<p>jsanche</p>
<p>I agree with your post.</p>
<p>I haven’t seen this open and shut case everyone else was seeing. </p>
<p>Not in terms of what could be presented in court. You don’t review the press coverage in that deliberation, you review what was allowed into court by the rules of evidence.</p>
<p>I thought the defense attorney was masterful. And from what I saw (which was definitely not the whole thing), I couldn’t have found her guilty. She may have been, but I would have a huge amount of doubt in my mind.</p>
<p>Her dtr was missing for 31 days, and she didn’t report it. She knew there was no babysitter. She was out getting a tatoo and partying. What mother of a 2 yo does that?</p>
<p>Yes, she may well have done it, but I couldn’t have voted to convict. Way too much reasonable doubt.</p>
<p>@Iron maiden</p>
<p>You can’t make that kind of claim.</p>
<p>Is anybody happy (besides the defense and Casey) with this verdict, meaning that they feel that justice was served?</p>
<p>Is anybody NOT surprised?? Meaning that they disagree with the verdict and would have voted otherwise as a jury-member?</p>
<p>Was the prosecution’s case that weak? </p>
<p>Soo weird the way these things can work.</p>
<p>Our system does want to protect the accused from a presumption of guilt and does want a high degree of proof. But it is insane to see how awry it can go IMO.</p>
<p>Who knows what kind of folks were on this jury? Voir dire can stack a jury in one direction or another based on a sophisticated research into a surprising correlation of demographics, life experience, professions, and other qualities with biases, opinions and handling of legal/courtroom techniques, and types of cases, for sure.</p>
<p>Casey is on the loose. Let’s see what trouble she causes next… Inevitable if she is mentally ill or has a personality disorder or just plain thinks that she can manipulate the system…</p>
<p>Other countries can have a verdict of “Not Proven” – they may be pretty sure that she did it, but not beyond a reasonable doubt.</p>
<p>I agree with jsanche32. I’m still in high school so not a mother so i didn’t really have the emotional feelings that i think many parents have. I didn’t follow the story when Caylee was first reported missing and when Casey was later arrested. My mock trial coach did suggest that we watch the trial. I watched it like i was a member of the jury (muted the sound when the jury was sent out) and i couldn’t have found her guilty for ANY of the crimes she was found not guilty of. As I said before, i believe she played a part in her child’s death but i don’t think the state met the burden of proof. </p>
<p>I think it’s pretty unfair to blame the jury for this. They didn’t get to see or hear a lot of things that we heard from the media and i think most of them thought she was guilty but the evidence wasn’t there to convict her.</p>
<p>“Was the prosecution’s case that weak?”</p>
<p>yes, yes, and yes…</p>
<p>I’m in complete shock that all 12 jurors only found her guilty of lying to police. At the very least, I would have thought that it was going to be a hung jury for murder 1. </p>
<p>I, too, cannot help but be reminded of the OJ trial. Can she possibly be sued in Civil Court and not be able to cash-in on future interviews/book/movie deals?</p>
<p>Performersmom- I’m pleased with the verdict. I would have found it incredibly sad if she was sent to jail for life or sentenced to death based on the evidence presented. It’s so sad what happened to Caylee and i wish the evidence was there to find Casey guilty of something (murder, abuse, manslaughter), but there’s not.</p>
<p>Again, you can’t declare her guilty just because she lied to investigators.</p>
<p>People tend to panic when something really bad happens (Say your kid drowns). This is specially true for people with obvious emotional problems and maturity issues.</p>
<p>So naturally, she lied and obfuscated the truth as a defense mechanism.</p>
<p>That’s what it looks like to me tbh.</p>
<p>I personally think that defense won the murder, manslaughter, and child abuse verdicts in spite of Casey rather than Baez.</p>
<p>as i posted on the wkd…i thought baez did a good job with what he had to work with…he was throwing out things to create doubt, get rid of premeditation etc…exactly what he is supposed to do… only watched the closing arguments of this trial…i can see why the jury found as they did…but i was definitely thinking they would convict/</p>
<p>I am no lawyer, but I found this case to have an interesting difference from the OJ case: the defense DID try to come up with a different murderer.</p>
<p>The law is about proof and data and facts. No issue with that.</p>
<p>But sometimes there is common sense and intuition that needs to be listened to. Hopefully, those will prevail in what happens next- how Casey is handled from here. She needs HELP even if she did not somehow kill her daughter.</p>
<p>There won’t be any civil suit. Civil suits are brought by the next of kin, like Nicole Simpson’s family. Who is going to bring a case for this child? No one.</p>
<p>This verdict shows that if you commit murder with no witnesses and hide the body long enough and well enough so that evidence of the cause of death cannot be determined, you walk free.</p>
<p>So the jury must have bought the drowning story. There is no other explanation. Because if they didn’t buy the drowning story, then they should have charged her with aggravated child abuse or whatever that charge was. Casey was the last one with Caylee and then a month later she is found in the woods - dead. If she didn’t drown, Casey did something. I would have voted to convict on at least one of the charges or I would of held out for a hung jury - I would never have let her walk.</p>
<p>Just because she was found not guilty, doesn’t mean she didn’t have something to do with the child’s death. </p>
<p>What can be difficult in some murders is that not only didn’t someone witness it, but evidence of the murder is hard to come by and prove. This seems like such a case. The way the law works is that it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That is hard to do without some direct evidence. That made the case more difficult to prove, even though everything does seem to point to Casey Anthony being responsible for her child’s death in some capacity. I think some guilty people do go free. Same with OJ.</p>
<p>Also, I don’t credit Baez. It wasn’t that hard to raise doubts because there wasn’t a lot of hard evidence. I don’t believe the drowning story, however. And it was never raised before the trial either.</p>
<p>You can’t be charged with child abuse when your kid accidentally drowned.</p>
<p>Honestly, it seems that a lot of people here want someone to burn at the proverbial stake no matter what.</p>
<p>Can someone explain the important facts of the timeline, here?</p>