MR

You're the member of the Orlando jury in the case of Florida VS Casey Anthony in the death of Caylee Marie Anthony. We the MR jury find the defendant....

YoungJRNY wrote:You're the member of the Orlando jury in the case of Florida VS Casey Anthony in the death of Caylee Marie Anthony. We the MR jury find the defendant....

It's useless, Trav....people will file in, commenting on how we didn't sit through all the presented evidence, and we are just media-tainted individuals.

What my disgust boils down to mostly is that, while I agree our judicial system is great compared to other countries, that doesn't mean I HAVE to think it's 100% right and wonderful, and it seems while protecting people accused of crimes against children, it a lot of times fails to protect the children. And this case is a prime example.

I can't honestly say without having sat in on the jury. Its not up to her lawyers to prove she's innocent. I have no doubt that she either had something to do with the murder, or that she knows who did it. Its up to the prosecutors to prove without a SHADOW OF A DOUBT that she committed the murder. They threw up every piece of evidence they had, and the jurors came back with a "not guilty" verdict. They've obviously seen many things that we aren't aware of, and yes Sean, the media does distort things.

Its not my place to judge. I know that if she had anything to do with it, she will find justice sooner rather than later. There are a lot of strange people in this world, and what if she's just a little off? She could have had absolutely no involvement other than being a terrible parent. Could you imagine being innocent, and have the entire world against you for a crime you didn't commit? While it's highly unlikely, it is entirely possible. Nobody here knows, and to say you do is ridiculous. Again, she will be judged (just like the rest of us). I hope she didn't do it, but we'll probably never know.

G.I.Jim wrote:I can't honestly say without having sat in on the jury. Its not up to her lawyers to prove she's innocent. I have no doubt that she either had something to do with the murder, or that she knows who did it. Its up to the prosecutors to prove without a SHADOW OF A DOUBT that she committed the murder. They threw up every piece of evidence they had, and the jurors came back with a "not guilty" verdict. They've obviously seen many things that we aren't aware of, and yes Sean, the media does distort things.

Its not my place to judge. I know that if she had anything to do with it, she will find justice sooner rather than later. There are a lot of strange people in this world, and what if she's just a little off? She could have had absolutely no involvement other than being a terrible parent. Could you imagine being innocent, and have the entire world against you for a crime you didn't commit? While it's highly unlikely, it is entirely possible. Nobody here knows, and to say you do is ridiculous. Again, she will be judged (just like the rest of us). I hope she didn't do it, but we'll probably never know.

The threshold the State has to meet isn't "without a shadow of a doubt." Their burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jana wrote:

G.I.Jim wrote:I can't honestly say without having sat in on the jury. Its not up to her lawyers to prove she's innocent. I have no doubt that she either had something to do with the murder, or that she knows who did it. Its up to the prosecutors to prove without a SHADOW OF A DOUBT that she committed the murder. They threw up every piece of evidence they had, and the jurors came back with a "not guilty" verdict. They've obviously seen many things that we aren't aware of, and yes Sean, the media does distort things.

Its not my place to judge. I know that if she had anything to do with it, she will find justice sooner rather than later. There are a lot of strange people in this world, and what if she's just a little off? She could have had absolutely no involvement other than being a terrible parent. Could you imagine being innocent, and have the entire world against you for a crime you didn't commit? While it's highly unlikely, it is entirely possible. Nobody here knows, and to say you do is ridiculous. Again, she will be judged (just like the rest of us). I hope she didn't do it, but we'll probably never know.

The threshold the State has to meet isn't "without a shadow of a doubt." Their burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Well, apparently it wasn't proved "beyond a reasonable doubt".

I think she had something to do with her daughter's death. But her actually doing the deed is something else.

G.I.Jim wrote:

Jana wrote:

G.I.Jim wrote:I can't honestly say without having sat in on the jury. Its not up to her lawyers to prove she's innocent. I have no doubt that she either had something to do with the murder, or that she knows who did it. Its up to the prosecutors to prove without a SHADOW OF A DOUBT that she committed the murder. They threw up every piece of evidence they had, and the jurors came back with a "not guilty" verdict. They've obviously seen many things that we aren't aware of, and yes Sean, the media does distort things.

