Casey Anthony verdicts are in

[Memorex]

Sounds like some people here were already convinced that she done it, and no other verdict would have sufficed. IMHO we've all been subject to media bias in this case, and we've bought into every bit of "evidence" propounded by the prosecution and hyped-up by the media - even if it could not be substantiated. The only thing we know for certain is that the child is dead, and the mother was an immature and irresponsible parent. Fortunately, Casey Anthony was not on trial for being a poor parent, she was on trial for her child's murder.

Neither the judge nor the jurors failed in this instance. It was the responsibility of the prosecution to prove Casey Anthony guilty. They failed. The prosecution can waive around all the dirty laundry and make all the innuendos they want to, at the end of the day, they have to prove their case. Casey Anthony didn't have a duty to prove her innocence; it was the District Attorney's office's duty to prove her guilt (does that ring a bell to anyone out there?).

This is both an obvious and ignorant statement. Of course they have to prove their case. But my God man, tell me how this child died any other way? The system does not say that you must know for certain. This has no bearing on whether or not people thought she was guilty early on. It has to do with common sense and the evidence. I would have convicted with a lot less because there simply is no other plausible explanation. If you have something that makes sense to you, please enlighten us.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with people looking at a case and deciding guilt or innocence based on that info. Nothing. Would it be wrong for us to take a vote and send her to prison - absolutely. But I can absolutely know someone is guilty with the right information - I'm not an idiot. I do believe in judging only based on legal evidence, but I as a normal guy have every right to look at anyone I meet and decide for myself what they are innocent or guilty of.

Now, THAT is an ignorant statement. You're scaring me, Memorex. Of course you're an intelligent guy, and we can all draw reasonable conclusions, IF we have all of the facts. My issue here is often times we're not getting all of the facts; we're getting media hype & sensationalism. Have you ever seen a trial being played out in the media where you felt the Defendant wasn't guilty? (yeah, me neither). The problem here is the prosecution was unable to determine a cause of death, they were unable to determine a time of death, and they were unable to tie Casey Anthony to the death of the child. So what have we got? A "feeling"? "Gee, I can't think of any other plausible explanation, so she musta done it"? That's just not good enough, especially in a murder trial.

Sigh.

[S2M]

That verdict just allowed Faux News to have plenty of free programming for the next 2 weeks...Lis Wiehl and that other mountain of make-up will have guns-a-blazing tonight at 8pm....

That judge, and that jury are pinheads.

Well I wouldn't call the judge a pinhead, he was very fair to BOTH sides through the whole case.

He looked an awful lot like Judge Ito....can I get a witness?

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

They really need to repeal the 5th amendment. She needed to take the stand. She takes the stand, she's found guilty.

You really believe in and trust the state that much that you would trade away your right against self incrimination? The state would never unfairly or unjustly charge someone with a crime ? Really. Im sure you've read the novel Anthem,?- if you notice a piece of vivid imagery where Ayn Rand points out that the prisons in the colony don't have locks on them. Why , because in a world where everyone just trusts the state blindly, they don't need to do anything else to enslave you.

You also might want to consider that it was perhaps the state of Florida which is responsible for the fact that this poor little girl has had no justice done. The prosecutors were so overbearing and hell bent on ramming through a capital murder charge that they didn't have evidence for that they didn't work to construct a a tighter more provable case on lesser charges of child neglect or perhaps aggravated manslaughter (or even 2nd degree murder). They might of got that. Thats just the arrogance of power.

[YoungJRNY]

All the legal justification arguments are all fine and dandy, but the fact is a toddler died and her mother DOES KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. Otherwise the opening arguments wouldn't have been full of the "accidental drowning" bullshit. I can understand (unfortunately, and don't WANT to) not being able to 100% prove 1st degree murder, but to find her not guilty on AT LEAST the child neglect stuff?? When she and HER LAWYERS claimed Caylee drowned and Casey just "freaked out"? Bullshit. As Dr. G pointed out, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of child drowning deaths involved EMERGENCY SERVICES BEING CALLED, and Casey FAILED to do so. Accidental drowning victims are not taken and placed in a BAG like GARBAGE, STUFFED in the TRUNK OF A CAR TO ROT, and then DUMPED like TRASH in a SWAMP. That kid didn't drown. Complete and total BULLSHIT that the jury didn't at LEAST find her guilty on that though based on that CRAP "defense", the millions of pathological lies that crazy bitch told, and all her carefree behavior when her child was supposedly "kidnapped". That jury FAILED that little girl. They FAILED her miserably. They may as well go dance on Caylee's grave, along with Casey's lawyers and hell bring Casey along to dance too, after all she loves dancing, right? So save the arguments on the jury's defense. They FAILED a beautiful little girl.

