s burden to provide evidence of guilt beyond
      a reasonable doubt.

      The defense has no burden, since it is not required to present a case,
      and can effectively demonstrate “reasonable doubt”, simply by cross examination of the prosecution’s witnesses.

      There is no “reasonable doubt” standard that applies to the presumption of innocence.

      Interestingly, the system does pose some interesting contradictions,
      for while it requires a unanimous verdit to convict, it also requires a unanimous verdict to acquit. ( failure to reach a unanimous verdict,
      results in a hung jury and the prosecution (state) can retry.) Yet, it
      would seem at least to me that a hung jury means that the prosecution
      has failed to meet it’s burden, and failure to achieve a unanimous guilty verdict constitutes reasonable doubt.

      In addition to this little conundrum, jury deliberations constitute a
      second trial, with no supervision or rules and where the power of personality and other factors come into play.

      When one watches movies about juries, one of the things that always happens is they take an initial vote to see where they stand. My
      contention is the following, if that vote is anything less than
      100% guilty, on the first ballot…..then the prosecution has failed
      to meet it’s burden, and their job is done. Of course, the concept of
      JUSTICE, was never a particular priority….and it has only gotten
      worse……..juries used to represent a major check on government abuse, but now juries are sworn by oath to follow the instructions of
      the judge, regarding the law……rather than having the right to judge both fact and law. ( Georgia v. Brailsford ) and “common law and
      equity courts” are non-existant.

      “Do not ask for whom the bell tolls………”

  • http://goggle John Ouzts

    I do not think that casey will ever feel hurt in her actions. Her emotions were not present during trial not to mention her previous party flings. She has no fear and is in total control of whatever direction she chooses to take. What else does she have in store for the people that are close to her!

  • Karolyn

    What I have a problem with is the lynch mobs out there sending death threats and picketing in front of the Anthony’s house. Why can’t people just accept what is and let it go? Nothing will bring Kaylee back. Casey has to live with whatever she did or did not do; and I don’t think her life will be a bed of roses.

  • http://www.keysinsurance.com Linda

    I just hope that she will never again have another child.

  • Iris

    I believe as you do that she was guilty beyond ANY reasonable doubt. Behavior gave it away. NOW, the behavior of the jury is irresponsible. We have raised at least two generations of irresponsible people. They do not marry (and take responsibility for their offspring), they pawn off their ‘mistakes’ on grandparents and they are never wrong. Believe me, these are the jurors who could not stand the very thought OF BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR PUTTING SOMEONE TO DEATH regardless of her guilt. And that is what they are saying!

  • Craig Dale

    This article says it all. It’s called the dumbing or indoctrination of our society. It starts with the public school system, continues through the college system and is then forced down our throats the rest of our lives. The facts in the case were: 1.) Casey researched chloroform on the computer and then chloroformed her daughter based on the superhigh qualitative levels of the volatile chemical in the trunk 2 months later 2.) Placed 3 pieces of duct tape over her child’s mouth based on the location of the tape attached to the hair mat when it was pulled back up to its original location. 3.) Did not report the incident until backed into a corner by her mother 31 days later. 4.) Disposed of the childs body like it was a piece of garbage in a swampy wooded area to rot. 5.) No one makes an accident look like a murder and does not call 911 when the accident happens. What else could have been introduced when the body was hid for 6 months and all DNA was destroyed by mother time. Two thirds of the population of this country agree that this was move then enough circumstantial evidence to find this evil person guilty. All “reasonable” doubt goes out the window with this evidence.

    • Vagabond

      Craig you are the first one to make any sense of all,

    • Iris

      I agree and FURTHER that we have now raised at least two generations of young people who run from responsibility for anything. Those who have been interviewed have clearly said they could not be held responsible for the death of Casey Anthony unless they had seen her kill the child! FEAR OF RESPONSIBILITY..of any kind.

      • Jo Ann

        How many have made the statement that she was a “good mother”. If that is their definition of a “good mother”,we are doomed as a nation!I have six grown children and 14 grandchildren and never did I leave any of them at a young age to go “party”. If one had disappeared or met with an accident, I would have picked up a phone immediately, to report it and ask for help In those 31 days, she lied repeatedly, invented a ficticious nanny,sent the police on a wild goose chase,and stalled long enough to destroy any evidence that might have linked her to the death of the child.Too bad I wasn’t on that jury. We would still be there while I hopefully tried to reason with the rest.

    • sybucket

      The only problem with your litney of “facts” is that you can not “prove” that it was Anthoney that did all of this. Maybe it was her boyfriend, maybe it was the plumber, maybe it was the proscutor, the Butcher, the Baker, the candlestick maker……You THINK you know, but you can’t prove it. Luckly, we don’t convict on “Think”….

    • Karolyn

      Craig – You got a whole lotta’ assumptions there! You can’t convict on assumptions.

  • C130 Gunship

    Karl Denninger makes some great points on the trial and verdict:

    Casey Anthony: Referendum On Police?

    We got the verdict.

    The only convictions were on four counts of lying to the police.

    Now the armchair quarterbacking begins by the media, many of whom tried and convicted Casey all on their own. The last several hours have been nothing but news media wonks telling us that they know that this woman was guilty and the jury “got it wrong” and that the jury “didn’t get the whole story.”

    But the legal duty of the prosecutor is to present the full story in the courtroom. Not where you can run whatever sort of character assassination you wish in the media, not where you can make all sorts of claims without rebuttal, and certainly not where there are no rules of evidence or procedure all of which are part and parcel of the media and The Internet.

    I did not watch the trial. I did, however, watch the closing arguments of both sides. And this case came down to one (and only one) thing – credibility of the prosecution. Credibility that the prosecution severely damaged all on their own when the DA was smirking at his desk while the defense was making closing arguments.

    Was there something funny about what was going on in that courtroom? I think not.

    There was no physical evidence tying Casey to the death of her daughter. There was a lot of circumstantial evidence.

    But the standard of proof in a criminal case is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Not “I think she did it”, “the evidence suggests she did it”, or “it’s more likely than not that she did it.”

    The jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that she did it.

    In this case, not only was that standard not met it was instantly obvious to the jury that it was not. They had little more time than to elect a foreman and take a couple of straw ballots before the verdict came back. It must be presumed, given the speed of the verdict, that all the members of the jury went into the deliberation room convinced that the state did not make its case.

    Now let’s ask the question nobody wants to ask: How much has the credibility of the police departments of this nation, including particularly those in Florida, been damaged by the very acts of these departments?

    Let’s look at this from a perspective of public trust. Have the police and district attorney earned that trust? How many of the jurors perhaps received some sort of treatment that they considered to be unjust at the hands of law enforcement in the past? The percentage has done nothing but climb in the last couple of decades, whether it be an unjust traffic citation to knowing someone that was unlawfully (and unreasonably) harassed – whether on the side of the road or in an airport. It only takes once, either personally or among someone you know well and thus trust, to change your standard view of law enforcement from “they’re trustworthy and honest” to “they’re liars and I demand strict proof.”

    How badly have the actions of our law enforcement agencies, from Ruby Ridge to Waco to the cop running a radar or laser picket near a conveniently-placed speed limit sign to the jackbooted midnight raids and the myriad people imprisoned for years or even decades on fabricated or bogus “evidence” and then later exonerated damaged or even destroyed public trust in law enforcement?

    This is precisely the sort of thing I’ve raised many times in the Ticker over the last few years.

    Law enforcement needs the people – not the other way around.

    When that trust and faith is damaged or destroyed not only do the people stop cooperating but in addition the burden of proof goes up a lot, especially in cases where you do not get a “do over” (such as a capital murder crime.)

    The prosecution lost due to failure to make their case. But the legacy of this decision should be not on whether there was a miscarriage of justice but rather why we, the people tolerate public corruption, jackbooted “law enforcement” and police state tactics in the general sense.

    We are well past the point where we must demand that this crap stop in our society and the protections ensconced in our Constitution be protected and enforced, not used for cop toilet paper. No more TSA rapescans and sticking hands down the pants of 95 year old leukemia patients. No more banksters breaking into houses they don’t own. No more speed traps, abusive “no knock” raids when old-fashioned police work would more than suffice, “shoot any dog that moves” and other similar rank abuses of power.

    The cops can, of course, refuse to withdraw to within the boundaries of the Constitution as written and continue to argue that “safety” demands they be able to do whatever the hell they want, including shooting your dog and deaf woodcarvers.

    But the people have the right, as we saw today, to turn an increasingly-jaundiced eye toward claimed evidence presented by these police officers and other members of the prosecuting side of the table, and increase their level of skepticism that in fact what they’re being presented (and “sold”) in court is in fact actual evidence and not an invention of a prosecutorial system that is more interested in putting notches on a stick and destroying lives rather than searching for the truth.

    • Craig Dale

      John, well put my friend. When the jury foreman said on Greta last night that they all had a problem with George Anthony’s testimony regarding the gas can and the girlfriend, it left me dumbfounded. George was not the one on trial. The circumstantial evidence was plentiful; more then enough to convict her. When Casey chloroformed Caylee and she died as a result, that qualified for felony murder, which is 1st degree murder in the State of Florida. It is so good to know that there are still common sense folk in this country and the brainwashing has not affected everyone. God Bless!

      • Jonathan

        Perhaps George Anthony should be on trial. If George Anthony was molesting Casey Anthony from a young age, and Casey and her daughter were living with George and Cindy Anthony, perhaps George Anthony was molesting Caylee Anthony. Perhaps one day around the pool, things got out of control and Caylee fell in. She drowns. George decides to draw attention away from himself by dumping the body in the woods, pinning the murder on Casey. Just one way how this could have played out.

        • GNP

          Jonathan, no evidence of George molesting anybody, accusasion that’s it. So all molested children in this country are allowed to be irresponsible when they grow up to be negligent with their child, way to go.

        • CJM

          The only ‘molestation’ that Casey Anthony suffered was the multiple encounters she had with the men in her life–and it was by HER CHOICE, not forced. She doesn’t even know who fathered her child because of her prolific promiscuity; eventually, those one night stands catch up to you. Casey Anthony exhibited NO signs of having lived a life of sexual abuse in the home, period; women like Casey use this as a defense in order to make their actions appear appropriate (although murdering a two year old so you can live the good life is hard pressed as being appropriate by any stretch of the imagination) and absolve themselves from being held accountable. As to the stupid argument that Cindy never took her daughter to a gynacologist in her teen years, fact is most mothers don’t–their daughters usually see the gynocologist for the first time when they become pregnant. Nothing unusual in that scenario, but then men really know so little about women. Casey Anthony is a monster who murders children, period. She is a predator by every sense of the word and will commit another crime in the future. If you think she is so innocent, call the jail and offer her a job as the nanny for your children.