Its not my place to judge. I know that if she had anything to do with it, she will find justice sooner rather than later. There are a lot of strange people in this world, and what if she's just a little off? She could have had absolutely no involvement other than being a terrible parent. Could you imagine being innocent, and have the entire world against you for a crime you didn't commit? While it's highly unlikely, it is entirely possible. Nobody here knows, and to say you do is ridiculous. Again, she will be judged (just like the rest of us). I hope she didn't do it, but we'll probably never know.

The threshold the State has to meet isn't "without a shadow of a doubt." Their burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Well, apparently it wasn't proved "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Just educating you.

It would be interesting to see votes separately based on the first 3 counts that she was found not guilty of. While I understand how she wasn't found guilty of 1st degree, MY vote is she definitely should have been found guilty of the 3rd count, death caused by culpable negligence.

Jana wrote:

G.I.Jim wrote:

Jana wrote:

G.I.Jim wrote:I can't honestly say without having sat in on the jury. Its not up to her lawyers to prove she's innocent. I have no doubt that she either had something to do with the murder, or that she knows who did it. Its up to the prosecutors to prove without a SHADOW OF A DOUBT that she committed the murder. They threw up every piece of evidence they had, and the jurors came back with a "not guilty" verdict. They've obviously seen many things that we aren't aware of, and yes Sean, the media does distort things.

Its not my place to judge. I know that if she had anything to do with it, she will find justice sooner rather than later. There are a lot of strange people in this world, and what if she's just a little off? She could have had absolutely no involvement other than being a terrible parent. Could you imagine being innocent, and have the entire world against you for a crime you didn't commit? While it's highly unlikely, it is entirely possible. Nobody here knows, and to say you do is ridiculous. Again, she will be judged (just like the rest of us). I hope she didn't do it, but we'll probably never know.

The threshold the State has to meet isn't "without a shadow of a doubt." Their burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Well, apparently it wasn't proved "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Just educating you.

That would be a full-time job!

Easy verdict and the jury got this one right. Not only did the state not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, they really didn't prove much of anything. The jury did what the law compelled them to do, and that's find her not guilty. But that doesn't mean she's not a disgusting human being.

Saint John wrote:Easy verdict and the jury got this one right. Not only did the state not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, they really didn't prove much of anything. The jury did what the law compelled them to do, and that's find her not guilty. But that doesn't mean she's not a disgusting human being.

You're right Dan.

BTW, am I the only one who finds that pig hot in a trashy way.

She'll get hers one day.

AR wrote:

Saint John wrote:Easy verdict and the jury got this one right. Not only did the state not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, they really didn't prove much of anything. The jury did what the law compelled them to do, and that's find her not guilty. But that doesn't mean she's not a disgusting human being.

You're right Dan.

BTW, am I the only one who finds that pig hot in a trashy way.

She'll get hers one day.

She actually looks like a girl I dated off and on for 3 years awhile back. Almost down to a T. This bitch is straight up evil though. I hope I turn on the T.V one day and I see her gutted on the roadside like what was done to Nicole Brown Simpson.

Way to stay classy all you google abusers...Tuesday evening armchair lawyering.

I don't know what you peeps would do without the use of search engines....

YoungJRNY wrote:

AR wrote:

Saint John wrote:Easy verdict and the jury got this one right. Not only did the state not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, they really didn't prove much of anything. The jury did what the law compelled them to do, and that's find her not guilty. But that doesn't mean she's not a disgusting human being.

You're right Dan.

BTW, am I the only one who finds that pig hot in a trashy way.

She'll get hers one day.

She actually looks like a girl I dated off and on for 3 years awhile back. Almost down to a T. This bitch is straight up evil though. I hope I turn on the T.V one day and I see her gutted on the roadside like what was done to Nicole Brown Simpson.

Dude, my daughter looks a LOT like Caylee Anthony. With you on wishing TotMom her downfall - soon.

AR wrote:
BTW, am I the only one who finds that pig hot in a trashy way.

No, you're not the only! And being a pig, she'd be a perfect candidate for the old Donkey Punch or Strawberry Shortcake. For those unaware of the terminology :

The Donkey Punch is when your engaged in anal sex and when your about to ejaculate you punch the poor little lady in the back of the head so her anal cavity tightens making the orgasm all that more better (for you of course).

The action in which the male ejaculates on his partner's face, and then the male punches his partner's nose, which causes blood to stream forth. The semen and blood fluids create a red and white image, just like the icing and filling of a strawberry shortcake.