/thread!

Oh forgot the mention she was supposedly "kidnapped" for 31 days. Not finding someone guilty of child neglect when a SMALL TODDLER is MISSING for 31 F'ING DAYS and the MOTHER does NOT call for HELP for her MISSING BABY?? Not guilty of that?? Yeah, great jury Bullshit.

Mel, that's an EXCELLENT point. Fact of the matter is, is that these juror's were the perfect juror's by the BOOK. Forget the lies, forget the back-story, forget Caylee, those of the jury just dis-regarded common sense of EVERYTHING around the entire case and just went with the gut feeling of reasonable doubt. You're absolutely right Mel. Not even ONE count of child neglect? Gimmie a fuckin break people.

[S2M]

They really need to repeal the 5th amendment. She needed to take the stand. She takes the stand, she's found guilty.

You really believe in and trust the state that much that you would trade away your right against self incrimination? The state would never unfairly or unjustly charge someone with a crime ? Really. Im sure you've read the novel Anthem,?- if you notice a piece of vivid imagery where Ayn Rand points out that the prisons in the colony don't have locks on them. Why , because in a world where everyone just trusts the state blindly, they don't need to do anything else to enslave you.

You also might want to consider that it was perhaps the state of Florida which is responsible for the fact that this poor little girl has had no justice done. The prosecutors were so overbearing and hell bent on ramming through a capital murder charge that they didn't have evidence for that they didn't work to construct a a tighter more provable case on lesser charges of child neglect or perhaps aggravated manslaughter (or even 2nd degree murder). They might of got that. Thats just the arrogance of power.

Whether or not you take the stand in defense has NOTHING to do with the state laying charges on you....2 seperate issues. And i've read all of Rand's writings. Again, if you've nothing to hide, and are innocent, then you shouldn't be afraid to take the stand. Especially if you are facing Capital murder charges....not taking the stand is very conservative. It's like an NFL coach kicking the FG from the 15 and playing for OT, instead of punching the ball in for the TD win....lame.

[ebake02]

Does anybody else see a double standard here? If that was Caylee's father on trial, they couldn't stick the needle in his arm fast enough.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

]

They really need to repeal the 5th amendment. She needed to take the stand. She takes the stand, she's found guilty.

You really believe in and trust the state that much that you would trade away your right against self incrimination? The state would never unfairly or unjustly charge someone with a crime ? Really. Im sure you've read the novel Anthem,?- if you notice a piece of vivid imagery where Ayn Rand points out that the prisons in the colony don't have locks on them. Why , because in a world where everyone just trusts the state blindly, they don't need to do anything else to enslave you.

You also might want to consider that it was perhaps the state of Florida which is responsible for the fact that this poor little girl has had no justice done. The prosecutors were so overbearing and hell bent on ramming through a capital murder charge that they didn't have evidence for that they didn't work to construct a a tighter more provable case on lesser charges of child neglect or perhaps aggravated manslaughter (or even 2nd degree murder). They might of got that. Thats just the arrogance of power.

Whether or not you take the stand in defense has NOTHING to do with the state laying charges on you....2 seperate issues.

of course it does you have a right not to testify against yourself when the state brings charges against you - after all the need to take the defense stand only comes as a result of the state accusing you of a crime

And i've read all of Rand's writings.

and she would never trust any state to the extent you suggest is ok but thats a side point

Again, if you've nothing to hide, and are innocent, then you shouldn't be afraid to take the stand. Especially if you are facing Capital murder charges....

this is true only if there is no such thing as a corrupt or incompetent Sherriff (they aren't all like Andy Griffith in real life you know, power can corrupt) or incompetent juries that might get it wrong. Also by your logic we should should have no rights around privacy, criminal rights, gun rights or even free speech rights- if you aren't doing or saying anything wrong why do you need those rights? The Government always gets it right and is just after all.?

