Casey Anthony Verdict

[BuSyDaZe]

Is any one else as appalled with the verdict as I am? I'm just in utter shock and disbelief of the justice system 😱 What justice does little Caylee get? 😕It makes absolutely no sense to me. What are your thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[FiremedicMike]

I think its a sign of the times. No one cares about rules or "what's right", the only thing that matters anymore is technicalities, what angle can we use to get away with things. It's absurd to me that a defense attorney can grandstand, point out flaws in prosecution, and get someone acquitted based on procedural issues, and it happens daily at all levels of crime.


As I said, sign of the times.

 

[danzman]

Is any one else as appalled with the verdict as I am? I'm just in utter shock and disbelief of the justice system 😱 What justice does little Caylee get? 😕It makes absolutely no sense to me. What are your thoughts?

I am always surprised by the "we want justice" stance of our society. The little girl is dead and no outcome can change this. And while her death was tragic, the real reason we have become so enamored with this trial is our own irrational lust for blood. We want to see this evil woman strung up on a hook and left for dead, 'been doing this forever and I suppose nothing will change it. Still, the jury that was mostly women must have seen something that made them second guess her guilt.

 

[BuSyDaZe]

I think its a sign of the times. No one cares about rules or "what's right", the only thing that matters anymore is technicalities, what angle can we use to get away with things. It's absurd to me that a defense attorney can grandstand, point out flaws in prosecution, and get someone acquitted based on procedural issues, and it happens daily at all levels of crime.


As I said, sign of the times.

Very True

 

[BuSyDaZe]

I am always surprised by the "we want justice" stance of our society. The little girl is dead and no outcome can change this. And while her death was tragic, the real reason we have become so enamored with this trial is our own irrational lust for blood. We want to see this evil woman strung up on a hook and left for dead, 'been doing this forever and I suppose nothing will change it. Still, the jury that was mostly women must have seen something that made them second guess her guilt.

You are quite wrong if you think that my utter disbelief is simply based on the fact that Casey Anthony escaped the death penalty. Despite my disgust for the juries decision, my views on the death penalty are quite different from what you may assume. I just feel that justice was not served for this BABY girl. This woman will more than likely walk away a free woman, with little to no ramifications for her part in her daughter's death. I am very well aware that there is nothing anyone can do from here on out that will bring little Caylee back, but it stills does not make the decision of this verdict ok.

 

[FiremedicMike]

I am always surprised by the "we want justice" stance of our society. The little girl is dead and no outcome can change this. And while her death was tragic, the real reason we have become so enamored with this trial is our own irrational lust for blood. We want to see this evil woman strung up on a hook and left for dead, 'been doing this forever and I suppose nothing will change it. Still, the jury that was mostly women must have seen something that made them second guess her guilt.

I'm actually against the death penalty, but that's an entirely different argument. I don't want to see her strung up, but I do feel she is guilty. A day before she told the cops her baby was missing, she got a ratio that said "beautiful life", and her behavior during that month, really?

 

[danzman]

You are quite wrong if you think that my utter disbelief is simply based on the fact that Casey Anthony escaped the death penalty. Despite my disgust for the juries decision, my views on the death penalty are quite different from what you may assume. I just feel that justice was not served for this BABY girl. This woman will more than likely walk away a free woman, with little to no ramifications for her part in her daughter's death. I am very well aware that there is nothing anyone can do from here on out that will bring little Caylee back, but it stills does not make the decision of this verdict ok.

Dont get me wrong, she is absolutely nuts and certainly fits the bill for having some psychiatric conditions. And what I was talking about was not per say the death penalty but rather how we love a good show. America turned in by the millions to watch this nonsense and we got sucked into it because a woman killed her daughter. I dont know the specifics of this case but your bolded comment above is what I am talking about. Who gives a damn about justice for a dead person? We get so caught up in the emotions of the story. I feel sorry for her parents who had to go through all the "child abuse" bashing but I feel nothing for a dead child. It is a sad story and I wish there was a way to bring a dead little girl back, but there isn't. The world would probably be a better place if she was not in it for a number of reasons, but I stand by my statement, the jury of mostly women must have seen something in there that changed their minds.

