I too believe that Casey is responsible for her daughters death. So many lives have been ruined by this, that family will never fully recover from this.'

That being said, Casey is very young, she has a long life ahead of her. I hope she takes this opportunity to be a good citizen and have a productive life. Time will tell.

I'm very disappointed in the jury. They should have used common sense in this particular case.

The talent agency dumped both Jose and Casey within hours due to public backlash. Now Zanaida's lawyer is demanding a deposition in her lawsuit. I am glad her, the police, Equasearch, and maybe some others are suing her. Casey craved the media attention. Lets hope it stays just as angry as today. That would be great karma. I ready that if the judge goes thru with the charges against her lawyer for his courtroom shenanigans and the Florida Bar investigates, he could end up being disbarred. And then it would be declared a mistrial? Wouldn't that be great?? I still can't believe the verdict. At their first vote it was 10-2 against first degree murder but 6-6 on aggravated manslaughter. It really bothers me that they seemed to dismiss the evidence entirely.

I want to see a law that states, the principles in a high profile case, can, under no circumstances, profit from the sale of an interview, magazine article, tv appearance, etc.. To accept payment for the information, should be made illegal. People want to know, I understand, but, any persons associated with the case, should not be paid.
How about putting off book deals for at least one year after the case is over.? Attention will have died down.
IMHO

Just a thought! I did not follow the trial, but if they lived with her parents, why did not the grandparents do something during the time the child was missing?

How did yo hear about the jury's votes? I thought they had not spoken out as of yet.

I would hope that the public would keep pressure on anyone who might offer money, book writing or interviews but look what happened in the Michael Vick case....The public outcry was tremendous, he would be banned, he was the scum of the earth....It didn't take long for him to get back into football and all his followers are right there, looking up to their hero.....
Hopefully, this precious little girl will not be forgotten, the doings of her mother will not be forgotten and the gossip mongers will not help her "earn" a living....

All we can hope for, is that she will face another judge one day, and he will give her what she deserves.
It's times like this, that make for good discussions and debates in law schools.

Casey was gone for 31 days with Caylee. Casey spoke to her mother at various times during that time but always had a 'reason' why Caylee couldn't come to the phone.

Juror #2 has said what the votes were at first. He was the last guilty holdout.

Personally I don't think she is going to give any interviews, I think she will keep a very low profile until the next "big" newsline comes along. There will always a better story coming along.

I followed the case and totally disagreed with the verdict.

Has anyone thought of this? Cindy Anthony said that she was looking up the words chloroform because her dogs, especially one, was sleeping so very much and she thought it was because they were chewing on the bamboo leaves in her yard. HMMMM, maybe Casey was trying/ testing our her formulations of chloroform on the poor dogs before she used it on little Caylee and that is why the dogs were sleeping so much. Hmmm, just saying...LOL

Nizza, I have had my suspicions as well with the dogs being chloroformed. Did Cindy ever take them to the vet for a diagnosis?

>> It really bothers me that they seemed to dismiss the evidence entirely.

I wasn't aware there WAS evidence. What was it? I have no idea if she killed her daughter or not. I have an opinion based upon what I heard, but if there was evidence that she did it I missed it along the way. What did the jury ignore?

I am assuming alot here, and speculating on why I think the jury came back with this verdict as most of American is, but I think this jury disliked the prosecution and judge MORE than they disliked Casey and her courtroom drama they fell for it hook, line and sinker. It had been reported that the jurors seemed put off by the prosecutions constant objects, (although he was right) and did not like the judge constant admonishing Casey's lawyers. There is no way they used common sense or put puzzle pieces together, so this is my theory.

There's another side to the chloroform issue. From what I heard, it's routinely used on children by creeps taking pornographic photos of them, so they forget. Casey had some really, really, really creepy boyfriends along the way. Could she have been letting one (some) of them do that to Caylee? What a horrible thing to even have to consider, but it's apparently quite common from what someone was saying.

I saw an alternate juror tonight . He was an idiot. I guess the defense got the jury they wanted. I've heard from three and none impressed me with their reasoning powers.

