Strange- NancyBess thread didn't pop up when I first came on here. Sorry for the double post!

Looks like we posted at the same time. To me, this was unexpected! I'm shocked- I guess the jury decided that there was a "reasonable doubt" that she did it.

I'm not exactly surprised. I haven't been following it too closely, but watch enough CNN to have heard that there was little to no physical evidence directly tying Casey to the murder. It was almost all circumstantial. So while the jury may have believed that she was guilty, the evidence did not allow them to make that judgement beyond a reasonable doubt.

Even when there's plenty of evidence (OJ ring a bell?) juries acquit.

This contrasts with a book I just finished on a 1955 case where the defendant was found guilty and sent to the gas chamber on the basis of circumstantial evidence. At this time there was no Miranda warning, the Discovery process was different, information could be held from one side of the case and surprise witnesses were allowed.Forensics were crude at best. A stay of execution came a minute too late since they had dropped the pellets and started the execution. There is no way the man in the story would have been executed in today's atmosphere.

I think the pendulum has swung rather far in the opposite direction--I am surprised that she was acquitted on the lesser counts. However, my own personal belief would prevent me from being impaneled on a jury where we may have to invoke the death penalty. I wonder if juries are less likely to convict in cases where the death penalty may be invoked. I know this is supposed to be sorted out in the voir dire stage, but I still wonder if deep down it plays a part in how "reasonable doubt" is interpreted...

I'm shocked at the verdict. Even if she didn't kill her daughter, and I believe she did, then she conspired to hide the facts of the death. She got away with murder.

At a minimum, I expected a hung jury. It is hard to understand how they all came to that conclusion and so quickly.

Experts had long said that it was a difficult case because of the lack of evidence. But it is incomprehensible to me that the jury could all look at her behavior and lies during the 30 days that her child was missing and not view it as evidence of guilt. You don't not look for your missing child, no matter how screwed up you are.

The prosecutor was unlikeable - smirking behind his hand and the water bottle in his hand while giving his closing statements.

You wonder what will happen to Casey's life from here on. Will her parents take her back in? Will her old friends abandon her? Will anyone hire her? I imagine a downward spiral for her life.

I hope Karma is truely a "witch". I agree with Pal. I had jury duty on the first day of jury selection for the steven hayes trial( Ct Home invasion case where three family members were killed.) I stated that I could not handle being responsible for the penalty phase of the case if Capitol murder was the verdict and I, like the hunderds of other protential juriors, was dismissed. Maybe florida does selection differently but it should be filtered thru before the case. I do think the DA lacked enough evidence and maybe they should have waited to go to trial.

But it is incomprehensible to me that the jury could all look at her behavior and lies during the 30 days that her child was missing and not view it as evidence of guilt.

But I don't believe that here behaviour, reprehensible as it was, was incontrovertible evidence of her guilt.

I agree with Terriks. Obviously, Casey's behavior was terrible and baffling, but it didn't provide tangible evidence of her guilt. There are so many cases now where DNA has proven the person behind bars is innocent yet the police had "declared" their behavior as abnormal, reprehensible or just plain weird and they were largely convicted on that behavior. The way people are profiled now they're screwed if they don't fit the mold perfectly and opinions from the police seem to change depending on the circumstances. When someone doesn't show emotion to their satisfaction, they must be guilty or when someone else shows too much emotion for their liking, they are faking it.

I haven't followed the trial very much because I hate how the media turns these things into a freaking circus, but I can't help but feel that there must have been something that lead the jury to believe they could not convict. I also don't believe this case is in any way comparable to the OJ Simpson case. To me that's like comparing apples with oranges.

But I don't believe that her behaviour, reprehensible as it was, was incontrovertible evidence of her guilt.

The legal standard is not as high as incontrovertible evidence (not able to be denied or disputed). The legal standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Caylee was found dead and there is no reasonable explanation for what happened to her other than her mother killing her. If Casey had not killed her, Casey would have behaved in a different manner. So from my perspective, her behavior is evidence of guilt.

But the prosecutors have to prove "guilt" beyond a reasonable doubt, the defense does NOT have to prove "innocence" beyond a reasonable doubt. There are plenty of people who have been, in retrospect proven innocent who acted guilty as all get out, or in other ways really objectionable-- during their case, and vice versa.

I am not saying I agree with the verdict, just that I can see how it happened.

I also don't believe this case is in any way comparable to the OJ Simpson case. To me that's like comparing apples with oranges.

Lukk, if your comment was directed at me then re-read what I wrote. In no way was I comparing the two trials.

Even when there's plenty of evidence (OJ ring a bell?) juries acquit.

Evidence of a crime can take many forms, including what you do and say and what you don't do and don't say if it relates directly to the crime. So participating in a hot body contest is not evidence of this crime. But not looking for your own missing child and lying about the child being missing are, to me, evidence.

If she didn't kill her child, I believe that she knows who did. Would she really throw her body in the woods so close to her home? It's possible I think that she did (irresponsibly) leave Caylee with someone who did kill her and dump her body.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence, and an accumulation of circumstntial evidence is often used to convict.

In this particular case, my theory is that suggested on CNN: Casey Anthony used the duct tape/chlorophyll to restrain her daughter while she went out and partied, and an accidental death resulted. Was her father involved after the fact? Perhaps.

Here is a link that might be useful: Definition of circumstantial evidence

No Natel, I'm not responding to your comment...I read both threads and responded to someone else's reference to it in the other thread here by mistake.