 

[BuSyDaZe]

Dont get me wrong, she is absolutely nuts and certainly fits the bill for having some psychiatric conditions. And what I was talking about was not per say the death penalty but rather how we love a good show. America turned in by the millions to watch this nonsense and we got sucked into it because a woman killed her daughter. I dont know the specifics of this case but your bolded comment above is what I am talking about. Who gives a damn about justice for a dead person? We get so caught up in the emotions of the story. I feel sorry for her parents who had to go through all the "child abuse" bashing but I feel nothing for a dead child. It is a sad story and I wish there was a way to bring a dead little girl back, but there isn't. The world would probably be a better place if she was not in it for a number of reasons, but I stand by my statement, the jury of mostly women must have seen something in there that changed their minds.

Maybe it's me (as a mother of three young children), but I give a D*MN about justice for any child. It's not just simply because of the publicity of this case, but maybe more due to the mother in me.😍

You stand by your opinion and I respect that, but I also stand by mine.....

 

[danzman]

Maybe it's me (as a mother of three young children), but I give a DAMN about justice for any child. It's not just simply because of the publicity of this case, but maybe because of the mother in me.😍

You stand by your opinion and I respect that, but I also stand by mine.....

But certainly you must see that your stance is somewhat biased because of how important your children are to you? I don't have kids and thus cannot feel whatever empathy that you have towards a dead child, still I hate to see anyone murdered. Your emotional connection with your children causes you to see one of them in that dead childs place and thus be angered. This is all part of being human and probably a part of being a mother. In as such, it is simply not possible for you to give a "fair" view of this woman without all the details. Again, all we get is this crappy news coverage with a thousand "experts."

For all I know she did it, hell look at the OJ trial and you can see how a jury can get it wrong. But its really fascinating to me how we latch on to the emotional content of this kind of stuff. Dr. Drew talked about this on a podcast and what very insightful about it. One thing is he said was that throughout history people have always loved a good show. He talked about the public executions and trials and noted that the overwhelming audiences were women. I cant help but wonder if the emotional connection that you have with your children and thus your views on this trial, are at its core the same thing that brought women into the streets to see a rapist hanged.

Either way it is an interesting discussion.

 

[Isoprop]

I'm prob the only one who agrees with the verdict.

 

[BuSyDaZe]

But certainly you must see that your stance is somewhat biased because of how important your children are to you? I don't have kids and thus cannot feel whatever empathy that you have towards a dead child, still I hate to see anyone murdered. Your emotional connection with your children causes you to see one of them in that dead childs place and thus be angered. This is all part of being human and probably a part of being a mother. In as such, it is simply not possible for you to give a "fair" view of this woman without all the details. Again, all we get is this crappy news coverage with a thousand "experts."

For all I know she did it, hell look at the OJ trial and you can see how a jury can get it wrong. But its really fascinating to me how we latch on to the emotional content of this kind of stuff. Dr. Drew talked about this on a podcast and what very insightful about it. One thing is he said was that throughout history people have always loved a good show. He talked about the public executions and trials and noted that the overwhelming audiences were women. I cant help but wonder if the emotional connection that you have with your children and thus your views on this trial, are at its core the same thing that brought women into the streets to see a rapist hanged.

Either way it is an interesting discussion.

I do certainly understand your view. Me being a parent may as well put me at a biased standpoint.This case in particular is no different from all the young children being mistreated, abused, and/or tragically killed everyday. Her case just serves as an example of the problems we face in our justice system.

 

[BuSyDaZe]

I'm prob the only one who agrees with the verdict.

Would you care to give your opinion why? Besides the lack of physical evidence, I'm just curious to hear other's view on the matter.

 

[Sed8&Intub8]

Oh man, the verdict was sad in my opinion. I don't think she is innocent. Buuuut, there were too many factors and it is not clear what exactly happened, or who did what. They have to hear all the evidence, and you have to be able to prove she is guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. The poor baby was killed, someone did it, very likely it was her or she was involved, but they can not hand out a guilty verdict without being able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. There was reasonable doubt, hence, she was not given a guilty verdict...