      • matt

        the problem was there was no proof of casey chloraformed caylee just an assumption

    • Donald

      Hueckler may well have gotten it wrong, but he was an alternate, he took no part in the deliberations, so we don’t know what standard the jury applied

    • 1 Son of Liberty

      I agree it should have been a Hung Jury. The Mother had custody of the child and should be held accountable. While in her care the child died…Period. It can’t get any simpler than that. The prosecutors really screwed things up by not hammering home that fact. Just goes to show you why our country is in trouble. We are a society of educated idiots today. Just look at the auto industry. The cars we make could not be designed more poorly than they are mow. Years ago we got designers without education but had built their own cars for racing, been successful and had been recruited from the race track by savvy auto execs. Now days all anyone knows is what the have been taught by some college teacher who if the were good at their job would have excelled in their field. Same goes for LEO and Prosecutors they are hired on education and not common sense. The best man used to get the job now it’s someone who went to the same college as the interviewer. We are all in trouble and this case just proves the point. I suggest learning a second or third language like Chinese.

      • GNP

        I agree with you 100%, I could not understand why the prosecutors did not mention over and over that the child was under her care at the time of the so called “accident” as the defense argued.
        But if Jesus in person was the prosecutor in this case, the jury would have found her not guilty no matter what. I would have gone through every piece of evidence again to make sure I did not forget anything, but they did not.

        • apf2

          The charge was First Degree Murder not child abandonment or abuse or manslaughter or negligence or being a horrible parent. The DA couldn’t prove the case and should be faulted for not bringing charges he could prove. She was most certainly guilty of not protecting her child, but that is not First Degree Murder.

          I am very glad that the jury was adult enough to get past the emotion and render a valid decision based on the facts in the case and not the publicity surrounding it. The mob did not rule in this case and personal liberty won.

          • CJM

            This jury may be adult in years, but certainly lack common sense AND have a penchant for FAILURE TO FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS. They never considered, by their own admission to date, that they did NOT bother to look at the lesser included charges–and that says a lot about the character of this jury. Furthermore, they stretched the instructions to include the punishment phase of the trial system, which they were NOT supposed to do. That was not their instruction, period. Now that the trial is over, this same jury says they know Casey Anthony is guilty–you cannot reconcile those statements with the verdict they gave in this case.

      • http://www.personalliberty.com/news/muslim-organization-criticizes-tea-party-speaker-choice-19901265/ chess game

        Perhaps 44 days serving as a juror for this case just promoted group thinking and let’s get along theme.

  • Linda

    I believe Casey caused Caylee’s death. But 1st degree is a hard sentence to prove. Was it premeditated? Was there a history of physical abuse? (Doping the child was abusive but not violent). I think Caylee died because of something Casey did to keep her quiet and out of the way. I believe her death was accidental but her mother caused it, covered it up, lied to authorites, disposed of the body impeded an investigation, lied and caused defamation of character of several persons.
    She may not have been executed, but she could have been put aay for the rest of her life. Bad on the prosecution for looking for a sentence that was impracticle and not going for the chargeable offenses

    • Craig Dale

      Linda, when a child or anyone else dies as a result of another act, it is felony murder, which is 1st degree murder under Florida law. The evidence showed that Casey chloroformed her daughter, which is child abuse. The child died as a result of it, which is felony murder. Case closed. Common sense plays such a big role in jury duty, especially in circumstantial cases. Had Casey had a jury of her peers(those from the Orlando area that were aware of the details of the case) instead of people from a distant area of the country or state with virtually no knowledge of the case, I’m sure the results would have been different. All you have to do is look at the responses of those living in Orlando to determine this. What’s done is done though and she will be judged by the Ultimate Judge for her self-centered act against her own flesh and blood. I just hope it is sooner then later.

      • Linda

        Unfortunately cause of death was never determined other than ‘other than natural’. And yes I know about the Fl laws – I grew up there. There was no HARD proof NOR testimony that Casey or anyone else chloroformed, drugged, gagged, physically harmed Caylee, no proof of drugs or trauma. Nothing. What circumstantial evidence existed other than the mother being a habitual liar and a bar crawler?
        No one will ever know what truly happened until someone with a guilty conscience comes forward (not Casey – she doesn’t have one).
        The only way that woman would admit to anything is if she goes completely off her rocker – and probably not then.

      • C130 Gunship

        Crack Dale…..Please show all of us where under Florida’s felony murder rule codified in Florida’s Revised Statutes § 782.04 where it states “when a child or anyone else dies as a result of another act, it is felony murder, which is 1st degree murder under Florida law.”

        Yawn……..you can’t

        The predicate felonies that will support a charge of first degree murder under the statute are:

        * Drug trafficking
        * Arson
        * Sexual battery
        * Robbery or home invasion robbery
        * Burglary
        * Kidnapping
        * Escape
        * Aggravated abuse of a child, elderly person, or disabled adult
        * Aircraft piracy
        * Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb
        * Carjacking
        * Aggravated stalking
        * Murder
        * Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person
        * Felonious acts of terrorism or in furtherance of an act of terrorism
        * Distribution of some controlled substances like cocaine and opium

      • apf2

        I think is obvious that the extent of your legal education is watching but not paying attention to TV. Florida law has a number of levels of crime defined for the taking of a life.

        If do something dumb, use a damaged rope to secure a couch on your pickup truck and it falls off and kills someone, for example, would make you criminally liable, but not for first degree murder.

        By your definition spilling the following scenario could also lead to the death penalty: You are at the movies watching some horror flick. You spill your soft drink on your lap and scream out. The guy in front of you keels over dead of a heart attack. Your act just caused him to die. You, by your standard, are guilty of first degree murder.

        The DA blew this case by not bringing manslaughter or child abuse/neglect charges. He could not prove 1º Murder without a cause of death so he should not have tried.

    • Void1972

      Linda
      Again, Casey is the product of a demented society, and everyday we see such tragedy.
      Boycott evil, and it will cease to thrive.

  • Craig Dale

    You must have spent too much time in that C130 my friend. The lack of oxygen has affected your thought process. The evil law enforcement that protects your sorry ass 24/7 is not the one on trial. It is a self-centered evil excuse for a mother that was. You should have spent more time with me with your boots on the ground. For someone who has defended the Constitution, maybe you should study it a little more and not just throw it up there when it is convenient for your argument. I didn’t see you complaining about our military(and yes I am a veteran) shooting and killing an unarmed Usama Bin Laden when that went down. This from a Commander-In-Chief who has sent many of my brothers to Ft. Levenworth for the same thing in combat.

    • C130 Gunship

      Craig Dale….You have no right to personally attack me for an article I didn’t write nor endorse. I simply put it out there as a different perspective than the usual herd mentality, MSM driven hysteria you seem enamored with. Your inability to understand that indicates to me you are suffering from brain damage from over exposure to burnt cordite.

      Craig Dale states: “The evil law enforcement that protects your sorry ass 24/7″ You’re not about to fool anyone on this site that this comment holds any water. Rarely is LE around when you really need them, only after the crime has been committed to record what happened and zip up the body bags. I’m guessing your a cop, and must really have choked hard on your eclair at Dunkin’ Donuts while reading my post on your crackberry. Typical LE response to any criticism.

      Craig Dale States: “For someone who has defended the Constitution, maybe you should study it a little more and not just throw it up there when it is convenient for your argument.” Once again, I didn’t ‘throw up anything convenient for my argument.” I made no argument. I didn’t write the article. However, any time you want to go toe to toe with me on the Constitution, let me know. I’ll make it blatantly obvious you’re ‘lost in the salsa’ when it comes to the Constitution.

      And finally Craig Dale states: “I didn’t see you complaining about our military(and yes I am a veteran) shooting and killing an unarmed Usama Bin Laden when that went down. This from a Commander-In-Chief who has sent many of my brothers to Ft. Levenworth for the same thing in combat.” This comment has absolutely nothing to do with “Raising The Bar for Guilty Verdicts” and therefore off topic. Please take your misguided rants to your psychologist, and don’t forget to get your anti-depressants prescriptions renewed.

      • eddie47d

        C130 and Craig both made valid points so keep up the good work.

    • sybucket

      Craig Dale….Your objecting to the death of Ben Ladin? A mass murder who caused the death of 3,000 people and got shot in the head for it and your objecting to his being taken out by Seal Team Six? You would have prefered him to be tried in Court by the Florida Prosicutirs so he could be found not guilty, I suppose.

  • mark

    Thank God, we don’t have that awful Sharia Law where the guilty are punished for their crimes. Instead we have the U.S. justice system where the rich and media-created celebrities walk out of court laughing after having committed cold-blooded murder. But it is nothing compared to our mass-murdering government that keeps these endless, mindless, $5 billion-a-day wars going on and on into eternity. Just last month fifteen beautiful U.S. kids killed in Iraq – the war that is supposed to be over. Well at least we got all those weapons of mass destruction.

    • sybucket

      That is about the dumbest statement I have ever heard.

  • http://www.peopleagainstprisonabuse.com Flo

    THE CONSTITUTION of THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA stood the test of time one more time. This is what “WE THE PEOPLE” need to be focused on why this great document was written as it was written especially in this day of over-reaching done by the justice system in criminalizing nearly each thing that comes up. We do not see the upholding of The Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amendments very often in this day and time. My hat is off to the JURORS who did it right and they should never be sick to their stomachs for upholding the FOUNDATION of THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA. This is what “WE THE PEOPLE” are to be about. It could be someone close to you the next time. The media is responsible for “THE BLOOD MONEY” that will be paid to Casey for her story, they are at fault, not Casey for taking advantage of offers to survive because she will need it for sure to get away from the “mediabloodhounds”. If the media would drop it and not do all the sensationalizing then the entire future of payola, books, movies, TV series, songs will go away and penniless. The True Patriots of American should be standing up, holding their shoulders back, with their heads held high because The Constitution held one more time. Does not say if she was or wasn’t, it says, can’t convict with reasonable doubts. Oh say can you see…The CONSTITUTION is still alive. Thank you and shut up media. It is what it is and it is called “The Constitution of The United States of American”.! Enough is Enough.