I agree Lily316. Some of them also said they didn't believe in the death penalty but could vote for it. Apparently not. One of them stated they couldn't convict her of killing Kaylee because there was no proof she was murdered. Unbelievable. Don't all kids who die of accidents end up in a plastic bag, with duct tape over their face, thrown in a swamp?

I didn't really follow the trial, the testimony, the evidence. But i do know from another notorious case, that you don't even need a BODY to have a murder charge. Remember the New York case of the mother and son "Grifters" who killed an old lady to get her home and money? She was never found.

All I can say is I am certainly glad that none of you have ever been on trial for a capitol offence.

The real criminial in this trial was the damned fool who presents himself as a prosecutor and brought this action to trial with the evidence at hand.

Is she guilty of lying? Yes, by her own admission.

Is she guilty of prior bad acts? Again, yes by her own admission.

Is she guilty of Murder beyond a reasonable doubt? Not no, but hell no. Keep in mind that the operative statement here is "beyond a reasonable doubt!".

The prosecutor presented absolutely no witnesses or forensic evidence that could even link her to the crime. In fact, the prosecution did not even prove beyond a doubt that a crime had been committed. Oh yes, he proved that the child was found dead, but what caused that death and under what circumstances did it happen? In fact they cannot testify conclusively that the child did not die of natural causes.

The prosecutor could not even present a viable theory of the crime, which was demonstated by how he changed that repeatedly.

The prosecutor proved that a trace amount of chloroform was present on the body, but that trace amount was not outside the range of the amount of chloroform produced by a body during normal decomposition.

The prosecutor proved that she had been to a website that explains how to make chloroform. Big deal, I have an ounce of chloroform and one ounce of technical grade potasium cyanide here in my house. Based upon his thinking, maybe I did the crime.

But then if we follow that reasoning I guess the 4 pounds of black powder (gun powder) I have would also make me a terrorist bomber. (For the record, I shoot muzzle loaders on the local firing range as a hobby so that accounts for the gunpowder.)

The defense attorney did exactly what he is required by law to do, he presented alternative theories of the crime. To do anything less would have constituted a breach of ethics on his part and introduced reversible error, which would guarantee and appeal if she had been found guilty.

Now here is another alternative theory of the crime. It came out in court that she had a BF who does not like children. Perhaps she had him over to the house for an intimate evening and the child became fussy and disrupted his plans. Perhaps she went to the bathroom and while she was indisposed he tossed the baby in the pool without her even seeing him do it, but then, there really is no forensic evidence to confirm the child was in the pool.

The bottom line is, there is no statute of limitations on murder. The prosecutor should have kept the case open and the investigation ongoing until they did have some compelling evidence. So now I have to ask myself, what was their rush to judgement in this case?

The answer to that is simple. Although most courts do not even allow a camera in the courtroom, this case was to be televised live. Upon a conviction the prosecutor would have been famous and off to a high profile political career, not to mention a huge income from future book and movie rights.

Taking this to the next step, for those of you who are so certain she really was guilty, ask yourself this. Are you basing that opinion on the actual evidence presented in the court or is your opinion possibly swayed by the news commentators who went on the tell us what was said in court, as if we are too stupid to understand what we heard. Don't ever think for a moment that news people are concerned with the facts, all they are really concerned with is their Neison Rating or how and when they will get their Pulitzer prize.

Do I think she knows what happened and who did it, hell yes. But am I convinced beyond a resonable doubt based upon the evidence produced in court, not no but hell no. The only thing I am convinced about beyond a shadow of a doubt is that prosecutor is the biggest fool I have ever seen if he thought he could win with the case he presented.

lazypup, your points are well thought out. I agree that there was not enough evidence to prove the girl was murdered, let alone who had killed her if that were the case.

I hadn't followed the case very carefully, but found the feature I saw on CNN yesterday enlightening.

What jumped out at me from the information and clips shown is that Casey is a skillful liar.

In lies to her parents, for instance she invented people and whole groups of friends that never existed, with so many random details added that they were believable.

I also believe she knows how her daughter died, but doubt that she'll ever tell.