 

[jsp132]

pretty sad.........seems like you can get with anything these days

despite the holes in her story she still seemingly got off with minimal to no punishment

even though my daughter went "missing" for a month I decided to party it up and make up an excuse saying my dad molested me..........

oh and my daughter accidentally drowned in the pool.....but yet her body was found in the woods........doesn't add up at all

Anyway RIP to the little girl.......

 

[muhali3]

There's no evidence that can 100% link her to it. But the evidence is so clear to me that...even if she didn't do it herself, she was definitely involved in some way.

I definitely feel that she's guilty and I'm very convinced of this feeling. But on a logical level, there is not enough to say that she's guilty. I'm sure the jury is still very suspicious of her involvement, but on a logical level, I don't think they had enough evidence/testimony to come to the conclusion that "yes...she killed her daughter." And that's why I think the verdict came out as it did.

 

[ejw5075]

Maybe it's me (as a mother of three young children), but I give a D*MN about justice for any child. It's not just simply because of the publicity of this case, but maybe more due to the mother in me.😍

You stand by your opinion and I respect that, but I also stand by mine.....

Even more frightening than her getting off is the thought of what will happen to her next child (if she has any).

 

[Journey2become]

I have always stood by the decision that it is better to let a guilty person go free than a innocent person go to jail. Personally the latter is what really appalls me!
Her lawyer either had a genius fabricated defense or it is what really happened. Most likely the truth is muddled somewhere in between the evidence. The defense only makes sense if Casey really did live through a lifetime of abuse – learning to ignore and compartmentalize different aspect of her life. Kind of like an exaggerated version of people that do not want to deal with bills so they don't open their mail – it's still there, and it's not going away but they refuse to deal with it. People can grieve in different ways, denial is one of them – not the most common, but I've seen it.
I too want justice for Caylee, and if Casey's story is true then her father needs to be prosecuted for sexual abuse. If Casey story is false – that horrible that someone that deserved to go to jail is free. Worse yet would be to send an innocent person to jail.
As a scientist I have already started thinking along the lines of evidence based belief (good thing too!). The prosecution needed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey killed her daughter. There was still reasonable doubt.
I will say one thing about the jurors though – I'm glad I'm not one of them because they will be getting a lot a grief about this.

 

[muhali3]

I have always stood by the decision that it is better to let a guilty person go free than a innocent person go to jail. Personally the latter is what really appalls me!

this is my philosophy as well.

 

[DocDanny]

I'm prob the only one who agrees with the verdict.

I also do, for the most part.

There wasn't really enough evidence to convict her of murder. No DNA, no witnesses, no (real) motive. We don't know how Caylee died, or when, or where, or why.

She's absolutely insane, a probable psychopath, AND SHE PROBABLY DID IT, but you couldn't convict her.

 

[Kphrogg]

I think its a sign of the times. No one cares about rules or "what's right", the only thing that matters anymore is technicalities, what angle can we use to get away with things.

Spoken like someone with little understanding of the justice system. When you complain about "technicalities," you are complaining about constitutional rights. The phrase "got off on a technicality" is code for "the government failed to successfully violate the defendant's constitutional rights."

It's absurd to me that a defense attorney can grandstand, point out flaws in prosecution, and get someone acquitted based on procedural issues, and it happens daily at all levels of crime.

So, your stance is that the prosecution should not have to prove its case? It should just be able to accuse and imprison someone without proof beyond a reasonable doubt? You are one scary man.