    If you heard the foreman of the Jurors on Greta last night explaining whys and reasons behind the decison concerning George A. you might get a different picture…who are you to say that THE GREATEST DOCUMENT ALIVE, THE CONSTITUTION of THE UNITED STATES, did not serve its purpose one more time. People need to do some studying about symptoms of VICTIMS then you can get the whole picture.

    • Craig Dale

      Flo, George Anthony was not the one on trial. This idiot jury foreman said they had problems with George’s testimony regarding the gas can and his supposed affair with River Cruz. What in the hell did that have to do with Casey killing her daughter. This former police officer(George Anthoney) would NEVER have covered up the accidental drowning of his grandaughter, but common sense would tell you he would have called 911 as law enforcement officers as well as normal human beings would have done. The article says it correctly. Reasonable doubt using one’s common sense would have convicted her. The laws of this country do not say “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” That would send everyone free as it would be impossible to convict anyone based on any crazy theory thrown up, even with all the physical evidence in the world.

      • Karolyn

        Gee, sounds like you know George Anthony in person! You’re attributing a lot of attributes to him.

  • Les

    Cameras do not belong in the courts. This is not the Judge Judy show. The press only selectively shows you what they want you to see to so that you will follow their opinion and be entertained. None of you were in that court the whole time this trial was conducted. This whole affair taints real justice just as it did with the OJ show trial. The Jury has no protection from the mob mentality stirred up by this media circus. So now future Juries will feel threatened by the mobs outside, GREAT. We are in the times of Rome before the fall where we need to be entertained by the misery of others just like the Roman Circus. Get the damned cameras out of the courts. You violated all of the rules of justice.

    • sybucket

      I agree completely. Further, I think there should be a law AGAINST the media trying a case on TV or in the papers. We have a “Right” to know that a crime has been committed. We have a “Right” to know when an arrest has been made and that is as far as it should go until we have the “Right” to know the outcome of the trial. The media, in what ever form, has No right to try the case in the court of Public opinion because that’s all it is- Opinion!

  • Jeff

    @Patriot1776: I could not have said it better myself, good post!

  • http://? jacob

    As in the OJ Simpson case, we had a lousy prosecution and above all, a lousy jury and I dare swear that, tired of the length of the trial, the sequestering, etc,. it decided to turn her loose…
    PERIOD…

    This woman is as guilty as sin and this lawyer of hers managed to turn matters around and the prosecution and judge allowed him to, same way OJ’s lawyers managed to place the LAPD on the accused seat

  • Maureen

    Thank you for thinking like me. Everyone I know here in Florida is outraged at this verdict. More importantly, we are outraged that this little girl got NO justice at all. But fear not, we also believe that, just as God split the tree with a lightning bolt last week, where little Caylee was found, HE will take care of her for murdering His little angel. God bless Caylee. At least she’s no longer part of the most dysfunctional family in the Country.

  • http://eletter@news.personalliberty.com Clarence Davison

    The MSM had prejudged the Anthony trial long before the trial verdict was given, and now the armchair quarterbacks don’t agree with the jury’s
    decision. Shame! Shame! the MSM has that much influence in matters such as this trial and its results.

    Per interviews with some of the jurors that I have seen, each of them gave the same statement, that is the prosecutor did not present the evidence to convict. Mob rule is not a fair trial. This jury in this case ruled correctly. I must believe this, for I believe in the jury system even if sometimes it may not be perfect. It has been verbally corrupted by the MSM without benefit of fact.

  • http://john-mahr.blogspot.com/ John Mahr

    “Reasonable Doubt” vs “Shadow of a Doubt”-How the Casey Anthony Jury GOT IT WRONG! (FULL ARGUEMENT)

    • Posted by John Mahr on July 9, 2011 at 9:30pm
    • View My Blog

    I was watching Griff Jenkins interview Russell Huekler (alternate juror) on the Great Van Susteren Show on Fox News Wednesday evening – I now have a HUGE PROBLEM
    Huekler was speaking to the fact that Judge Perry was VERY CLEAR about his instructions regarding “Reasonable Doubt”.( The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused’s guilt, but only that no Reasonable doubt is possible from the evidence presented.)
    Yet, in the same sentence, Huekler says to Griff Jenkins “…if you had the SLIGHTEST RESERVATION…”

    WHOA! – - That is NOT the “Reasonable Doubt” standard – that is the “BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT” standard and more importantly – NOT WHAT JUDGE PERRY INSTRUCTED!!!

    Huekler then, in a follow-up question by Griff about what turned the decision for him, stated that he made his decision when CHANEY MASON (in the closing) told the jurors how to decide if someone is guilty. (see SLIGHTEST RESERVATION referenced above).

    That’s right – CHANEY MASON – set Huekler’s standard of judgement and NOT JUDGE PERRY.

    If other jurors (in interviews or discussions) ALSO evidence such a decision standard – this jury DID GET IT WRONG !!!

    They deliberated on the standards suggested by the Defense and NOT THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE JUDGE.

    I am sure I must not be the only one that caught on to the importance of what Huekler said in that interview – sooo – by now, many of the jurors may be on the alert not to make the same mistake – BUT – you cannot erase the interview that we have already heard on Greta’s show. Huekler let it slip.

    Why Judge Perry allowed Chaney Mason to do, in the closing, what the Judge would do anyway in his instruction set is beyond me. I am sure he probably thought the jury would still hold his instructions as the standard to use in their deliberations.

    Huekler let it out accidently – nonetheless – the jury DID GET IT WRONG by using the wrong standard of proof.

    It would seem to me that JURY NULLIFICATION has to be considered based upon Huekler’s statement (which is on record now and can’t be taken back).

    Irrespective of all the other reasons people are angry with this jury, this one seems to be the most telling.

    As to those that say the prosecution OVER CHARGED in this case:
    I do not believe the prosecution OVER CHARGED the defendant in this case. I would agree if it was the only charge available but they also had Manslaughter and Aggravated Child Abuse. If 1st degree murder was never on the table, (and the same verdict was reached) everyone would be saying she was undercharged and screaming “…if only the jury had a higher charge that they could have backed off from…? (People are fickle that way).

    Casey Anthony had the responsibility of the care and well being of Caylee and she was the last person seen with and in physical custody of Caylee Anthony. How this jury passed on Aggravated Child Abuse is beyond comprehension.

    1) If a woman leaves a child in a car because she is too lazy to watch the child as she shops and the child is injured – the mother is guilty of child abuse.

    2) If a mother walks a child on a busy street and lets the child’s hand go in order to chat with friends or window shop or such and the child wanders into the street and is injured – the mother is guilty of child abuse

    If, in either of these cases the child dies, the mother is guilty of aggravated child abuse.

    Florida Abuse Law: An intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child

    Florida Aggravated Abuse Law: Knowingly or willfully abuses a child and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child. I’m pretty sure we can include DEATH here!!

    Mothers charged with the above crimes will say – “I didn’t intend the child to get heat stroke” or “I didn’t intend to be gone so long” or “I didn’t intend to have the child wander into the street” – SORRY – that doesn’t fly – that is “no intent for the outcome” it is still “intent for the act”
    This jury would have found the mother in example 1 (above) not guilty because there was no video available that they could watch showing the mother walking away from the car. The mother could say through her lawyers (Baez would be perfect for this): “I walked to the store. I left the child with “Zannie” the babysitter. Someone must have stolen my car, put the child in it and parked it in the same mall I was shopping at.

    Casey Anthony had the care and well being of Caylee as her responsibility. She may not have “intended the result” – but HER ACTIONS OR LACK OF THEM – were an “intent of the act”. Her misdirection and lies to investigators only highlight and increase her culpability and her guilt.

    As to Juror #3 – who has said the expert witnesses of the prosecution had their evidence refuted and nothing linked Casey to the crime:

    When one expert says “The smell of Death was in a car” and another expert says “There was no smell of Death in a car” the 1st expert HAS NOT BEEN REFUTED. Countered yes – but refuted – absolutely not. This is the way defense attorneys CONFUSE JURIES.

    Put more simply – If a 50 year old woman is on trial for robbing a bank and one witness testifies that the robber he saw was about 50 yrs old or so and another witness is brought up by the defense and says the woman I saw was about 20 years old or so, it means one of them is right and one of them is wrong. NOT – BOTH OF THEM ARE WRONG.

    The jury is charged with using evidence based on who they believe. They are not charged with discarding evidence because two sides have issued different viewpoints.

    When 2 experts testify to an issue or fact and they are polar opposites – the jury must decide on who they believe. If not – then there is no reason for the jury in the first place. Hell – if juries can just discount testimony because it has been countered, why even present conflicting testimony to them. When the prosecutor presents the court with {gun expert 1} that says “Gun A” was used in this crime and the defense comes up with {gun expert 2} that says “Gun A” was not used in this crime, the judge might just as well refuse both the ability to testify because the jury will just be confused. HOW STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!

    It is the jury’s job to make decisions based on expert testimony. Listen to the testimony of the experts and chose the expert you believe is right. If a jury can’t come to a verdict because they can’t decide between two issues and tell the court the same – that is fine – that is a “HUNG JURY”. BUT if a jury actually states a person is guilty or not guilty (which this jury did) because they “…just couldn’t decide. THAT IS WRONG!! – THEY DID NOT DO THEIR JOB.

    As to nothing linking Casey Anthony to the crime:
    Only one person was said to have searched for Chloroform (even if it was only once for 3 minutes) – CASEY
    Only one person owned a car that had the smell of decomposition in it – CASEY
    Only one person owned a car that had traces of Chloroform in it – CASEY
    Only one person asked to borrow a shovel – CASEY
    Only one person sent the police on purposeful “wild goose chases’ by lying to investigators – CASEY
    Only one person had the last known physical custody of Caylee – CASEY
    Now before any of you scream – THAT DOES NOT MAKE HER GUILTY – your right – but there is no question they all do LINK HER TO THE CRIME!!!

    That is what circumstantial evidence is all about.

    Oh – and as to the duct tape: For those that are wailing that there was no way Casey used the duct tape to suffocate Caylee for lack of DNA or a plausable reason to use such an intstrument for suffocation -
    The duct tape WAS NOT used to suffocate the child (my opinion) – Casey was trying to make it look like a kidnapping and thought if duct tape was on the child’s mouth (which kidnappers do to keep someone from crying out) it would look more like Caylee was kidnapped. Not that hard to figure out. If, as some believe, Casey accidently killed Caylee, she was desperate to make it look like something else.

