I am shocked and sad.

ML. (aka Cathy)

I saw the news when I went home for lunch. It sort of reminded me when O.J. was acquitted.

Lars

Just very disappointing! I think the jury just wanted to go home--they gave their verdict exactly 24 hr. after the case went to them.

I don't know how the jury came to their decision, but I would like to think that going home wasn't one of the deciding factors.

What a sad reflection that would be on the American justice system.

Ann

It would not reflect on the American justice system. Any jury system, anywhere, has that possibility. Still, English law for a thousand years has thought that ordinary citizens are the ones to determine facts. Our law derives from it.
Anyway, we have no reason to think wanting to go home was a reason, horrible as the verdict is. There was no solid proof that she is guilty. Except that it's obvious to us all that she is. But the law requires the prosecution to establish guilt. They did not have hard evidence.

I am stunned. I thought this was an open and closed case if there ever was one. I guess the jury couldn't get beyond the "shadow of a doubt" part. I wonder if we will ever know the true story.

Too bad Caylee doesn't have a Goldman family to hound Casey until her dying day, like OJ. He sickens me.

Porch lights on for Caylee tonight at 9 pm.

I'm sorry but I think this is just another example of exploiting the justice system for public entertainment.

I think that if this case had been tried outside of the public spotlight it may have had a different outcome.

Too much money to be made on this type of case by all involved...book sales, National Enquirer, lets see how many stories are sold and books pushed.

Just makes me want to take a shower...

Rest in peace little Caylee, hopefully someday justice will be served.

Although all evidence was circumstantial, Casey Anthony lied about nearly everything, I think she was one of the least credible witnesses ever.

It was apparently not enough to convince the jury, no matter their reasons.

The American justice system is based on the premise that it is better for 100 guilty persons to go free than for one innocent person be convicted, so the proofs must be pretty large for guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Sharon/chase, I do agree with you, though, I think the media circus is disgusting and I can't imagine why people are so enthralled with the "actors" in such cases. Then again, I don't understand the allure of "reality TV" either,

Although the jury didn't convict of murder, we'll see how hard she gets hit for obstruction of justice, I suppose.

Annie

Casey will probably walk away a free woman on Thursday. If I were her, I'd be very afraid. Her life is ruined even though there was a not guilty verdict.

She was guilty! They just needed more proof. Poor Caylee.

Nancy

I think Casey will go on to benefit financially from this based on the public's obsession with bad behavior.

Annie, I'm with you on the reality thing-can't take it!

Okay, my dirty little secret is I occasionally watch Hoarders! It's beyond my comprehension.

The media hype had nothing to do with the verdict. The jury was sequestered for the 8 weeks or so of the trial...no papers no TV no news no talk with anyone. They didn't know the kind of media frenzy this was.

The prosecution had no proof that she had willfully killed Caylee, but IMHO they did have proof that she was negligent and probably could have had a conviction for that....but they chose murder.
Casey's without a concience...a crazy person....
I am reminded of the Jon Benet Ramsey case.....a little girl dead....but no one did it!
Linda c

Remember that a "not guilty" verdict is not the same as "innocent."

Our standard is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," based upon the reliable and credible evidence. That's a good thing, even though it may lead to acquittals we don't like.

It's true that it leads to unsatisfying results when "everyone knows" (and we don't; we are only going on what we saw in news reports, and I can tell you from experience they are usually very incomplete and inaccurate) that the defendant "did it."

But our hunch or even fairly confident conclusion that the defendant did it is not the same as proof beyond a reasonable doubt that s/he did -- and that's assuming that it was what the person was charged with, not something else.

I think if you think about it, you will be glad that we have a justice system that doesn't throw people into prison -- or worse -- on a lesser standard of proof, on evidence of some lesser offense, on the basis that they are sleazy people, because the victim is sweet and innocent, or even because the crime itself is so horrifying that we want to see SOMEONE convicted.

There are plenty of countries where all of that is standard procedure (check out their relative crime rates to see whether it even works to reduce crime). I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to live in them.

WELL said Gellchom.

I think our system needs to be vastly improved, and I don't care what anyone else is doing in other countries. There are plenty of places that are doing a better job than we are, and that's what we should compare ourselves to instead of those that are worse.

There was an excellent essay by Frank Bruni in the NYT op-ed on this. I strongly recommend it.

Here is a link that might be useful: Bruni essay