Casey Anthony is a horrid person. Her entire family is massively disfunctional. I hope she never has another child in her care. EVER.

Definitely believe that if the prosecution did not make this a capital case, she may very have been found guilty. Also, when you put a case into the hands of a jury, it is anyone's guess what they will come back with.

I was mildly shocked yesterday, but I know the jury had at least 2 jurors who stated in voir dire that they would have trouble assigning the death penalty. The prosecution asked for them to be striken and the judge rehabilitated them and they sat.

Also, one alternate juror has told the media that he would have come back with the same verdict if he had actually been actively deliberating.

I've not followed the trial unless I happened to catch some video online, but have been reading CNN updates here & there. Someone mentioned something about her making money. Last night I stopped on Nancy Grace while surfing. (The woman drives me a little nuts with her high drama/alarmist presentation, but they were addressing the money topic.) One guest (a woman, & attorney, IIRC) said there is so much public bitterness and anger over the verdict, the behavior, accusations, all of it, that there would be little public support by giving C.A. money through buying a book, etc. She also suggested finding a sponsor for a TV movie would be almost impossible. Any corporation choosing to sponsor a movie & air commercials would probably be viewed as a pariah by consumers. This morning that tide seems to be changing. In an article on CNN, one of the defense team said people like the prosecutors in OJ's case wrote books and made $, 'so why isn't C.A. entitled to do the same'? There was also mention, I think by Nancy Grace, of C.A. standing to make around a million $ off this. (I'd link to references but CNN isn't loading properly at the moment.)

I have my own thoughts as to her guilt or innocence, but regardless of the verdict, imho any mother who would try to profit off the murder of her child is one messed up head case (tho that's not in question here, anyway).

And since I haven't followed closely, is anyone, C.A. or her family, vowing to find the "real killer", ala OJ? (We all know how much effort was put into that.) Also as with OJ, I was just wondering if a civil suit could be filed? Or perhaps the better question is not could a suit be filed, but in this case, who would file it on behalf of Caylee?

In this particular case, my theory is that suggested on CNN: Casey Anthony used the duct tape/chlorophyll to restrain her daughter while she went out and partied, and an accidental death resulted.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that she had used chloroform (not chlorophyll) on previous occasions when partying, but used too much on this occasion. The duct tape may have been placed later, to make it look like some kind of stranger abudction/murder.

Terriks, that makes the most sense to me. Of course, we will never know.

She obviously has some kind of severe mental disorder. The whole family seems terribly dysfunctional! Do you all think she's a sociopath- has no conscience? Or does she feel guilty (for her awful behavior, even if she didn't murder her)?

And what about that mom!

From what I heard, I believe Casey *did* kill her daughter.

But I've also sadly got to acknowledge that the prosecution could not really prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. There were just too many unanswered questions... How did Caylee die? It's kind of hard to convict someone of murder when it can't be proven that the person was murdered...

Sure, I think Casey did it. Nothing else really makes any sense. But did the state 'prove it beyond a reasonable doubt'? I dunno...

I am of the same opinion as Terriks, that this time the cholorform was too much and she returned from partying that night to find Caylee dead. She then disposed of the body in a manner consistent with what they'd done with pets that had died (wrapped in plastic & duct tape). I have heard that the duct tape was not necessarily on the babies mouth.

As to the verdict, I knew all along they'd never convict on 1st degree murder, but I thought they might convict on manslaughter. The primary difference being that 1st degree is premeditated, thus eligible for a capital offense, while manslaughter is accidental (with a degree of malice) and not a capital offense.

I was once a juror on a rape/murder trial. It was horrific and it made me sick serving on that trial. The defendant was as guilty as could be...you just KNEW he did the crime, but when it came time to deliberate, we initially found him not guilty. Why? Because the prosecution did not prove beyond REASONABLE doubt he did the murder. We were all just sick about it, we wanted so badly to find him guilty, but there was a small amount of reasonable doubt. The case was all circumstantial (this was before DNA), and relied heavily on blood spots found in the car. But the blood type was that of the victim, and the defendants brother, also. Reasonable doubt. A witness for the prosecution was an inmate who was promised a shortened sentence for testifying. Again, reasonable doubt was raised.

It wasn't until I remembered something in the testimony that didn't make sense to me, so we reviewed the transcripts and when that was compiled with the rest of the circumstantial evidence, we found him guilty of 1st degree murder. He had choked the victim, then slit her throat...had he just choked her it would have been 2nd degree, but by cutting her throat, it made it pre-meditated in our minds. In this case they did not seek the death penalty, but did sentence him to life in prison.

So, I guess I can see why the jury found the way they did. They're probably all heartsick about it, but it is THE most tremendous pressure to serve as a juror in a murder trial. Nothing you can do will be the right thing, so you must go with what the law instructs.

My family and I suspect that she'll go into porn of some kind...what else can she do? Seems to go along with her party girl/sociopathic personality.

OJ Simpson got off and even he probably couldn't believe it. And I bet he wouldn't of believed in a million years that he would have ended up in jail, years later.

I think it's called Karma. Take heed Casey!

terriks: I meant to type chloroform; I was thinking of what her mother said she was googling, chlorophyll.
Thank you for correcting me.

I meant to type chloroform; I was thinking of what her mother said she was googling, chlorophyll.

I actually heard "experts" on CNN making that same mistake, along with a reporter that kept saying chlorofoam.

Read this morning that Texas Equi-search is considering suit and of course the lied about nanny has her civil suit against KC in February. The state is also asking for monies from her for the amount of work involved following her trails of lies.