    The actual jurors on this case have already admitted that they thought she might be guilty (even felt so) but since it wasn’t proven, they couldn’t decide on her guilt. Well – by their own statement – they could also not decide on her innocence. Therefore – I submit – this jury GOT IT WRONG!!
    Hueklers own statements attest to the fact they used the wrong “standard of proof”. The statements of others (as I just mentioned above) show they were undecided as to guilt or innocence.

    A more intelligent and less lazy jury would have spent far more time on deliberations, asked for transcripts and testimony to re-examine or argue over and then after several days of deliberation, and finding they could not decide on guilt or innocence, tell the judge they are a HUNG JURY!!!

    This would have been the proper pronouncement and would have sent the message they wanted, which was – Hey Prosecutor, there is a case here, now go back, FIND MORE EVIDENCE OR CHANGE THE CHARGES, and try this again, because you couldn’t convince us either way.

    That is why I think they GOT IT WRONG – Just my viewpoint – What do you think?

    • Cathy

      “A more intelligent and less lazy jury would have spent far more time on deliberations, asked for transcripts and testimony to re-examine or argue over and then after several days of deliberation, and finding they could not decide on guilt or innocence, tell the judge they are a HUNG JURY!!!”

      Yeah, they wanted to go home. They were tired.
      ——-
      Very interesting, thought-provoking post. Seems you might be the only person paying attention.

      Also, I’m tired of hearing that we have “the best system in the world.” I think not. Too many lawyers confusing juries, too many appeals, too many people in prison for smoking a joint (really), etc. After all, we have the highest prison population on the planet. Something is wrong with this picture!

      Ask any psychic…Casey Anthony held her daughter under water in a fit of rage. Of course, psychics are not credible witnesses. Remote viewing isn’t admissible in court. Too bad… :)

    • Jo Ann

      You covered it better than all the other posts put together. Too bad you weren’t on the jury. Maybe, just maybe, you would have gotten thru to the rest of the jurors!

    • Maggiemoo

      Thank you, John Mahr, for stating it so well.

    • apf2

      You have started you reasoning from the conviction and worked backwards. Wrong way to go. You seek to justify a guilty verdict and grasp at every straw you can find.

      The correct way is to start with the evidence.
      1) How did the child die? We don’t know…Oh, well then you must stop here. No cause of death necessarily means that murder can not be established. Period. There is no murder weapon, no crime scene, nothing!

  • Patty

    What does one expect from a populace that deems it thier right to destroy an 8 month old fetus in the womb, to graduate to a two year old. The prosecution did not prove thier case.

  • H. Kirk Rainer

    This case is another of the celebrity type: three years in the making…. Has anyone offerred to guess what the defense council would have cost…and who is paying for it? Perhaps such detail will come-out later in the books, films, etc.

    But in general, the justice system has long relied on the plea bargain (over 90% of criminal cases…which may help explain why our relatively free society has the world’s largest penal system). The plea bargain supercedes due process–giving the prosector the power to compel self incrimination–to forgo Miranda Rights.

    Due process is vitally important. Through due process, Casey Anthony was not found guilty for a capital crime, but she was found guilty for perjury. How many times do the courts entertain a false testimony or witness?

  • BillyBoy42

    I did not follow this trial too closely, but would like to repeat what a lawyer I used told a jury: What is a reasonable doubt? Well, you are a reasonable person, so if you have a doubt, that is a reasonable doubt. Both plaintiff and defense lawyers have closing comments for the jury. Maybe the DA’s office should have been more forthcoming with their comments. Many legal experts before the verdict said the DA’s case was weak, and had only circumstantial evidence. When the defendent’s mother took the stand and she had used her daughter’s computer to search for the items, the DA had assumed would prove Anthony’s involvement, it shot a hole in the DA’s scenario – bad msitake on the prosecutor’s part.
    As fas as the OJ case, when OJ went downtown and gave his blood for a sample, and then the investigator (Furman?), ordered the blood brought to the scene of the crime, and disappeared with a vial of it, he clearly tampered with the evidence, and no one should be convicted by such investigator misconduct, else the system is broken. I do believe OJ was guilty, but the case has to be properly investigated and prosecuted in this justice system. There is a reason there is a jury – they make the decision – not the public.
    thanks, BillyBoy42

  • Jerry t

    I can’t believe you people go back and reread this article.Didnt prove murder? Do you thnk she died from natural causes? Someone killed this little girl!Does it really matter if they proved how she died. Who had motive. Why didn’t she report her missing? No not God have mercy on her soul. God please forgive this country for what nit has become.

    • apf2

      You have made the case against your own verdict! “Someone” killed the child. But what was not established was “Who?”, “How?”, “When?”, “Where?” or “Why?”

      Who was present when the child died? How did the child die? Exactly when and where did the child die?

      You reasoning is pure idiocy in a country that prides itself on the presumption of innocence. The child is dead…the mother is a slut…therefor, she is guilty of first degree murder.

  • dave

    Since no one on this discussion was an actual juror may I point out that you are all simply gossiping( including the author)! We raised four kids in Florida. Florida is a different environment. Go to the FDLE website for sexual predators and you will find at least five in the area where the child died. Still sure of who killed her? We had neighbours around the corner from us who’s wife practised midwifery without a licence – and admitted to helping parents bury their first child IN THEIR BACK YARD( we left that church)!!! Devastated parents – but no crime committed – imagine how that would fit in your gossip theories if it had gotten out! So how can anyone on this site say for sure how the child died… even the prosecution couldn’t prove how the child died! Also consider the primary assumption in the death of a spouse or a child in the United States is to ignore the evidence and prosecute the parents! What you have all proven is that the press can use gossip and convince you of anything! Keep that in mind when you listen to the character assassination of anyone by our press be it in politics or local events – the only thing proven is that you love gossip!

    • libertytrain

      You’re right it is just gossip. I lived in Florida, I understand what you are saying – however, not reporting a child missing for 30 plus days and acting like nothing happened and partying for those days your baby is missing is highly suspect. Highly unusual and more than likely the signal that there is something really wrong with her sense of humanity for lack of a better word – she’s some kind of sick puppy.

      • Mushin

        Do I sense the possibility of a narcissistic sociopath?

        • libertytrain

          Sounds like the perfect description to me. :)

  • Richard

    In this case what we found was reasonable jurors that followed the instructions given by the judge. Remember the prosecution and defense agreed on the jury instructions. If the evidence follow what the instructions called for the jurors had pledged to find her not guilty. Also there was not an option in this trial or any other trial to find a person innocent. At least we had jurors that had the intelligence to follow directions. Unless you have been involved in the court session with a jury, a prosecutor and witnesses then silence would be a reasonable suggestion.

  • Glenn

    Maybe if she were hung for lieing ( which in my opinion “is” evidence of guilt ) People might get the idea that if your going to lie then your going to find yourself in a world of hurt ….which again in my opinion wouldn’t be a bad thing …… Doesn’t the fact that she was caught lieing about the whereabouts of her child mean anything to anyone but me ? To me , the prosecuters theory was the only theory presented that made any sense beyond reasonable doubt….The duct tape , the chlorophorm, the bag ( sold in a set of two , which the other in the set was at the house ), the Winnie the Pooh blanket, The smell of death in the truck , the hits by the cadaver dogs in the trunk and in the backyard, the shovel incident…come on people put all this together along with the lies and you have Your guilty verdict !

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Marty

    As a young, attractive, and divorced mom, who loved to party at the time my child was Caylee’s age, I
    can tell you that it is difficult to watch your friends who do not have the responsibility of caring for a
    little one going out and having “fun”. But I stayed home and took care of her unless I could afford to
    have a reliable babysitter. That’s what you do….not what Casey did. If nothing else, she is definitely
    to blame for negligent homicide. A loving, caring mother does NOT party for days on end while her
    small baby is missing. There is something HUGE missing in a mother who would do something like that.
    IF Casey did not physically actually kill that baby, she killed it by neglect and lack of caring and in the
    opinion of every loving Mom out there, we KNOW she is guilty. I would certainly hate to be the child of
    some of those jurors who found Casey not guilty due to “lack of evidence”. Many, many people have been
    convicted on much less. As to the judge, he needs to get into another line of work. Letting Casey go free
    is criminal.

    • Karolyn

      Are you saying the judge should have overturned the jury’s verdict?

      • Mushin

        No, I believe what’s being said you simply (and I do use that word literally with you) cannot grasp. I suggest you accept the fact you won’t – ever.

      • patrick H.T. paine

        “To conquer, first divide!”

        Thankfully, not guilty verdicts can NOT be overturned…..although how
        long this will continue is uncertain……

        “Do not ask for whom the bell tolls……”

  • Frank

    You are correct. She is an emotionally disturbed young lady. This would explain her bizarre reaction to her grief. It does not prove she committed murder. Using your rational, George Anthony is responsible for Caylee’s death. Never in the history of man has a grandfather try to commit suicide over the death of a grandchild. His feelings of Guilt over Caylee’s death is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt or that she died accidentally while under his care and protection. As for the chloroform and duct tape, why would an adult need chloroform and duct tape to smoother 2 year old child. The answer is: not necessary.
    Since Casey was constantly partying, when did she find time to search 80 plus times for something she didn’t need? Perhaps, as Cindy testified she was the one who searched for the chloroform. She would need chloroform to render her cheating husband defenseless.

  • Donald

    Ringer would have found a better definition in Black’s Law Dictionary which defines Reasonable Doubt in part as “..that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abidding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge.”

    While circumstantial evidence is certainly not excluded, the emphasis is to rely on the evidence presented. Haing served on almost 2 juries in my life, I well remember the admonitions of the judges’ to the juries that: “Reasonable doubt is a doubt for which you can give a reason.”

    The system is designed to protect the innocent. Ringer is wrong to ask whether 10,000 criminals have to go free to protect one innocent
    person. It will sort itself out based on the evidence presented in each case. Given the number of persons found guilty and later releasaed on DNA evidence, we have not done a very good job of protecting the innocence in the past.

    The system is, unfortunately, not perfect but we haven’t come up with a better one.

  • http://visiontoamerica ron

    i believe in the justice system. i know it makes mistakes. i have to keep telling myself, there was so much that went on in the courtroom that the jurors did not here. i dont understand it, but i still put my faith in our system.