Caylee Anthony



My daughter



Yeah, just hits home like you wouldn't believe.

AR wrote:Caylee Anthony



My daughter



Yeah, just hits home like you wouldn't believe.

Wow! I can imagine.

Saint John wrote:Easy verdict and the jury got this one right. Not only did the state not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, they really didn't prove much of anything. The jury did what the law compelled them to do, and that's find her not guilty. But that doesn't mean she's not a disgusting human being.

I respectfully disagree.

I think the state did prove their case. I find it unfortunate that all it takes to create "reasonable doubt" is the defense creating an imaginary theory that they had NO evidence to back up. I understand it's the state's burden to prove her guilt and the defense does not have any responsiblity to prove anything, however, if you're going to stand up in opening statements and make claims of sexual abuse, accidental drowning, etc I think you better have some evidence to back it up. I think the jury really messed this one up.

I think she should be required to have her tubes tied so she can't do this again!

Saint John wrote:

AR wrote:
BTW, am I the only one who finds that pig hot in a trashy way.

No, you're not the only! And being a pig, she'd be a perfect candidate for the old Donkey Punch or Strawberry Shortcake. For those unaware of the terminology :

The Donkey Punch is when your engaged in anal sex and when your about to ejaculate you punch the poor little lady in the back of the head so her anal cavity tightens making the orgasm all that more better (for you of course).

The action in which the male ejaculates on his partner's face, and then the male punches his partner's nose, which causes blood to stream forth. The semen and blood fluids create a red and white image, just like the icing and filling of a strawberry shortcake.

I don't condone the hitting of a woman, Dan...joking or not.

Angel wrote:

Saint John wrote:Easy verdict and the jury got this one right. Not only did the state not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, they really didn't prove much of anything. The jury did what the law compelled them to do, and that's find her not guilty. But that doesn't mean she's not a disgusting human being.

I respectfully disagree.

I think the state did prove their case. I find it unfortunate that all it takes to create "reasonable doubt" is the defense creating an imaginary theory that they had NO evidence to back up. I understand it's the state's burden to prove her guilt and the defense does not have any responsiblity to prove anything, however, if you're going to stand up in opening statements and make claims of sexual abuse, accidental drowning, etc I think you better have some evidence to back it up. I think the jury really messed this one up.

I think she should be required to have her tubes tied so she can't do this again!

Exactly, on one of the counts regarding her death at the very least. And after listening to the alternate juror's interview, I have no faith in this jury if they thought like him, believing all the false claims in Baez's opening with no evidence to back it up. Shocking. Her father never would have let her sit in jail for three years if it was an accidental drowning and he knew about it, and a grandfather never would have tossed his granddaughter in a swamp. But a sociopath would, someone who could kill her daughter by accident or by design and that very night go rent a movie with her boyfriend, watch it, and have sex and be in a good mood, as her boyfriend testified.

AR wrote:

YoungJRNY wrote:

AR wrote:

Saint John wrote:Easy verdict and the jury got this one right. Not only did the state not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, they really didn't prove much of anything. The jury did what the law compelled them to do, and that's find her not guilty. But that doesn't mean she's not a disgusting human being.

You're right Dan.

BTW, am I the only one who finds that pig hot in a trashy way.

She'll get hers one day.

She actually looks like a girl I dated off and on for 3 years awhile back. Almost down to a T. This bitch is straight up evil though. I hope I turn on the T.V one day and I see her gutted on the roadside like what was done to Nicole Brown Simpson.

Dude, my daughter looks a LOT like Caylee Anthony. With you on wishing TotMom her downfall - soon.

She does! My girlfriends little cousin looks EXACTLY like her too. I've always said, "Man, Caylee looks identical to your little cousin..."

What I want to know is, is that why even take it to trial when the whole entire court knew that there was lack of evidence on the part on HOW Caylee died and that they couldn't determine a cause of death judging by human decomposition? If these bone-heads on the jury weren't going to listen to ANYTHING relevant other than having a full blown photo of Casey murdering Caylee, then what's the point? This shit was all for nothing. Big waste of time.