I have stayed out of this discussion because I seem to be in the minority. Believing someone committed a crime and having it proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt are two entirely different things. When you are a juror and have to make a decision that involves a life, you must follow the letter of the law. I agree whole heartedly with lazypup expect on one point. The real criminal in this case was the police force. They were told early on by that guy (can't remember his name because his 15 minutes of fame is over) that he had seen what he thought was a body. They ignored him and never went to investigate until he told them again a month later. Perhaps if they had followed up on this information the first time, there wold have been enough forensic evidence of the cause of death for the prosecution to get a conviction.

If you haven't heard about the song that was caseys favorite in the summer of 08'. Google Suddendust and find the words to their song The Past, it will give you the chills.
Tracy Mc Laughlin from leonard Padillas office spent 8 or 9 days in the Anthony home following her 1st arrest for this murder. She was on with Dr. Drew friday night and spoke of her experience. I can tell you if the jury heard her comments...they would have convicted her. A judge ruled that their testimony could not be heard during the trial.

The Past lyrics
(feat. Chris Daughtry)

Beneath the water
that's falling from my eyes
lays a soul I've left behind
the edge of sorrow was reached but now I'm fine
I've filled the hole I had inside

I'll pray it doesn't scream my name
so I light a flame and let it breathe
the air that kills the shame

I'm up
I'm down
like a rollercoaster racing through my life
I've erased the past again

a risky morning
I feel like I'm alive
I can't believe I've made it through this time
the edge of sorrow I lived in for some time
(lived in for some time)
[: From: http://www.elyrics.net/read/s/sevendust-lyrics/the-past-lyrics.html :]
has left the hole I have inside

The burden is I try my hate
was the last thing I ever felt
or thought I could escape

I'm up
I'm down
like a rollercoaster racing through my life
I've erased the past again
[x2]

You let me in then broke me down
the difference is this time around
I will not let you see me try

I'm up
I'm down
like a rollercoaster racing through my life
I've erased the past again
[x2]

Erased the past again now
Erased the past again

Beneath the water
that has fallen from my eyes

beyond a reasonable doubt ..... any MOTHER with an unreported missing child who would spend those 31 days as she did, who searched for how to make chloroform over 80 times -along with neck breaking, who borrowed a shovel from the neighbor, who had the specific laundry/burial bag and specific duct tape in her garage, who had a hysterical parent screaming to the police about the car smelling like there was a dead body in the damn car, who had the same type of heart-shaped sticker in her bedroom that was 'lovingly' placed over the child's duct-tape-covered-mouth ....yes, actual court evidence beyond any reasoning whatsoever.

the first example speaks volumes in itself -any loving parent who has a child missing for 30 SECONDS would be frantically crying out for help -but 31 DAYS -and no mention of it to anyone?!? if you think it was an accident or someone else did it, no matter HOW a child died, no parent would do (or not do) what she did - unless she had something to hide. no. doubt. whatsover.

the jury was waiting for specifics that weren't possible to obtain -and weren't necessary for circumstantial evidence. they failed in their duties miserably.

Merrymaid I agree with you...I am thinking unless this CSI generation doesn't have scientific proof then they are incapable of using their own common sense and instincts.
The prosecution told the whole story and they were unable to follow along.
But they believe the defense that just kept throwing crap against a wall hoping something sticks and this group of jurors took the bait..What fools.!!! Very disturbing IMHO.

I completely agree with merrymaid and gemini. I'm trying not to watch anymore of the coverage because it grieves me to see her get away with it (wtf?), and then no doubt profit from it in the future. I keep feeling like I got kicked in the stomach. Was going to say more about my opinion of the jurors, but I'll quit.

I agree with those above who feel that this jury failed! This 'victory' was not due to brilliant defense, inadequate prosecution or unavailable evidence! There are educational requirements for judges, attorneys and even expert witnesses. Why not jurors? They have the most important role of all, and often are asked to judge based on technical and scientific evidence that may be difficult for the average person to fully understand. I also believe that this particular jury failed to take the time to adequately understand the jury instructions, especially re. reasonable doubt.