  • DaveH

    After experiencing court twice in my 40 years of adulthood, I really don’t have much faith in the system anymore. A co-worker once told me that in court the best liar wins. He did his best to convince me I should be one. I ignored him, because over all I believe that a person has to live with themselves, so more important than any amount of money is for you to follow your own moral guidelines and be happy with yourself.
    I naively thought that honesty would prevail, but I was wrong. But I have to tell you, that I would do it the same way if I could do it again.
    At one point in my first case, I had iron-clad evidence that my opponent was lying. I asked my lawyer what we could do about that, and she said, “not much because the odds that the district attorney would pursue a case of perjury were pretty slim”. So I said, how can we expect our justice system to be “just” if people aren’t compelled to be honest in court? She looked at me with a very serious face and said “David, it isn’t just”.

  • Gilbreath Zealey

    Robert Ringer is unqualified to sit on a jury. He lacks an understanding of human beings and their behavior so he has created his own doctrine of how people should act in his world. Sorry, Robert, but all people do not show emotion as you expect them to and the logic of their behavior is not your logic. I would not want you on a jury that was judging me.

  • http://www.personalliberty.com/news/muslim-organization-criticizes-tea-party-speaker-choice-19901265/ chess game

    The verdict was another example of Political Correctness, now a societal disease.

    She was guilty. but her lawyers successfully asked the jurors not to be judgmental of her behavior. Her partying and carrying on could be attributed to grief. What ??????

  • Phillipe Violette

    The jury found her not guilty. Regardless of what anyone else thinks or believes that is the law of our land. You are innocent until proven guilty and the prosecusion didn’t prove her guilty so leave her alone, its over according to our laws as laid down by our founding fathers. The law is the law period.

  • Arla

    Some of you DO realize don’t you that what you are saying means that all persons who hide a body well enough so that it is bones before it is found OR is never found will not be convicted of murder no matter what – THINK people PLEASE!!! The jury could have easily convicted on SOMETHING other than 1st degree and more than just lying to cops – I hope Caylee’s Law is enacted in all 50 states and soon at least no one will ever be able to pull a Casey Anthony again and get away with EVERYTHING scott free

  • Abby

    We are going to have cases like O. J. and Casey Anthony until a slight change is made to the Law.

    At a trial everyone who speaks before the Judge takes an Oath to tell the truth,that is everyone except the Liars, ops Lawers.

    This is equivelant to everyone entering the room must surrender their weapons,,,Except the Assassin.

    • Lost in Paradise

      An oath really is meaningless, especially in 2011 where so few really believe in God and the Bible. Swearing an oath to anyone, but God, is garbage.

  • dqfreemind

    Too many false assumptions here. #1 The justice system in this country is corrupt. How can you expect truth to come out of that? #2 How can you expect a jury of 12 to make intelligent decisions when those same people elect the leaders we have? (I would never want a jury trial because most people are not my intellectual peer).
    #3 The disparity that nobody mentioned is the guilty verdicts for lying to the police. It is the patriotic duty of every American to lie to the police in a police state.
    The government lies to us on a daily basis and lying to government officials is not only acceptable, it is noble.
    #4 Lastly, why is everyone wasting their time on this National Enquirer type crap when the real issues are being ignored?

  • Frank

    Casey Anthony was tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. It was so bad they had to go outside the local area to find an untainted jury pool. The media is still inflaming public emotions. You hear a lot for talking heads and people who disagree with the verdict, but precious little from those who think the jury got it right. This case has been mostly about emotions. Everyone is upset over the death of this beautiful little girl, but the law still requires that verdicts be based on the evidence, not emotions or a desire for vengeance!

  • Matt Wayne

    In the Old Testament the bible says that to convict a person of murder, it takes 2 witnesses. I understand the desire to see the guilty punished, but I think the idea of lowering the standard is very dangerous. There is a God and in time, he will judge the guilty.
    From what I watched of the case, there appeared to be horrific crime and a strange mother. But there wasn’t strong enough evidence, including a lack of witnesses to send this woman to jail for 30 years. Had I deemed her to be a continuing threat to society, such as a serial killer, I personally would have convicted her on a lower standard of evidence.

  • Sam c

    I felt uncomfortable and angry when OJ was exonerated.

    but he got his just reward down the road.

    Anthony will pay for her misdeads.DOWN THE ROAD.

    It is called Devine intervention.

  • Jay

    Interesting, the glaring double-standard, by which is observed the fact that liberals do not moan and bewail over the fact that one who is clearly guilty is allowed to walk free, and that, over a technicality, as they moan and bewail over the possibility of one who might be innocent, and could end up behind bars!

    • Karolyn

      Jay – What on earth are you talking about?

  • jim heap

    Mob rule is what our system is turning into. If you do not like a decision of a properly run trial or
    election your response is as stated above mob rule. First thing that is wrong with what the system
    has become is “Camera in the Court”, Newspaper editorials, TV commentator, so called ‘experts’
    putting forth their opinions. One question. How can so many “experts” disagree? For the defense,
    for the prosecution. For the entire media field. We have developed into a jury outside the bounds
    of the courtroom. We as onlookers are not charged with taking an oath. But one thing is true.
    Lies are abundant in our court. Witnesses, lawyers on both sides, trickery, even judges whose rulings
    are questionable if not in full error. Whats left, the jurors who have taken the oath described by our
    courts. The move of change of venue for fairness sake goes out the window when the trial is broadcast
    worldwide for each of us to obtain our own prejudicial decisions. We use so called evidence that the
    court has ruled non admissible on the face that it was not admitted.
    My bottom line is let the court and jury do their duty – try the accused with evidence. Prove it and
    take it to the jury. Does the jury err. Of course we are not perfect but we should not let mobs decide
    what the legal decision come out of a the court should have been.

  • country

    I guess she decided to ditch the car just because she did not want it anymore. My Lord! We can reasonable doubt ourselves with ANYTHING! Common Sence of putting 2 and 2 together went out the freakin window! You would have had to be there and witnessed the death to not have reasonable doubt without a clear confession. No wonder our children are dying in this society. Too many adults who reason themselves out of common sense. I sat on a Jury where the defense proved the accused could not have been in two places at once. We came back with a not guilty. This case has so much high circumstancial evidence it’s unreal they came back with a not guilty. Duct tape around mouth with a heart shape that matches stickers in Casey’s room. Our children do not stand a chance in this country. A mountain of evidence. I watched the trial. The jury hung up over George’s affair? Really? They went over 400 pieces of circumstancial evidence in just 11 hours? Really? Her lawyer was swinging mud all over the place with NO evidence. No rebuttal over the duck tape? Nothing. If Caylee drowned and her father was involved then why did she NOT throw him under the bus at the beginning? Could it be possible, just possible because she did not think of this lie at the time? She’d rather sit in jail facing a death sentence. Common sense people. I knew if can’t prove she set out to murder her child, you could at least hold her responsible for causing the death of the child. Caylee was in her care when she went missing. There was a huge reason why she did not report her child missing for 31 days. One of the jurors actually said, “She was a good mother”. Really? Don’t tell me to get over it. This was an injustice.

    • Mushin

      Country, Country, Country! I feel for you man, I really do!

      I know you MAY find this HARD to believe but I myself have ALSO railed against the loss of common sense in our society! {and on this very page!}

      Let’s make it easier on ourselves, shall we? It has been said that refusing to accept reality is the surest way to suffer….I for one am now accepting the fact that COMMON SENSE is dead (and Obama WILL be re-elected) and that stupidity reigns!

      No more suffering!

      As Hitler said; “What luck for rulers that men do not think”!!

      • libertytrain

        perfect quote -

  • http://comcast Richie

    You should be locked up and see how it really works.It’s easy for you
    to talk till it happens to you and your innocent and see just what can
    happen to you. To save the person who is innocent and let someone with reasonable doubt isn’t perfect but it beats just sending people to
    jail The prosecution does things you don’t know about until you
    are involved with a case.

  • Adele

    Frankly I believe Eric J. Andringa came closer to the mark today in his Guns & Patriots piece, Before the CSI Effect–The Miami Vice Effect (80s TV show was not reality, but for many it was) which closed with,

    “Coming back to the “CSI Effect”, I would like to be optimistic. It is a shame that, by all appearances, in the Anthony case, justice was not served. However, I would like to believe that some ‘would be’ criminals don’t commit crimes, because they fear being caught by a CSI goober with an ultraviolent light and an aerosol can. But I could be wrong.”

    I believe the O.J. Simpson jury was merely prejudiced in favor of the defendant and demonstrated flagrant disregard for the law, his heinous crimes and their not guilty verdict was nothing more than a demonstration of racial nose-thumbing.

    In regard to Casey Anthony, I believe the jury also had preconceived notions, but in this case, it was that they would be have to be dazzled and wowed by a prosecution and script worthy of primetime television or they wouldn’t convict. In other words, this panel utterly lost sight of reality, demonstrating an almost palpable ignorance along with a frightening inability to focus on and digest evidence because they were caught up in the world of make believe forensics.

    • Mushin

      Ummmmmm….yep. Well stated.

  • Dinah Garrison

    @RobertRinger

    I think the problem with our opinion, Robert, is our age. We remember the days before CSI and DNA. In trials then it was necessary to use common sense when making a decision. Now people expect to find absolute evidence. Many don’t remember the days when jurors had to think about what they heard and decide; they didn’t wait to have every bit laid out for them. If you don’t need to think about the evidence why do you need a jury? Just make 2 lists, guilty and not guilty. The long list wins!

  • Adele

    Jonathan, there was not one SHRED of evidence offered to indicate Casey Anthony, much less Caylee, was molested by George Anthony. If there was, it would have come out during the trial. The accusation was nothing but a red herring and an astoundingly despicable one to throw out and leave floating like a toxic cloud over that man’s life.

  • Rom

    This reader believes that the jurors did not take into consideration “beyond a reasonable doubt” (the law) or “shadow of a doubt” (the illusion), but rather their 15 minutes of fame and economic exploitation. Would anyone of these jurors, especially the foreman, be demanding minimum five-digit appearance fees had they followed the letter of the jury instructions, and found the defendant guilty? The answer would be a resounding “no.” However, by the jurors coming up with a sensational verdict, they are guaranteed television appearances, book deals, movie deals, and possibly speaking engagements at various forums for quite some time to come.

  • matt

    I think there was a couple of others involved here that knew more than was exposed here the only thing we saw is that they lied and should have faced pergury charges. Daddy now was an ex cop who could have messed with the evidence. mom and dad may nt have liked what casey may or may not have done they werent about to loose 2 people. dads reaction at the verdict makes me wonder if he knew what it was going to be. bottom lin the whole case was alot like a kangaroo court than a murder trial.

  • country

    I work in a law office for over 21 years. I know people who were wrongfully accused and I know of the guilty getting off because they had a good defense. Innocent, wrongfully accused? One thing..I would not lie to the freakin police over and over.