[Rick]

Does anybody else see a double standard here? If that was Caylee's father on trial, they couldn't stick the needle in his arm fast enough.

No, remember this one?

http://posttrib.suntimes.com/3976382-41 ... -case.html

[ebake02]

Does anybody else see a double standard here? If that was Caylee's father on trial, they couldn't stick the needle in his arm fast enough.

No, remember this one?

http://posttrib.suntimes.com/3976382-41 ... -case.html

Never heard about that one.

[Rick]

Does anybody else see a double standard here? If that was Caylee's father on trial, they couldn't stick the needle in his arm fast enough.

No, remember this one?

http://posttrib.suntimes.com/3976382-41 ... -case.html

Never heard about that one.

Wasn't his own child, but it's still as horrible. The prosecution bungled the case pretty good.

[S2M]

. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .“~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}…
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . ../. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._\;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, ..”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./…..\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..` ~-,
. .. `~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>–

[Jana]

I'm disgusted, absolutely disgusted, that she didn't even get a lower count regarding the child's death. And she destroyed her father to get there. Good going. She will sell her story and make a lot of money off her dead child.

And juries don't always get it right. I've seen it.

[portland]

sad.....very sad


I had a feeling that this would be the outcome of this trial there was too much room for
reasonable doubt. I think that that little girl deserved justice and she did not get it.

[S2M]

sad.....very sad


I had a feeling that this would be the outcome of this trial there was too much room for
reasonable doubt. I think that that little girl deserved justice and she did not get it.

I disagree. Where was the reasonable doubt? Just because they couldn't find the cause of death doesn't mean she didn't do it. Why lie to the cops if you didn't do it? If my kid was missing I sure as hell wouldn't wouldn't be hanging in clubs getting my schwerve on. She did it. I hope she goes clubbing, meets the wrong guy, and gets a 40 shoved up her munchbox.

[portland]

sad.....very sad


I had a feeling that this would be the outcome of this trial there was too much room for
reasonable doubt. I think that that little girl deserved justice and she did not get it.

I disagree. Where was the reasonable dooubt? Just because they couldn't find the cause of death doesn't mean she didn't do it. Why lie to the cops if you didn't do it? If my kid was missing I sure as hell wouldn't wouldn't be hanging in clubs getting my schwerve on. She did it. I hope she goes clubbing, meets the wrong guy, and gets a 40 shoved up her lunchbox.

Oh I hope she gets what she deserves...we agree on that.

[Ehwmatt]

They really need to repeal the 5th amendment. She needed to take the stand. She takes the stand, she's found guilty.

Repeal the 5th Amendment? You do realize there is more in the fifth amendment than the privilege against self-incrimination, right? You want the federal government to have the power to exercise eminent domain without having to compensate you? They already abuse that enough. You want your due process rights against the federal government to be taken away? If so, woe is the day when the US attorney comes knocking at your door on some bogus arcane criminal charge stemming from your violation of the Clean Water Act or some obscure regulation that an expert lawyer in the field didn't even know about...

These kinds of cases don't put the justice system and criminal procedural rights in the best light, but believe me, you want them there. The federal criminal law is sprawling, unknowable, and scary. Many serious, non-violent (and often victimless) federal "crimes" don't even require you to act with any kind of criminal intent. There are over 4,000 federal criminal offenses that can be found in 27,000+ pages of the United States Code. And they do charge and prosecute many of these, often against hapless regular employees, businessmen, and citizens. Trust me, you want your criminal procedural rights.

[Rick]

They really need to repeal the 5th amendment. She needed to take the stand. She takes the stand, she's found guilty.

Repeal the 5th Amendment? You do realize there is more in the fifth amendment than the privilege against self-incrimination, right? You want the federal government to have the power to exercise eminent domain without having to compensate you? They already abuse that enough. You want your due process rights against the federal government to be taken away? If so, woe is the day when the US attorney comes knocking at your door on some bogus arcane criminal charge stemming from your violation of the Clean Water Act or some obscure regulation that an expert lawyer in the field didn't even know about...