Elisabeth

The problem with using "common sense and instincts" is that it's all relative. Each individual person will have their own instincts. Some people believe in God while others think it's a fairy tale. Both sets of people can be very intelligent with plenty of common sense but very different beliefs. When you rely on things other than evidence, it becomes a free for all of assumptions and allegations without any proof. I know if I was on trial, I wouldn't want some random stranger's "common sense" to decide if I were guilty or not. I'd want it based on the facts and, unfortunately, there weren't enough of those in this trial. You can't convict someone of murder based on a song they like, or the parties they went to, or their tattoos, or how long it took to report a child missing. It's just not enough. I wish the prosecutors had gone for a lesser charge than murder one.

Actually chi83, there were several lesser charges for the jury to choose from.....

Elisabeth

As stated above they had the opportunity to go for lesser charges...that is why most of the population is so outraged over the verdict..They deliberated 11 freakin hours for a trial that took 6 weeks...and all but one or 2 took notes during the entire trial.. that tells me they were incompetant jurors.

One other thing to remember...she was found "Not Guilty"...she wasn't found "Innocent".

What I also found disspicable were all those spectators knocking each other down racing to the court room to get a seat.

I have to agree with your point about education requirements for jury duty. They do make the most important decision of all, and yet some have no critical thinking ability at all.

As for circumstantial evidence not being sufficient to convict - well I for one am glad this wasn't the jury that heard the Scott Peterson case.

Thanks Elisabath, but I know what the charges were. My point is that when the prosecutors put first degree murder up there, that means death penalty. To convict for first degree murder, you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she not only planned the murder but also did the actual killing. And for a trial based solely on circumstantial evidence, the jury is going to demand more concrete evidence before essentially ordering the execution of a young lady. The other charges were aggravated manslaughter and aggravated child abuse. Again needing proof that she *intended* to hurt and kill her child. Intended being the key word. The charges were NOT if she killed her child. The charges were that she showed malice and intent in addition to killing the child and they couldn't prove it.

I believe that if they had just gone for involuntary manslaughter or negligence or even second degree, that the jury would have been more open to circumstantial evidence. While psychological tactics shouldn't play a role, it does because the jury is human.

When the death penalty is sought, it's a much heavier weight on the jury. They aren't going to convict without absolute proof because it's someone's life on their hands. It's a lot easier to send someone away for 30 years than to order their execution.

Educational requirements would be a nightmare. Not only would it be discriminatory but there are plenty of brilliant critical thinkers who never went to college, while there are similarly plenty of book smart people who have no common sense. Where would you cross the line? High school? College? Masters degree? PhD? Only doctors or lawyers? A piece of paper is no guarantee of ability.

Jeffery Toobin, from CNN, said that the prosecution didn't have to show malice and intent, only that she knew her actions could result in the death of Caylee, and that the internet searches should have proven that she had this knowledge (since it really wasn't Cindy who did the internet searches...). Also, he and other legal experts all say that the issue of sentencing should not have played a part in their decision to convict or not convict. Other juries have managed to deal with this.

Did she ever admit she did the internet searches? I am not sure about that but even if she did, it would be hard to prove that she read it or understood it could result in death. Anyone can type anything into Google but that doesn't mean anything and that's my point - there really isn't any evidence proving intent, malice or even that she knew she could kill her child. That's why I think they would have been better off without the premeditated charges. I think that's what lost the case given the evidence.

And yes, sentencing shouldn't have played a role but it does. This trial is unique from a lot of other first degree murder because all of the evidence is circumstantial. Other juries generally have some sort of DNA or other proof that makes it a lot easier.

Like Scott Peterson's trial?

I don't think she admitted to anything, would you expect her to? Her own lawyer said that she is very intelligent. Here is a link to info about chloroform, where it shows that it can be fatal and that it is suspected to be a human carcinogen. Oh, and Toobin says typing it into google shows that research was done. Another question I have is, what was the explanation for anyone in the house researching neck breaking?

I'm just discussing, btw..

Anyway, here is the chloroform link.. I just picked the first one I saw:

Here is a link that might be useful: chloroform

The chloroform subject...tracy mclaughlin said she was having a conversation with casey back in summer of 08..tracy asked casey if she had heard of some date rape drug call HRT or something like that and tracy said it was like rupies and casey said yeah like "chloroform". This is before we ever knew about searches or anything else for that word.