My daughter is only a couple months older than Caylee WOULD have been, had her mother at least afforded her the chance to reach that age. And I've found disturbing today that people honestly think that jury got ALL the counts 100% right. Like I said, I understand not being able to prove 1st degree, but not guilty of the negligence? No way. Basically saying it's perfectly fine for a toddler to be missing for 31 days before the mother bothers to say anything, let alone all the lies she told about where her child was all that time before THEN coming back and saying she was actually missing all that time. And that it's perfectly ok if a child drowns to not bother calling for help and FAILURE to REPORT a DEATH. Really people? That shit's perfectly ok??

I've lost a little more faith in the human race today.

I think people are just letting their emotions run wild and cloud their judgement here. There is nothing more tragic than the death of a child. We all, as humans, feel compelled to protect our young and mete out swift and certain justice to those who transgress. I get that. What I don't get is why people are so emotionally invested in the position that this woman MUST be guilty. Noone is saying it's okay to wait a month to report your child missing. Noone is saying it's okay to fabricate a bunch of lies to feed to the police. It's not, and for those things, she was found guilty. It was never established how the child died, so we don't know if there was an actual murder. Without knowing the cause of death, there's no way to determine if there was any child abuse or any negligence (that's not to say Tot-Mom wasn't neglectful, but that's totally different).

The uncomfortable truth is there just wasn't enough evidence to pin this one on Casey Anthony.

Jubilee wrote:I think people are just letting their emotions run wild and cloud their judgement here. There is nothing more tragic than the death of a child. We all, as humans, feel compelled to protect our young and mete out swift and certain justice to those who transgress. I get that. What I don't get is why people are so emotionally invested in the position that this woman MUST be guilty. Noone is saying it's okay to wait a month to report your child missing. Noone is saying it's okay to fabricate a bunch of lies to feed to the police. It's not, and for those things, she was found guilty. It was never established how the child died, so we don't know if there was an actual murder. Without knowing the cause of death, there's no way to determine if there was any child abuse or any negligence (that's not to say Tot-Mom wasn't neglectful, but that's totally different).

The uncomfortable truth is there just wasn't enough evidence to pin this one on Casey Anthony.

Her behavior was not that of a worried or bereft mom when her child was missing. She's out dancing and having a grand ole time. Doesn't even report her missing for more than a full month. Her abandoned car tested positive for chloroform and the trunk had maggots and the smell of "a decomposing human body". The prosecution claims the child died from suffocation, from duct tape over the nose and mouth. The defense claims she drowned. She told a long string of lies to the authorities and anyone else that questioned her.

Technically they didn't have enough evidence to put Casey Anthony taping the child's respiratory passages closed, but from the evidence I just listed, her behavior, and just a gut feeling, she's guilty as hell. If she didn't actually chloroform and duct tape the kids nose and mouth, she was there when it was done.

People's emotions will run wild in a case like this. People are emotional creatures. We get mad and upset because someone got away with the murder of a child.

Rick wrote:

Jubilee wrote:I think people are just letting their emotions run wild and cloud their judgement here. There is nothing more tragic than the death of a child. We all, as humans, feel compelled to protect our young and mete out swift and certain justice to those who transgress. I get that. What I don't get is why people are so emotionally invested in the position that this woman MUST be guilty. Noone is saying it's okay to wait a month to report your child missing. Noone is saying it's okay to fabricate a bunch of lies to feed to the police. It's not, and for those things, she was found guilty. It was never established how the child died, so we don't know if there was an actual murder. Without knowing the cause of death, there's no way to determine if there was any child abuse or any negligence (that's not to say Tot-Mom wasn't neglectful, but that's totally different).

The uncomfortable truth is there just wasn't enough evidence to pin this one on Casey Anthony.

Her behavior was not that of a worried or bereft mom when her child was missing. She's out dancing and having a grand ole time. Doesn't even report her missing for more than a full month. Her abandoned car tested positive for chloroform and the trunk had maggots and the smell of "a decomposing human body". The prosecution claims the child died from suffocation, from duct tape over the nose and mouth. The defense claims she drowned. She told a long string of lies to the authorities and anyone else that questioned her.

Technically they didn't have enough evidence to put Casey Anthony taping the child's respiratory passages closed, but from the evidence I just listed, her behavior, and just a gut feeling, she's guilty as hell. If she didn't actually chloroform and duct tape the kids nose and mouth, she was there when it was done.

People's emotions will run wild in a case like this. People are emotional creatures. We get mad and upset because someone got away with the murder of a child.

I knew there was a reason why i thought you were one of the good ones here, Rick....