  • FN

    The NATZI attitude of the FAR RIGHT is what Hitler used to take over Germany. There was no evidence to convict, which may or may not have been bad. But, It is the constitutional law of the need for concrete evidencwe that was followed. The negotiations taking place for national recovery are dominated by the FAR RIGHT ahat Hitler used to taqke over Germany. Hate does not exists outside of the mind of the hater. Why is the public following hate, when it was the Republican Administrations since President Ronald Reagan that has allowed the cheating in the Financial Markets, in the take over of the Boards of Directors, and in a war that could not be won due to religious hate.

  • DougH

    Has anyone commenting ever been in a tragic situation? If yes, did you act normal? In no, you might want to hold your comments.

    Up until two years ago, everyone always thought I was normal. My wife always compared me to the fathers on Leave it to Beaver and The Brady Bunch. My life changed. For 15 months my wife lay in a coma, and then she passed away. My normal life ended. During those 15 months I was not normal based on my friends and family. I did things that were not rational. I look at the things that Casey Anthony did after her daughter’s disappearance. I look at what I did while under emotional stress. Because of my own experience I could never convict Casey Anthony or anyone else based on their lifestyle and choices made during a traumatic period.

    Two years ago, I would have convicted Casey Anthony based on the opinions offered by the prosecution and media. Today, Casey Anthony’s actions for 31 days should never be enough to convict her. In my mind, that evidence alone is very doubtful – way beyond reasonable.

  • Natalie

    Let’s be honest. Casey Anthony chose the perfect attorney in Jose. She actually chose a person exacty like herself. He’s a liar, a manipualtor, a schmoozer, and a person with very little feelings. Whatever happens in the future to either of these people, will be just what they deserve. This jury slobberd up to Jose because they could identify with him. Aston was too smart, and they were intimidated by him, but Jose, they had no trouble identifying with. If we look at the attorney’s in the OJ trial, and examine just what happened to them after freeing the Butcher of Brentwood, whom they knew was guilty, it tells us something. Johnny Cochrin’s brother was murdered, Johnny died of a brain tumor, Robert Shipiro’s son died of an overdose, F Lee Bailey was disbarred and OJ continued on with his behavior until he finally got his. Keep in mind the Tree next to Caylee’s grave–after the verdict–it was struck by lightning. Tot Mom will eventually have to pay, right along with her partner in crime, Jose.

    • Karolyn

      Jose Baez is a defense lawyer and acted as any defense lawyer would. You don’t know him! How can you slander someone you know nothing about? It’s just like people here judging others as bad just because they have differing opinions. Get real!

  • carpkiller

    The jury found her not guilty and the judge accepted that. Everyone should just let it lay. What makes you know so much as to say she is guilty. Her lifestyle should have nothing to do with it either.

  • Reason?

    I wonder how much doubt you would consider reasonable if you were the one on trial for your life and there was no solid evidence that you were guilty. The evidence for the death penalty in this trial didn’t even approach the measure of “reasonable”. I know that everybody has their own opinion and so do I, but you do not convict someone based on pure opinion and speculation.

  • DavidL

    How did the child die? Can ANYONE answer that question? The jurors and alternates cannot. The Judge cannot. The prosecution cannot. None of the outside observers, who did not hear one shred of direct evidence or cross examination, can answer that question.

    How did the child die?

    That, ladies and gentlemen, is reasonable doubt.

    • Rebecca

      DavidL,

      I would have to say that if someone put chloroform over your mouth, taped your mouth shut and put you in a trash bag, it would be REASONABLE to say you died of asphyxiation. It doesn’t take a forensic scientist to figure that out.

  • Rebecca

    Apparently some of you are fuzzy on the difference between circumstancial and direct evidence. If you wake up one morning and there is snow on your lawn with bunny rabbit foot prints across it, you know the rabbit was there even if you didn’t see it. That is circumstancial evidence. But if you had gotten out of bed in the night and looked out the window to see the rabbit hopping across the yard..that would be direct evidence.

    This jury had the “CSI Effect”. They wanted to see a smoking gun, fingerprints on the bones, something larger than life. It is just not that common that a case like this has such evidence. Let’s all use common sense people. The child is dead right? The body was found right? There was motive (the child was an inconvenience), there was mode (not everyday does someone order chloroform and duct tape online and then put a heart sticker over the duct tape of the victims mouth)There was circumstancial evidence of a decomposed body in the defendant’s trunk for goodness sake! And still some of you think there wasn’t enough evidence.

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest JONV

    As I see it, the main and formost problem with the Casey Anthony case and its outcome was the prosecution’s strategy. The jury acted correctly, based on what they were presented to evaluate. Personally, I don’t buy the fact that Casey is completely innocent. She is the childs mother…hence, at minimum, responsible for the child’s welfare. And if more than an accident occurred, Casey is that much more guilty if she had any knowledge or part in whatever happened to Kaley. As we know, statistically, it is extremely challenging to convict…on murder charges no less…based on circumstantial evidence alone even if that circumstantial evidence ‘appears’ to suggest certain actions of the accused. The state should have gone for a lesser charge than murder 1. I believe doing so would have resulted in finding Casey guilty of anything from child negligance to a possible (degree of) manslaughter for the consequence regarding her dead child. The key question that should have been asked and proven: who had charge of little Kaley when she died? Somebody had charge of the child at that time…Casey?…either or both grandparents? Next question: if there was really an accident, who was negligent and how? If it is believed the death was due to something more than an accident, you still have the child endangerment or manslaughter charges that could be brought on…much more likely to have the charge stick than trying for murder 1 with circumstantial evidence as the state’s only tool. In murder 1 with death penalty and only circumstantial evidence to support a charge, a typical jury is going to look really hard at the evidence and be inclined envoke reasonable doubt. The state had a telented team, but overreached in trying to achieve a conviction by charging murder 1.

  • bob wire

    I didn’t watch the trial and didn’t talk about it to anyone. So ~ I know very little about it.

    But I do know a statement like this;

    “Again, you don’t need DNA here. If you blatantly lie about your child’s cause of death, it’s beyond a reasonable doubt that you killed her.”

    is simple wrong, incorrect, and purely assumption on Mr. Ringer part. I take it that Mr. Ringer bias is due to opinions draw from keeping up with the trial.

    Lying is indicative of many things in conflict but does not offer reasonable doubt to intent of murder.

  • http://wwww.tombstonelizardmedia.com TombstoneLizard

    I am simply ASTOUNDED by the unmitigated stupidity of people posting here. Didn’t you morons (you know who you are!) even READ this article before spouting off at the pie-hole? The defense argued that REASONABLE DOUBT was not enough. It is ENOUGH when the circumstantial evidence reaches up to the ceiling! The JUDGE failed everyone by not educating the jurors that the defense was WRONG in pushing the “no shadow of a doubt” concept. The JUDGE should have said “Ignore that statement by the defense and allow me to properly educate you on legal precedent.” I have zero respect for the prosecutor; he obviously didn’t know how to present the compelling circumstances of this woman’s actions and lies to show CLEARLY that she was more than CAPABLE of committing the murder for which she had been charged.

  • Sam Sandlin

    AMEN, Mr. Ringer. You also speak for me. “Resonable Doubt” is the active phrase. This trial, like O.J.’s, was a travesty of justice, in it’s clearest form.

    Thanks for the comment .. well written …

  • Sivispace

    Once again we have a talking head who takes an ah shucks approach to the Constitution. The term “Reasonable Doubt” drawn from a dictionary other than Black’s Law Dictionary is spurious to this discussion and completely inadequate for legal purposes. Remember that legal purposes are not some lawyer’s sleight-of-hand in an effort to get “guilty” people off. Rather, they are the expression of Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Proof beyond a Reasonable Doubt is generally described as “A doubt that a reasonable person would entertain after fully and fairly weighing all the evidence presented. A Reasonable Doubt may arise from the evidence or lack of evidence presented.” Now how many people, including the author have been present at the trial of Ms. Anthony? The rest of you haven’t heard evidence so stop speculating. Thirteen qualified citizens heard and saw the evidence. They were instructed on the law, they were charged to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses because they were in the best position to do so. We did not watch the witnesses demeanor, testimony or consider interest, bias and prejudice. It is true that Ms. Anthony acted terribly after her child went “missing” but it’s not against the law in most circumstances the act “wrong.”

    Do I think OJ was guilty? Without a doubt but I still didn’t see the evidence. And yes, I am an attorney and I have prosecuted and defended people. I now defend the accused and I can tell you that these cases are much more complex than they ever were as a prosecutor. And much harder to win.

  • http://Google Bobby

    I watched as much as was televised and put myself in the jury box; Did not hear one word about the little girl being murdered, only theory. No proof that Casey had committed any crime except for lying. I do think that the man who “discovered” the body needs to be looked at much closer same as for the father of Casey. Thats all I have to say about that..

  • Charles Haggard

    Jurors are not qualified to judge up to a shadow of a doubt. If they were, they would be forensic experts, not jurors. They may only judge, by the rule of law and nature, up to and beyond a reasonable doubt. When you are selected by the court for jury duty, the District Attorney will ask, “If you were required to make a verdict right after the trial started, what would you say? If you said ‘Not Guilty’, that is the only reasonable answer.” You see, in America, defendants are innocent until proven guilty. Obviously the evidence was circumstantial and no amount of bias by Nancy Grace can change that.

  • Raggs

    Well….. If we lend ourselves to “feelings” in a court, I’m sure that I will see many of you in prison.

    Although Casey had to be involved in the death of her baby, nobody was able to prove anything but that she was gone… The trial looked like a circus to me with people hitting people to get in the courtroom… Our government is no different in that respect…

    Well we can always rely on the government or state to impose 10,000 new laws that they think will protect someone from murder.. Or hey lets just lock everyone up for thinking about something they feel is a threat.

    OPPPS there goes yet more personal liberty and freedom…

  • Molly

    Respectfully, Robert Ringer…. you’re nuts. All of your points are “Your Opinion”…and every nut and sane person has one. In this case, there was absolutely not one iota of evidence that connected Casey to the death of her daughter… nothing. They could NOT say how the child died, nor what happened, nor could they prove a motive. Saying someone is a bad mother (or father) does NOT prove murder thereby a death sentence. Your “common sense” is anothers’ “absurdity”. The laws are clear and the prosecution failed at every level to prove anything. Did she do it? Only God knows it seems and who ever had anything to do with Caylee’s death will be dealt with in God’s way. Be careful, you may find yourself in a situation like Casey’s someday (God forbid) and there will be those passing judgment on you like you are doing to Casey now. So… if it did happen to you and so many opinions said “kill him”… how much is your life worth to you? Would you be willing to accept “common sense” like yours? How would like to be the one “innocent” person put to death?