My local paper suggests the jurors watched too much CSI. They expected Grissom to come to the stand and show them some evidence.

If that's the case, then she demonstrated to Tracy Mclaughlin that she had knowledge about the potential effects of chloroform. She knew that both drugs can render a person unconcious. Chloroform sure wouldn't pop into MY head if someone asked me about any date rape drug.

Honestly, I'm enjoying this discussion as friendly banter. I hope my part is coming across that way, because it's on a subject that some people feel very passionate about.

Jannie, that's what I heard somewhere else too... that so many people watch CSI shows, that they expect some kind of unrealistic "smoking gun" to be presented to them. And that juries are not convicting in cases where they might have in the past because of it.

Did anyone beside myself notice that many of the pitures that they showed of Caylee had dark circles under her eyes? Lots of kids do,but hers looked a bit darker than "normal" wonder if doses of chloroform would cause that?
I am not God,and I cant say if she deserved death.but for the love of God!!! She got by with all of it!!!She could and should have been held accountable on one of the charges,,she will walk off free after her disgusting behavior and nelect of her child. And in my opinion,MURDER!

All of this family lives have been ruined. Casey will "NEVER" have a good life again.. People will never forget this because of a little girl that had her life cut short. I believe with all my heart that Casey is guilty and her family had nothing to do with it. Casey's group of friends will be very small for the rest of her life. People have never forgot the Scott Peterson case and they will never forget this one. Her life will be very difficult.. AND, it should be!!!!!!!!!

It is amazing to me that such a huge majority of people who has been following this case, and who saw the evidence presented, thinks Casey is guilty. And yet, out of 12 randomly chosen people, not one of them found reasonable doubt. Is it possible that juries are too 'protected' from pertinent information and thereby getting too narrow a view???? Also, about that unfortunate woman during jury selection who blurted out that she thought Casey killed "someone". That caused a potential juror on the stand to be dismissed, and the judge said that if the whole panel had been there they would have had to start all over again. Didn't the (potential) jurors already know that she was accused of killing "someone"? Of course it is totally wrong for a spectator to speak up like that,and the judge handled that firmly,as he should, but would it really taint the jury? Are their minds that fragile?

Elisabeth

Seeing the jurors and alternates so far..yes their minds ARE that fragile.

I've hesitated to post to this thread but I guess if it's going to go on and on, I'll have to.

I believe that if only one innocent person has been executed it's one too many. The death penalty requires more than circumstantial evidence in my estimation. There has to be irrefutable proof. Therefore if this jury panel felt the proof wasn't there then kudos to them. Don't get me wrong. I live in a state that routinely executes prisoners. The last one just a few days ago. And I personally believe there was, at the very least, criminal negligence in this case. Casey should have been held accountable for that. But, I wasn't a juror here and won't Monday morning quarterback their decision. I'm just glad I didn't have to make the decision but if I had, it would have been a lesser charge not carrying the death penalty.

For whatever it is worth, I would not have voted for the death penalty either, but certainly would think that life in prison w/o parole would have been appropriate. Murderers have been convicted on far less circumstantial evidence than this. Her walking away from this is a travesty of justice IMO.

Elisabeth

From what I heard the prosecution state, the jury could have gone for the death penalty, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter or innocent of murder, or manslaughter...the jury had their choice. They chose the verdict that was easiest for them. One juror had a cruise booked for the next day before she was chosen as a juror. They were tired and wanted out...
But, what goes around comes around...look at O.J. Simpson. He was so convinced he could get away with anything but in the end he got some prison time on another charge at a later date. People who are so narrcisstic like Casey are convinced they can outsmart other people. It is not over, be patient and stay tuned...

And..She wants to have children ohhh myyyy They should fix her.

The jury was waiting for that CSI moment where all was made clear. Since they are used to being spoonfed by crime shows, they couldn't reason this trial out on their own.

The whole jury is a metaphor for the dumbing down that is rampant in this country. Time for professional jurors or trial by a panel of judges.

They are now investigating jury tampering - wonder what that will mean if they find it's true.