These kinds of cases don't put the justice system and criminal procedural rights in the best light, but believe me, you want them there. The federal criminal law is sprawling, unknowable, and scary. Many serious, non-violent (and often victimless) federal "crimes" don't even require you to act with any kind of criminal intent. There are over 4,000 federal criminal offenses that can be found in 27,000+ pages of the United States Code. And they do charge and prosecute many of these, often against hapless regular employees, businessmen, and citizens. Trust me, you want your criminal procedural rights.

Damn. Matt's fuckin smart!

[S2M]

They really need to repeal the 5th amendment. She needed to take the stand. She takes the stand, she's found guilty.

Repeal the 5th Amendment? You do realize there is more in the fifth amendment than the privilege against self-incrimination, right? You want the federal government to have the power to exercise eminent domain without having to compensate you? They already abuse that enough. You want your due process rights against the federal government to be taken away? If so, woe is the day when the US attorney comes knocking at your door on some bogus arcane criminal charge stemming from your violation of the Clean Water Act or some obscure regulation that an expert lawyer in the field didn't even know about...

These kinds of cases don't put the justice system and criminal procedural rights in the best light, but believe me, you want them there. The federal criminal law is sprawling, unknowable, and scary. Many serious, non-violent (and often victimless) federal "crimes" don't even require you to act with any kind of criminal intent. There are over 4,000 federal criminal offenses that can be found in 27,000+ pages of the United States Code. And they do charge and prosecute many of these, often against hapless regular employees, businessmen, and citizens. Trust me, you want your criminal procedural rights.

Nope.,...I like my Miranda rights, but feel everyone should have to testify in court. When you take the nickel you are basically saying your answer will incriminate yourself....well duh! You are guilty. Only guilty people would be afraid of incriminating themselves....

[G.I.Jim]

They really need to repeal the 5th amendment. She needed to take the stand. She takes the stand, she's found guilty.

Repeal the 5th Amendment? You do realize there is more in the fifth amendment than the privilege against self-incrimination, right? You want the federal government to have the power to exercise eminent domain without having to compensate you? They already abuse that enough. You want your due process rights against the federal government to be taken away? If so, woe is the day when the US attorney comes knocking at your door on some bogus arcane criminal charge stemming from your violation of the Clean Water Act or some obscure regulation that an expert lawyer in the field didn't even know about...

These kinds of cases don't put the justice system and criminal procedural rights in the best light, but believe me, you want them there. The federal criminal law is sprawling, unknowable, and scary. Many serious, non-violent (and often victimless) federal "crimes" don't even require you to act with any kind of criminal intent. There are over 4,000 federal criminal offenses that can be found in 27,000+ pages of the United States Code. And they do charge and prosecute many of these, often against hapless regular employees, businessmen, and citizens. Trust me, you want your criminal procedural rights.

Damn. Matt's fuckin smart!

He can't be too smart... look who he's friends with!

[ebake02]

They really need to repeal the 5th amendment. She needed to take the stand. She takes the stand, she's found guilty.

Repeal the 5th Amendment? You do realize there is more in the fifth amendment than the privilege against self-incrimination, right? You want the federal government to have the power to exercise eminent domain without having to compensate you? They already abuse that enough. You want your due process rights against the federal government to be taken away? If so, woe is the day when the US attorney comes knocking at your door on some bogus arcane criminal charge stemming from your violation of the Clean Water Act or some obscure regulation that an expert lawyer in the field didn't even know about...

These kinds of cases don't put the justice system and criminal procedural rights in the best light, but believe me, you want them there. The federal criminal law is sprawling, unknowable, and scary. Many serious, non-violent (and often victimless) federal "crimes" don't even require you to act with any kind of criminal intent. There are over 4,000 federal criminal offenses that can be found in 27,000+ pages of the United States Code. And they do charge and prosecute many of these, often against hapless regular employees, businessmen, and citizens. Trust me, you want your criminal procedural rights.

Damn. Matt's fuckin smart!