  • American Citizen

    I watched enough of the trial to come to the same conclusion as the jury, the proof was on the prosecutors and it wasn’t there. There was no proof of how Kaylee died thus they couldn’t prove her death was a murder. Casey acted stupidly, but first degree murder? No way, no proof.

  • American Citizen

    Because a child drowns in a swimming pool does not necessarily mean the mother was neglectful. Children are very resourceful when they want to do something they shouldn’t. Accidents happen in a moment. A mother cannot be with a child every minute of the day. Otherwise, she would have to tie the child to her wrist or lock him/her in a room alone. Mothers have other duties besides child care. You men would complain if your dinner wasn’t on time when you come home from work. I suggest men and women trade places for a week to find out what the other deals with all day long. My husband only lasted three days and that was only in the evenings while I was in the hospital after giving birth to our third child.

  • bbobb

    i wonder who the “pro casey” people think killed this 2 year old child. i’ll venture that if casey had been a male or less attractive this case would have had a very different verdict from the fools on the jury and the perp’s supporters on this forum. as a society we are at far more risk from fools and their thoughts and actions than we are from the boogey man terrorist.

  • Janet

    There are some folks among us that are just plain mean and heartless.
    The overwhelming evidence of her behavior during those 31 days is common sense to all who observed. People get away with murder (in this world) all the time but we do indeed reap what we sow.

    May the good LORD help us all.

  • apf2

    I am a staunch fiscal and social conservative. In general, I agree with much of what I read on your site. But I couldn’t disagree more in the assessment presented in this article.

    The DA couldn’t give a cause of death. That opens the door for all sorts of reasonable doubts. The DA can not say it was murder because he can not say how the poor baby died. The mother is obviously a terrible example of humanity. But, how can she be convicted of first degree murder, when the DA has not established that a murder has taken place?

    If anyone is to blame here it is the DA for not proving the charges he brought or bringing charges he could prove.

    I don’t want to live in a country were feelings and circumstantial evidence are enough to send people to their death. That is an abuse of power and infringement on our liberties. Our Founding Fathers were pretty succinct on the issue of limiting the governments ability to persecute people using the courts as a weapon of repression.

    Our freedom against an all too powerful criminal system lies in cases where the DA seeks to win by emotionally manipulating the jury, and the public, rather than actually proving the case. In a case like this the DA must not win, it would be an affront to our personal liberty.

  • Geoff Day

    how are you? i surley do believe casey is guilty, however, if we are going to convict casey shouldn’t we also convict the 4,000 other mothers (and doctors) that kill their children every day here in america? i mean, fair is fair. isn’t it?

  • John Boy

    Robert – It couldn’t possibly be said any better than you just said it. Congratulations. It’s refreshing to know that at least one person in the world understands what this was really all about. Too bad you weren’t on the jury. Maybe you could have turned it all around as Henry Fonda did in “12 Angry Men”.

  • Shirley Jones

    does this theory make sense… she wanted to go out and party as I am sure she did many nights.. so.. she uses the cloroform to putCaylee to sleep, duct tapes her mouth and maybe accidently covers her nose also in her hurry to go and Caylee dies… comes home, panic because Caylee is no breathing and disposes of her body…just a thought..

    • American Citizen

      That’s only your theory. The duct tape could have been placed there after her death. The chloroform smell was only a trace and a scientist said it occurs naturally in our environment. Any of us could have a trace of it in the trunk of our car. There are a lot of unanswered questions in this case.

  • Janet

    Some people are just plain mean and selfish.

    Evidence for 31 days convinced me she got away with murder.
    It doesn’t take a rocket science to figure out what was done with
    chlorophyll and duct tape.
    That smile was huge after the verdict was announced; my what a happy person she is now.

    We ALL reap what we sow.

    • Mushin

      Yes Janet, what is boring (and glaringly apparent) to you is NOT so apparent to many others here. She was positively BEAMING at the “not guilty” verdict, AND when the judge said she could not be immediately release from jail the frown on her face is just so special…The whole moment would have been bitter for anyone else as the loss of their child would have been the true over riding emotion – but not for this woman.

  • TREBOR

    THE NEWS REPORTERS WAS THE JURY. IF THIS CHILD WAS BLACK NO ONE WOULD OF HEARD ABOUT IT/ NEWS REPORTERS GET PAID TO TELL LIES, OR PULL AT HEART STRINGS. IF THERE IS ANY DOUBT, REASONABLE, SHADOW OF, THEN THE VERDIT WAS JUST. JUST THE FACTS AND ONLY THE FACTS, HAS ANYONE EVER HEAR OF THE “bill of rights or the consatution”. THE NEWS MEDIA LETS US HEAR WHAT THE GOVERMENT LETS THEM REPORT.

  • FreedomFighter

    Moral of this long dismal read:

    The court system, nor the 12 jury members did not dispense justice, but did follow the law.

    So a child murderer goes free, the evil applaud, angles cry and a little girls murder goes unpunished.

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

  • TML

    Well, I didn’t watch the trial and I don’t really know all the details of the case … so, I’m not going to comment on whether or not I think she was guilty. I hold no opinion on that. But what I can tell you, is that I was hearing in the news that she was guilty, before a verdict was ever even made by the jury. It seems that mainstream media has the ability to convict someone before a veridct is even made by jurors. The only thing I did hear was that she didn’t report her child missing, but that in and of itself does not make her guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt. Without hard evidence of murder, something like that would fall squarely into “recklace abandonment”. I believe the prosecution may have dropped the ball on this one, but there’s no reason to assume that the Jurors were not intelligent. In fact, I would come closer to believing that they judged the case correctly, since returning with such a verdict, obviously must be an objective one, and not based on emotion, as many of the people who get angry about this do. What scares me most, is those emotional people, using their subjective opinions, then seek to increase laws simply because of the emotional distress they have that she wasn’t found guilty… because THEY think she is. I even heard one person say, we need to license people to have children! Other’s wanted to pass a law making it illegal for a mother to not report their child missing, even though the laws already cover this kind of negligence under “reckless adandonment”. I feel for the child as much as the next person… but a poor job by prosecution, doesn’t not mean we should make more laws.

  • Bob from Calif.

    Not Guilty!

  • JonKemp

    I don’t know of any parent who would ignore the disappearance of their child, lie about it when somebody notices 31 days later, and use the burial ground for their pets to dispose of their child’s body unless they had a major hand in the death of that child. Xany the nanny is another clue that the child either overdosed or suffocated in a hot car but Casey the lying psycho will never tell. Susan Smith killed her kids and blamed a Black man so she could freely pursue a life with a wealthy boyfriend. Cindy Anthony hoped to adopt Caylee because she had concluded Casey was an unfit mother. Too bad it didn’t happen.

  • Old Henry

    Mr. Ringer:

    Casey Anthony will pay the price. Most likely on a dark deserted Florida road. What a sick piece of human excremant she is, and always will be. From what I have read her family is not too far behind her.

    If ever there were a case for mandatory sterilization Casey Anthony would be it.

  • Eric

    The media sensationalized this case to an unbelievable level distracting people from issues that actually affect them. I don’t mean to be callous, but this should have never gone beyond local news.

    This is happening more and more and people don’t see it. Instead of discussing the big issues directly affecting all of us in this country and holding the responsible people accountable, we are getting caught up in the hype of the day that the media feeds us.

  • chvietvet

    With 10% or more of the prison population innocent of the crimes for which they were sent to the penitentiary, it is time to return to the jury trial system which was employed in Anglo-Saxon England and incorporated into common law at the time. If a jury convicts and sends the accused to death or prison, and if it is later shown that the person was innocent, the members of the jury must endure the same punishment to which they sentenced the accused. That sets the height of the bar for conviction.

  • CJ CA

    There can be no comparison with the O. J. Simpson case which was turned into a race issue by J.Cochran one of Simpson’s lawyers.

    There was much “evidence” in the Anthony trial but none of it could be connected to any of the Anthonys being guilty of murder. It also appeared that the police investigation concerning where the body was found was incompetent.

    The Anthony case was tried in the media by frustrated talking heads, lawyers, prejudiced ex-judges and prosecutors, especially on Fox news. Pitiful !

    The Anthonys being the way they are does not prove guilt.

    Under the circumstances the jury did the right thing.

  • JonKemp

    Personal liberty didn’t win for Caylee. I’ve followed this case from day one because my son went to school with the “boyfriend from New York”. George is utterly innocent…both parents and tow truck driver noted the stench of death in the car. Casey tried to make it look like a kidnapping and blamed the mythical Xanny the xanax nanny. I don’t think Casey deserves liberty anymore because she was clearly responsible in her child’s death and her attempts to blame “Xanny” and her father. But like OJ, Casey got away with it.

  • JonKemp

    One juror had a cruise ship to catch and liberty was lost for Caylee. The jury acted like a mob in their rush to enjoy the rest of summer.

  • wisdom

    Robert,
    OJ got off because of the NAACP, pillow talk and gangs. The weekly conjugal visits for the jurors were on the same day as the juror tampering NAACP’s ‘no justice no peace’ threat protests. Why did a gang spray paint graffiti stating OJ owed them? Intimidation maybe? Ten woman protecting their families?

  • CJ CA

    “Perhaps”, “theory”, “maybe”, “it could have”, do not make a person guilty of murder. Even if you hate their guts.

  • Carl Jakobsson

    There was a preponderence of circumstantial evidence that led in the direction of a guilty verdict. The law says a preponderence of evidence is not enough to convict. A preponderence of evidence only determines a civil case.
    The fact that a mother fails to report a missing child for 31 days is proof that the mother is a bad mother, but it is not proof that she killed the child. Unless the duct tape – which the prosecution contended was the murder weapon – was linked by some physical evidence to the mother, there was reasonable doubt that the mother killed the child.
    If you believe the story of the defense that the child died by drowning in the swimming pool, then the mother IS guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of manslaughter. It is an act of criminal negligence to leave a 2 year old child unattended in a swimming pool, and if the child drowns, then it becomes manslaughter. That scenario is consistent with the invention of the kidnapping story, plus the disposal of the body to make it look like a murder. In the absence of physical evidence to point to a particular murderer, the act of making the death look like a murder could be a gamble that a criminal could consider to be worth taking.
    While there was insufficient evidence to convict the mother of first degree murder, there was sufficient evidence to convict her of manslaughter. And she was obviously guilty beyond even an unreasonable doubt of the charges she was actually convicted of – lying to the investigating officers.