Rick wrote:

Jubilee wrote:I think people are just letting their emotions run wild and cloud their judgement here. There is nothing more tragic than the death of a child. We all, as humans, feel compelled to protect our young and mete out swift and certain justice to those who transgress. I get that. What I don't get is why people are so emotionally invested in the position that this woman MUST be guilty. Noone is saying it's okay to wait a month to report your child missing. Noone is saying it's okay to fabricate a bunch of lies to feed to the police. It's not, and for those things, she was found guilty. It was never established how the child died, so we don't know if there was an actual murder. Without knowing the cause of death, there's no way to determine if there was any child abuse or any negligence (that's not to say Tot-Mom wasn't neglectful, but that's totally different).

The uncomfortable truth is there just wasn't enough evidence to pin this one on Casey Anthony.

Her behavior was not that of a worried or bereft mom when her child was missing. She's out dancing and having a grand ole time. Doesn't even report her missing for more than a full month. Her abandoned car tested positive for chloroform and the trunk had maggots and the smell of "a decomposing human body". The prosecution claims the child died from suffocation, from duct tape over the nose and mouth. The defense claims she drowned. She told a long string of lies to the authorities and anyone else that questioned her.

Technically they didn't have enough evidence to put Casey Anthony taping the child's respiratory passages closed, but from the evidence I just listed, her behavior, and just a gut feeling, she's guilty as hell. If she didn't actually chloroform and duct tape the kids nose and mouth, she was there when it was done.

People's emotions will run wild in a case like this. People are emotional creatures. We get mad and upset because someone got away with the murder of a child.

Exactly, Rick. As you pointed out-evidence that the child was murdered, chloroform, duct tape, Casey's many, many lies, her behavior while the child was "missing." Evidence that she drowned-the grandmother testifying that the ladder was left on the pool on the day she went missing-that's the ONLY evidence, however, when initiatlly asked the grandmother said the ladder was NOT left on the pool then later changed her story-and as we know she did that a few times and was proved to be lying. I think it's obvious that the family threw themselves under the bus to protect her and it disgusts me that it worked.

AR wrote:

Saint John wrote:Easy verdict and the jury got this one right. Not only did the state not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, they really didn't prove much of anything. The jury did what the law compelled them to do, and that's find her not guilty. But that doesn't mean she's not a disgusting human being.

BTW, am I the only one who finds that pig hot in a trashy way.

No, I'd do her, I bet she has one hell of nice body too. To me though, she's the one night stand type, fuck her and forget her.

Angel wrote:

Rick wrote:

Jubilee wrote:I think people are just letting their emotions run wild and cloud their judgement here. There is nothing more tragic than the death of a child. We all, as humans, feel compelled to protect our young and mete out swift and certain justice to those who transgress. I get that. What I don't get is why people are so emotionally invested in the position that this woman MUST be guilty. Noone is saying it's okay to wait a month to report your child missing. Noone is saying it's okay to fabricate a bunch of lies to feed to the police. It's not, and for those things, she was found guilty. It was never established how the child died, so we don't know if there was an actual murder. Without knowing the cause of death, there's no way to determine if there was any child abuse or any negligence (that's not to say Tot-Mom wasn't neglectful, but that's totally different).

The uncomfortable truth is there just wasn't enough evidence to pin this one on Casey Anthony.

Her behavior was not that of a worried or bereft mom when her child was missing. She's out dancing and having a grand ole time. Doesn't even report her missing for more than a full month. Her abandoned car tested positive for chloroform and the trunk had maggots and the smell of "a decomposing human body". The prosecution claims the child died from suffocation, from duct tape over the nose and mouth. The defense claims she drowned. She told a long string of lies to the authorities and anyone else that questioned her.

Technically they didn't have enough evidence to put Casey Anthony taping the child's respiratory passages closed, but from the evidence I just listed, her behavior, and just a gut feeling, she's guilty as hell. If she didn't actually chloroform and duct tape the kids nose and mouth, she was there when it was done.

People's emotions will run wild in a case like this. People are emotional creatures. We get mad and upset because someone got away with the murder of a child.

I think it's obvious that the family threw themselves under the bus to protect her and it disgusts me that it worked.

What makes it even worse for me is they still did it even when her lawyers tried to pin her death on Casey's father and accused him of molesting Casey as a child.