He can't be too smart... look who he's friends with!

[Rick]

They really need to repeal the 5th amendment. She needed to take the stand. She takes the stand, she's found guilty.

Repeal the 5th Amendment? You do realize there is more in the fifth amendment than the privilege against self-incrimination, right? You want the federal government to have the power to exercise eminent domain without having to compensate you? They already abuse that enough. You want your due process rights against the federal government to be taken away? If so, woe is the day when the US attorney comes knocking at your door on some bogus arcane criminal charge stemming from your violation of the Clean Water Act or some obscure regulation that an expert lawyer in the field didn't even know about...

These kinds of cases don't put the justice system and criminal procedural rights in the best light, but believe me, you want them there. The federal criminal law is sprawling, unknowable, and scary. Many serious, non-violent (and often victimless) federal "crimes" don't even require you to act with any kind of criminal intent. There are over 4,000 federal criminal offenses that can be found in 27,000+ pages of the United States Code. And they do charge and prosecute many of these, often against hapless regular employees, businessmen, and citizens. Trust me, you want your criminal procedural rights.

Damn. Matt's fuckin smart!

He can't be too smart... look who he's friends with!

He must feel like a regular Alvin Einstein on this board.

[Melissa]

She didn't testify because she knew all her lies and cover ups would be torn to shreds. Lies and cover ups that got her off, so they worked, but still would have been torn to shreds. And hey, as good a liar as she is, she obviously still couldn't come up with anything good enough to excuse why she chose to FAIL to report her toddler "missing" for 31 days, so of course she didn't want to sit up there and get drilled about that. Because even as pathological as she is, there IS NO EXCUSE for not reporting your toddler missing for 31 days. But amazingly, that in itself isn't a crime. It's an "element" only, and that's sad. I truly hope everyone who thinks the jury had a tough job doesn't ever have a monster like Casey hurt their children, and then is found not guilty.

[G.I.Jim]

They really need to repeal the 5th amendment. She needed to take the stand. She takes the stand, she's found guilty.

Repeal the 5th Amendment? You do realize there is more in the fifth amendment than the privilege against self-incrimination, right? You want the federal government to have the power to exercise eminent domain without having to compensate you? They already abuse that enough. You want your due process rights against the federal government to be taken away? If so, woe is the day when the US attorney comes knocking at your door on some bogus arcane criminal charge stemming from your violation of the Clean Water Act or some obscure regulation that an expert lawyer in the field didn't even know about...

These kinds of cases don't put the justice system and criminal procedural rights in the best light, but believe me, you want them there. The federal criminal law is sprawling, unknowable, and scary. Many serious, non-violent (and often victimless) federal "crimes" don't even require you to act with any kind of criminal intent. There are over 4,000 federal criminal offenses that can be found in 27,000+ pages of the United States Code. And they do charge and prosecute many of these, often against hapless regular employees, businessmen, and citizens. Trust me, you want your criminal procedural rights.

Damn. Matt's fuckin smart!

He can't be too smart... look who he's friends with!

He must feel like a regular Alvin Einstein on this board.

[portland]

She didn't testify because she knew all her lies and cover ups would be torn to shreds. Lies and cover ups that got her off, so they worked, but still would have been torn to shreds. And hey, as good a liar as she is, she obviously still couldn't come up with anything good enough to excuse why she chose to FAIL to report her toddler "missing" for 31 days, so of course she didn't want to sit up there and get drilled about that. Because even as pathological as she is, there IS NO EXCUSE for not reporting your toddler missing for 31 days. But amazingly, that in itself isn't a crime. It's an "element" only, and that's sad. I truly hope everyone who thinks the jury had a tough job doesn't ever have a monster like Casey hurt their children, and then is found not guilty.

Totally Agree...it's amazing what people can get away with.

[Babyblue]

They really need to repeal the 5th amendment. She needed to take the stand. She takes the stand, she's found guilty.

Repeal the 5th Amendment? You do realize there is more in the fifth amendment than the privilege against self-incrimination, right? You want the federal government to have the power to exercise eminent domain without having to compensate you? They already abuse that enough. You want your due process rights against the federal government to be taken away? If so, woe is the day when the US attorney comes knocking at your door on some bogus arcane criminal charge stemming from your violation of the Clean Water Act or some obscure regulation that an expert lawyer in the field didn't even know about...