  • FWO21

    She, as with the rest of us, will be judged in the end and that is the one that really counts. Whether you believe in it or not, it will happen. That is how I can feel some calm about the whole thing.

    If something like that would have happened, where my child was missing and I didn’t have a clue where he/she was, I would be a complete basket case. I can say that because I love my children very much; even now when they are grown and have families of their own.

  • johndoe

    why have a trial in the first place if all of you are so sure of her guilt ? why not just have the judge just sentence her and be done with it ? Or have the judge tell the jury what verdict to render and go on. Think hard before you answer these questions. As for the mention of professional juries, Where a few have large responsibilities there exists a chance for corruption.

  • http://theconstitutionfirst.blogspot.com Donald Vincent

    I have only one word. “Penis.”
    Just because you don’t agree with the verdict doesn’t make you right. What about the South Carolina trial of Micheal Peterson. His wife died at the bottom of a staircase. They couldn’t prove that he pushed her, but he was convicted just the same.

    I don’t like KC Anthony any more than you do……but circumstantial BS does not murder prove. You weren’t on the jury, and as such are not privy to all the info. so shut your pie hole and write about something of which you know. Not the speculation of which you espouse.

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Wiselady

    7-12-11

    Wiselady says:

    CONGRADULATIONS, APHRODITE JONES, FOR GETTING IT RIGHT!!! It is sad and tragic that the prosecution could not figure it as you described it! So, who killed Kaylee? I cried for her!! There should be an appeal!!!

    After hearing some jurors give their ideas on why they voted,”not quilty”, I came to the conclusion that they were fooled just as Casey attempted to fool the investigators. The Forman of the jury who spoke in Fox’s interview with Gretta Van Sustern,spoke as though he had been through a liberal thinking educational system. No sound logical judgement as to his decision on why he voted the way he did nor sensible answers to the questions asked, to come to his conclusion. The jurors had no concern for Kaylee’s life.They were wimps, looking for straws. What a paththetic jury. Too many questions unanswered. You can bet there will now be more children murdered by a mom or dad!! Repeat: an appeal is necessary to prevent this in order not to establish a prcedence.

    He answered questions in the same as liberals do, blame someone else…in this case, the father and mother. I know, I have a daughter that blames me for her missery. I don’t let her get away with it. It frustrates her. I once had to report her to the Child Protective Services while temporarily living with me with two grand children. She has a bi-polar personality as I believe Casey Anthony might have. Her lies were forever present along with her stoic stares and ambivilent personality and mood changes.

    Parents, ..do not coddle your children when they become teenagrs if, and when they have made grave mistakes. Let them know you will be there to see them through their mistake but will not lie for them nor bail them out.

    All my children were told that if they were arrested and jailed, they would have to face the consequences of the choices they made that got them there in the first place. I WOULD NOT BAIL THEM OUT, but I would visit them with a basket of their favorite cookies! I never had to bake those cookies! Now my grandchildren are getting the the same advise from me. One granddaughter asked me, “Grandma, why won’t you bail me out? My dear, because I love you, and you made the choice to hang around with friends that got you there, they shall have to bail you out. And, “Make sure they will bring you homemade cookies”! Thank God I never had to bring them any!. To this day they talk about mom’s advise. GET TO KNOW THEIR FRIENDS when they are teenagers and you will find out where your children are going with their lives.

    Only two of their teenage friends were told that they were no longer welcomed into our home because of their choices in social behavior.

    Folks, stop spoiling your kids and beleive that you are helping them when you bail them out. Don’t worry, they will someday thank you for that simple advise. Tough love works!

  • barb

    I saw the trial every day and the evidence was there. Duct Tape, chloroform, decomposition, she lied about her daughter’s whereabouts to her parents, friends and police for 31 days, partied for 31 days and showed no remorse or panic or grief about her missing(dead) daughter. If it was a drowning – why make it look like a murder – this was so obvious. The child was in her care and she killed her daughter and she now has a beautiful life. George is not guilty of anything except genuine grief.
    I saw part of foreman juror interview and turned it off because I wanted to VOMIT – what a jerk, they were all jerks(defense jury selection lawyer probably knew they were liberals somehow). I do not want to hear from any of the jurors because they are feeding you the same manure as the defense and I truly hope they are not profiting from this which is why I will not watch any more interviews except from the prosecution. The only one we have not heard from is the other prosecuter, Linda, both she and Jeff Ashton were brilliant. Cheny Mason go back to where you came from – middle finger to you.

  • zwuurf

    Psychology and Persuasion techniques. This is what it’s all about. I never watched the trial, but judging from Mr. Ringer’s commentary and from other reasders’ responses, the attorney was able to establish a baseline trigger level in each juror’s mind.

    Remember “if the glove don’t fit you must acquit” ? Who DOESN’T remember this infamous instruction to the jurors in the OJ trial, which established in their minds a very firm baseline trigger level for determining a guilty / not guilty outcome. Get it ?

  • MaryLovesGod

    All I can think about is that beautiful precious little child of God – so innocent and unwanted by a woman who doesn’t know how to think of anyone else but herself. I can only pity Casey – her time will come when she comes face to face with her Maker. Casey gave birth to that beautiful little girl only it’s takes more than giving birth to be a loving Mother! That little girl didn’t deserve such a cold hearted Mom. If Casey didn’t want her, why didn’t she just give her up for adoption!?

  • American Citizen

    One of the jurors said she could have voted for manslaughter, but that wasn’t the charge.

  • American Citizen

    I find it abhorrent that the jurors and their families, plus the Anthony’s, are receiving nasty letters and death threats. If Casey had had an abortion when she found she was pregnant with Kaylee, not a word would be said. It’s probably the pro-choicers who are behind these threats. True pro-lifers would not do this. As for abortion, can anyone be accused of murder anymore? After all, it’s the same life at no matter what point it was taken, either before or after birth. Did the Supreme Court legalize murder? A question worth pondering.

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Wiselady

    7-13-11

    Wiselady says to apf2.

    The jury ignored a lot of facts: 1. Kaylee had tape on her mouth/nose and a small heart over one piece of it which was of the same type as that found in her bedroom. 2. One hair strand was in the trunk, that’s all you need and it is enough to convict her of having her in the trunk until she could come up with lies to cover up while she went to parties. 3. She neglected to give aid and compfort to the child when found in the pool since she was the last one to have seen her alive, (assuming she drowned). 4. Neglected to pay attention to the child when opening the door that leads to the pool. Who took the picture and where was she when it was taken? Who ever took it should have stopped her from getting out the door. The prosectution did not raise questions on that subject. “She drowned and it was an accident”. What a lie, that fooled the incompetant jurors. 5.Who ever took the picture as they stood there and watched her open the door that leads to the pool, should be charged with child negligence. Instead, the defense used it as their strongest point that it was an,”accident”. Where was the mother who claimed that she last saw her with the Nanny, Zena? Was Casey watching her daughter as she took the picture to intentionally see her drown?

    The pile of lies should have alarmed the investigators a lot sooner to go find the child and Casey should have been given five years for each lie since a death occurred due to her bigger lies which prevented the investigators from doing their job more effectively. She was cover up for her past actions of murder.

    As I said before, this case sets a precedence that to be negligent is o.k. and you can now wait 31 or more days to report it. No big deal if the child dies. What a dumb educated jury voted against Kaylee who will forever be in my thoughts. It matters not whether we allow them to be killed in the womb or at two years old. Life is becoming insignificant. It makes me sick!

  • country

    Right after the not guilt verdicts were read, lightening strikes the tree where little Caylee’s body layed. I believe Caylee will have
    justice.

  • CJM

    Face it. Casey Anthony just got away with murder. She has a persoality type (sociopathic, pathological liar, psychological personality issues, narcisisism) that will drive her to commit another act which will bring her back to the attention of the authorities…most of these folks do (as did OJ, not once, but several times) and the public will remember what SHE did to little Caylee. Casey acted alone in this crime; but a person like her isn’t willing to take a fall all by their lonesome. They have to blame someone else for their deceit and criminal actions–mom, dad, and brother were prime targets (after all, why should they have a free life while she is sitting behind bars). It is unfortunate that the jury was not allowed to observe the stark differences in Casey’s behavior in the courtroom. While the jury was out, she was stoically engrossed in the photo evidence that was to be presented to the jury; not one tear or acknowledgement and on occasion, giggles with her attornies. When the jury resumed their places and were given access to the graphic photos, Casey turned her head away from the little laptop, profusely dabbed at her eyes with her bare fingers (which, by the way, will cause instant redness of the eyes and would make one think you were crying)–just a few moments before, Casey hadn’t a care in the world. This rogue jury refused to consider anything except their adoration of jose baez, so the criminal got off scott free. Oh, by the way, one of those defense attorneys was asked: Now that Casey Anthony is free, would you let her babysit your children/grandchildren? Talk about dancing around an answer without even giving one, this attorney should be given a gold star…but her evasiveness of the question and body language said: Of course not, do you think I’m stupid?

  • Herb1949

    Has anyone thought about the fact that Florida law can charge a person for the ACCIDENTAL death of a child.

    It just might be that the death was accidental and the reason she tried to cover it up is the STUPID law that even accidents are felony offenses.

    Check out this article. Makes a LOT of sense.

    http://boudicabpi.wordpress.com/2011/07/10/whats-the-difference/

  • Joe Berger

    the chances that Casey willingly killed her daughter are less than one in a thousand. Zero evidence. I think the kid died accidentally as a result of some form of neglect or stupidity on the part of her mother, who tried to cover it up rather than admit her mistakes. All her lies and ‘partying’ are 100% irrelevant. The whole trial reminded me of the Salem witch trials. I woulda voted NOT GUILTY after 11 minutes.

    • john j

      This country, the greatest republic created in history, has become a lawless nation ruled by despots interested only how much cash they stuff into their pockets from special interests!

  • rob

    Point to ONE bit of HARD EVADENCE that C. Anderson planed then murderd anyone!

  • rob

    Sorry I meant C. Anthony.

  • rob

    After reading some of this bar room slop I now know why my attorney a few decades ago said if you are charged with any more serious than a traffic ticket and dont have a few million dollars to fight it his advice was to HULL ASS!!!

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.