 

[Nasrudin]

I have always stood by the decision that it is better to let a guilty person go free than a innocent person go to jail. Personally the latter is what really appalls me!
Her lawyer either had a genius fabricated defense or it is what really happened. Most likely the truth is muddled somewhere in between the evidence. The defense only makes sense if Casey really did live through a lifetime of abuse – learning to ignore and compartmentalize different aspect of her life. Kind of like an exaggerated version of people that do not want to deal with bills so they don't open their mail – it's still there, and it's not going away but they refuse to deal with it. People can grieve in different ways, denial is one of them – not the most common, but I've seen it.
I too want justice for Caylee, and if Casey's story is true then her father needs to be prosecuted for sexual abuse. If Casey story is false – that horrible that someone that deserved to go to jail is free. Worse yet would be to send an innocent person to jail.
As a scientist I have already started thinking along the lines of evidence based belief (good thing too!). The prosecution needed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey killed her daughter. There was still reasonable doubt.
I will say one thing about the jurors though – I'm glad I'm not one of them because they will be getting a lot a grief about this.

I agree. The justice system is corrupt. You get the justice you can afford more often than is comfortable for any free and thinking person.

So OJ or the mother in this case walk etc. The LAPD was a bigger problem. The visceral effect of these things getting overblown in the media has an emotive distortive effect.

I can remember watching some trashy rednecks harassing the parents for weeks for god knows what spark of thought that synapses in those dull heads. If there were such a thing as pure justice. Those meddling *****s would be shot. So that the average IQ of Florida might jump a point or two.

 

[Kphrogg]

I just feel that justice was not served for this BABY girl. This woman will more than likely walk away a free woman, with little to no ramifications for her part in her daughter's death.

Our justice system is not about the victim. It is about (a) giving society a chance to determine whether punishment is necessary; (b) mete out punishment if it is deserved; and (c) deter the defendant and others from committing similar crimes in the future. Whether justice is served for the victim is irrelevant and, if anything, is harmful to the process because it distracts from rational decision making.

As for their being no ramifications, the jury--the only people to hear all of the facts in the case, measure the honesty of witnesses, and see all of the evidence--determined that their was insufficient evidence for a conviction. Therefore, what ramifications do you think a potentially innocent person should suffer for a crime that may not have occurred? If she did not cause her daughter's death, do you think she should still be sent to prison? If so, why?

 

[Nasrudin]

Spoken like someone with little understanding of the justice system. When you complain about "technicalities," you are complaining about constitutional rights. The phrase "got off on a technicality" is code for "the government failed to successfully violate the defendant's constitutional rights."



So, your stance is that the prosecution should not have to prove its case? It should just be able to accuse and imprison someone without proof beyond a reasonable doubt? You are one scary man.

I agree. And love the avatar.

 

[Kphrogg]

I'm prob the only one who agrees with the verdict.

No, I agree with it. Of course, if she had been found guilty, I still would have agreed with it.

 

[FiremedicMike]

Spoken like someone with little understanding of the justice system. When you complain about "technicalities," you are complaining about constitutional rights. The phrase "got off on a technicality" is code for "the government failed to successfully violate the defendant's constitutional rights."



So, your stance is that the prosecution should not have to prove its case? It should just be able to accuse and imprison someone without proof beyond a reasonable doubt? You are one scary man.

Don't assume you know me or my knowledge of the justice system.

People spin the constitution on a perpetual basis to fit their needs, and that is what I'm talking about. This trial will go down in history just like the OJ trial, where ultra-high paid defense attorneys use wonderful literary magic to plant as many seeds of doubt into the juries mind as possible, to confuse and belittle them, and to create "reasonable doubt".

Add that to the "CSI effect", where jurors expect unrealistic intricate DNA evidence, and the justice system has become completely broken and dependent on which side can pay more money. The preponderance of evidence in this case and the totality of circumstances that were presented were staggering.

So take your attempt at condescension elsewhere, because everyone realizes by now that the constitution has nothing to do with the legal system at this level, hell it barely applies at the petty crime level anymore.

 

[Kphrogg]

And love the avatar.

Thanks. 🙂

 

[Journey2become]

No, I agree with it. Of course, if she had been found guilty, I still would have agreed with it.

I think no matter which way the verdict had gone I would have found it unsettling. Of course that might just have to do with the unsettling nature of the case.
I think even people that would have been happy with a guilty verdict would have found that the victory feels kind of empty since it can't bring Caylee back. Then again - maybe not.

 

[yaah]

Closing as this is off topic. There are threads on this subject in the lounge area and probably elsewhere.