These kinds of cases don't put the justice system and criminal procedural rights in the best light, but believe me, you want them there. The federal criminal law is sprawling, unknowable, and scary. Many serious, non-violent (and often victimless) federal "crimes" don't even require you to act with any kind of criminal intent. There are over 4,000 federal criminal offenses that can be found in 27,000+ pages of the United States Code. And they do charge and prosecute many of these, often against hapless regular employees, businessmen, and citizens. Trust me, you want your criminal procedural rights.

Damn. Matt's fuckin smart!

He can't be too smart... look who he's friends with!

He must feel like a regular Alvin Einstein on this board.

[Babyblue]

She didn't testify because she knew all her lies and cover ups would be torn to shreds. Lies and cover ups that got her off, so they worked, but still would have been torn to shreds. And hey, as good a liar as she is, she obviously still couldn't come up with anything good enough to excuse why she chose to FAIL to report her toddler "missing" for 31 days, so of course she didn't want to sit up there and get drilled about that. Because even as pathological as she is, there IS NO EXCUSE for not reporting your toddler missing for 31 days. But amazingly, that in itself isn't a crime. It's an "element" only, and that's sad. I truly hope everyone who thinks the jury had a tough job doesn't ever have a monster like Casey hurt their children, and then is found not guilty.

Totally Agree...it's amazing what people can get away with.

Well its just another OJ case all over again.But you know she has to meet her maker one day.

[Babyblue]

BITCH

I'm with YoungJRNY on this one. What a joke. She'll be in the pen, what, a year when it's all said and done? Big deal. My tax $ will pay for her vacation there, too, as it's been paying for her to live life knowing she killer her beautiful daughter. Then, once she's out, she'll be clubbing it up, maybe consider doing Playboy or maybe some reality show.

Yesterday while driving I saw about 8-10 cars pulled over on the highway for speeding. Let's see...it's not OK to go over the speed limit, but it's OK to kill someone. Nice.

I'm not sure she will spend any time in the pen. I think she gets credited "time already served" towards whatever sentencing they hand down.

Yep. She already served her 3 years getting ready for this case to even be put through the trialling system. She'll be walking within a month. She will be treated no differently than Lindsey Lohan at this point. I'll be sick about this for a little while as she will just fade into the sun-set and be forgotten about like any other criminal with a slap on their wrist while actual innocents that are wrongfully accused are sitting in their jail cells as we speak. Truly nauseating.

I agree with you but i bet she is out on Thru.

[Red13JoePa]

"Meeting her maker" and "karma" just ain't fucking good enough.

Lynch mob justice.

[SteveForever]

and...the jurors don't wanna talk, wonder why? under Jedi mind tricks obviously!

I wouldn't expect them to talk - obviously their verdict is not approved of by most, and they have to think about their own safety. I wouldn't be talking either.

Frankly I'm always surprised when any juror does talk after long case like that, regardless of the verdict they handed down. When I did it, I came out of the elevator bank into the lobby of the Dirksen Federal Building (same place the Blagojevich drama went down last week) and there were media everywhere (it wasn't the biggest case, but around here it was definitely getting news). In this case though, we did give the verdict that "the people" wanted. And man, they descended on us like nothing I've experienced before... and when they tried to get me for comment, I just wanted no part of it. I and the others did what we did and that was it, and I didn't care to have my name and face all over the news for it. Only one of us 12 gave them a comment and later that night he was on the news. After such a long, tiring deal, you just don't want that in your face the minute you come out of there.

I agree with you, its just that the whole world was watching this case and there seemed to be total injustice=we all wanted some reason try and understand. Of course they are not going to talk=unless its for money later.

[Melissa]

Oh and as for the question where's the outrage over all the other cases of children being hurt, murdered, etc, of course there is outrage for those cases too, I've seen abuse cases at work, cases that would disgust the hell out of people, but are they public knowledge?? No. This one was plastered all over for everyone to see, so it's just common sense that should tell you that's why there is so much public outcry.