Casey Anthony found not guilty of murder

"...Instead, she was convicted of only four counts of lying to investigators looking into the June 2008 disappearance of her daughter Caylee. ..."

"...Anthony will be sentenced by the judge on Thursday and could receive up to a year in jail for each lying count. She has already spent almost three years in jail awaiting trial..."

So it looks like the most she will serve after this is another year.

People like this though do end up doing themselves in some way eventually.

Another hanging chad from Florida . . .

I haven't really followed along but my mom was a junkie for this trial. When I talked to her last week she said that "for sure she's guilty". Has anyone on the jury said what convinced them she didn't do it?

Well, it's not that she didn't do it, but they didn't have proof that she was guilty - as I see what a trial is about.

Yeah, not guilty is not the same as innocent.

It does sound like a pretty sweet consolation prize though.

That is what prosecutorial discretion is for, it is not the DA's job to parade every case he can get his hands on in front of a jury to see if he can get a conviction...If he is not pretty damn sure that he can prove his case he should not be in a court room.


http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Prosecutorial-Discretion.topicArticleId-10065,articleId-10015.html

One of my kids was following this trial, and I saw enough to have serious doubts about the conduct of the Judge and the DA...there was no case here, there should have never been a trial.

sure there was, she was charged with some crimes, the murder evidence was circumstantial, but who knows she might have had an attack of conscience and admitted guilt as the trial and evidence was presented (i mean she either murdered or covered up the death of her daughter, i'm pretty sure we all know that)

I look forward to the day when the majority of citizens have seen enough misconduct on the part of the state to be willing to use jury nullification more than we do now, and to refuse to seriously consider any argument from the state that is not accompanied by proof. In short we have to do better at taking anything a DA says with a grain of salt than we do now.

part of the charges against her were lying to and misleading law enforcement, they got convictions on those, it was worth trying to get convictions on the murder in my opinion, if it had been an out right acquittal on all charges you might have a point

Like I said, I didn't follow the trial but I did get basic bits and pieces of it in the regular news. I remember thinking I'd have to be on trial for something and have my google searches used as evidence -- I look up some weird stuff.

That whole bit about her being left with a babysitter made her look completely guilty though.

Can anyone tell me what the deal was with that meter reader who called it in several months apart?

The problem here Hawkeye is the child disappear under her care and did so for over thirty days before the grandparents force the issue and brought the police into the matter.

The woman then keep lying and in no way aid the police into finding out what the hell happen to the child and then the child remains was found a few months later.

So no matter how you cut it Casey allow her daughter somehow and in some manner to die under her watch and then did everything she could to cover up that fact.

It look like we will never know what happen to this child but whatever happen Casey was involved and did not at the very best do her duty as a parent to this child to say the least.

I am happy I was not on that jury as her behaviors leave a very bad taste in my mouth even if the state could not prove murder by Casey.

we really need to remove public tv cameras from court rooms.

the sensationalism is disgusting and completely unnecessary if not out right damning to cases.

Totally agree with that. However, if not for the cameras, I'd know next to nothing about this case. It's a long way from where I live. Not that I actually NEED to know. And yeah, I'm guilty of judging her based on her lies/story and behaviour. I do not know what went on in that jury room but I'd give my right arm to know. Apparently they did not take many notes during the trial and deliberated their verdict in 4 hours without asking to see videos, transcripts, etc., so how they came to their decision (already decided?) so quickly is beyond me.

The state failed to present evidence of guilt from what I saw, does not take long for twelve people to say "did the state give us anything to consider....we all agree the answer is no?? Ok, lets go tell the judge""

The key phrase is "beyond reasonable doubt." The defense was successful at creating enough doubt. The defendant is supposed to have the advantage since they are assumed to be innocent. Due to the degree of media coverage given to this, most observers entered without the assumption of innocence. I don't think that we can call ourselves impartial observers. In this case, given the circumstances, and many of the comments I've heard leading up to, during and after, I don't think many people were very interested in attempting impartiality on this case.

It's easy to think these kinds of choices are obvious and even easy. I don't believe this is true, not even in a case like this. Jury's have a lot of power and they decide the fate of a person. I think the verdict is questionable, but frankly, given the responsibility to determine if someone lives or dies, my confidence is tempered.

I don't think the jury failed at their duty. The prosecution relied heavily on circumstances which admittedly summon a great deal of anger (and other emotions in me). This was a potent "why" or motive. They did not, however, establish the most basic of details of the how and where of the death. The lack of material evidence in the method, even given a compelling case for her selfish motive, may not warrant a verdict of "guilty" beyond reasonable doubt.

All of this is not saying she didn't do it, but rather that this verdict is not so astonishing.
R
T

There was something said about the jurors not not finding proof of cause of death for the child.

Yes, the child is dead. But was she killed? They failed to prove it.

I guess hiding your dead child in the trunk of the car doesn't count for nuthin'.

This is a perfect example of being tried by the media. Freakin' Nancy Grace was on about this case for months, salivating over her own miniscule opinions repeatedly. The jury did the right thing.
The prosecutors didn't prove the case and in the USA there is a presumption of innocence till proven otherwise. The sad thing is, they jumped the gun. Eventually the truth will come out, but the state cant prosecute again..

Just the facts ma'am.....toss your assumption and what you are left with is that the state brought a case into a courtroom that they could not prove. It never should have been before a judge.