Casey Anthony found not guilty of murder

So, you are an American citizen that doesn't live in America. You asked me what am I doing to change our government. What are you doing to change it? What I get from you is you don't seem to think it's wrong to break laws if you don't think they are fair. That's not how we change anything. You can't change a wrong by doing a wrong.

I believe Casey Anthony killed her daughter BUT she was acquitted. Now, we will have her free to walk amongt society. I don't like it, but it's the law. She has her legal rights and one of those rights is not to be harrassed by me or anyone else in any way. We can vent on here and I think a lot of us need to but I really don't think anyone posting on this thread would really hurt her or harass her, do you?

Here is a video of her talking about it, Linkat.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/06/casey-anthony-jurors-sick-to-stomachs_n_891798.html#s303265&title=Casey_Anthony_Verdict

Thanks - I remember reading it - and remember it was this same juror that noted they were sick to their stomachs - just couldn't find the article.

I dont know the people here, this is virtual, but one of my kids is watching this case on cable nearly non-stop and today I heard a long talk about how many feel that this woman and the jury members are at great risk for violence right now, because passions are so high and so negative towards the result that was reached. I am not in favor of harassing CA or the Jury, so I am not really in favor of much yelling "BABY KILLER" at her, but I do like public displays of a lack of faith and lack of respect or our justice system, as such behavior encourages needed reform.

well, those germans knew a thing or two about justice

She wasn't gonna shout it - she was gonna whisper it...

If you have a lack of respect for our justice system then stop complaining about it and do something about it. Write letters to your congressman. Go to the capital and lobby for better laws. Lots of people, regular citizens of this country have been very successful in changing laws.

Here in Lousiana the Voyeurism Law was changed because of Susan Wilson. Domestic violence is handled differently by the police because of the efforts of Tracy Thurman. You might be surprised how many REGULAR citizens have been largely responsible for changing laws or getting new laws instituted. BUT they did it legally. They didn't go out and make public displays (to use your words) of themselves, which can lead to that violence you realize is a great risk.

Our laws allow for needed reform and done legally there is a good success rate. A "Fred Phelps" attitude only breeds hate and that great risk for violence becomes even greater.

So, are you doing anything to change the laws you have so little respect for or are you waiting for someone else to do it?

When ever we talk amongst ourselves as citizens we are doing something, considering that A2K is predominantly made up of Americans this is as good a place as any to lobby for change. You seem to be unaware of the dynamics of grass roots driven reform, seeing as how you want to put the cart before the horse. Public calls for removal of individuals from office and changes in law best come after significant support for these moves have already been generated, to not do this makes those who make such calls appear to be crackpots.

Sorry but your saying whenever we talk it is doing something is nothing but BS. People like Susan Wilson, Tracy Thurman, etc., get out and do something. They don't just talk. They don't sit and spout words like "the collective" in order to sound intelligent. They actually do something. I get out there and try to make changes in what I find to be injustices. Not on the scale of Susan or Tracy, but I don't just talk about it. So next time you ask me what am I doing to change things, hawkeye, ask yourself the same question. You are doing nothing but BS'ing others into thinking you are doing something and I don't buy it.

You sense of justice extends to your flesh and that's as far as it goes from what I've seen.

Like OJ CA is likely to screw up her life once more in short order.

She in one way or another is almost sure to self destruct in fairly short order.

Challenging the false information’s that the Fireflies of the world like to broadcast is one thing we are doing AM.

One fourth of all college women being sexually assaulted nonsense being challenge by facts are a good first step.

Challenging with studies that the idea that women rarely lied about being rape is another good step in the public debate over our sex laws.

Pointing out that far from having a rape crisis we are at a 31 repeat 31 years low on reported rapes in this country.

Posting how the domestic violence laws have evolutes to the point that even married couples who wish to stay together are being force by the state into de facto divorces on a charge of domestic violence not a conviction.

On and on we are releasing into the public domain informations to counter the Fireflies of the world propagandas.

oh for Pete's sake, just shut up.

Sorry that is not going to happen but thanks for the comment.

This is the type of attitude I think we all should have when it comes to making changes concerning any type of "disability" whether it be physical or emotional:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1043198820001/?test=faces

Well, how much direct evidence did they need? A video of her putting the duct tape over her child's nose and mouth? Her fingerprints on the duct tape?
Jurors decide cases, including murder cases, on circumstantial evidence all the time.

Remember Scott Peterson--convicted of murdering his wife Laci and their unborn child, and sentenced to the death penalty? That was a totally circumstantial case with even less evidence than the prosecution just presented with regard to Casey Anthony.


I think the prosecutor made a mistake in going for the death penalty--life in prison without parole would have been sufficient for the two top charges. Aggravated child abuse, under Florida law, becomes felony murder if the child dies as the result of such abuse, and while that is first degree murder, and, therefore, eligible for the death penalty, that potential maximum penalty seems to have worked against obtaining any conviction, even on a lesser included charge, because it seemed to alter juror's expectations of the evidence and even their understanding of reasonable doubt. The jurors seemed to have expected absolute, incontrovertible proof of the defendant's guilt beyond any doubt--rather than simply expecting clear and compelling and convincing evidence that pointed only to the defendant as being responsible for her child's death.

One reason the state might have stuck with this as a death penalty case was to try to force a confession out of Casey Anthony--these charges were lodged even before the child's body was found. Everyone knew she was involved in her child's death, but they didn't know what she had done with the body. And her lying about the whereabouts of her child's body helped to destroy the direct evidence which might have been present had the remains been found sooner. So, she was also responsible for helping to destroy that evidence.

The prosecution presented clear, compelling evidence of a death by homicide while this child was in her mother's care. There is no other logical explanation for the several pieces of duct tape found on the child's skull in the area of the nose and mouth--duct tape would not be found on the skull of a child who died by accidental drowning or by any other accidental cause. The duct tape held the mandible in place under the skull, despite the decomposition of the supporting tissues. The duct tape points to asphyxiation as the cause of death, possibly in conjunction with chloroform. In addition, items found with the skeletal remains came from within the Anthony home--the child's blanket and a laundry bag. The child's decomposing body was transported in a car used only by her mother, and the odor of decomposition was reported by several people who rode in the car as well as by prosecution experts. The child was last seen alive in the presence of her mother, and for the next 31 days no one saw the child and Casey Anthony made up lies to explain the child's absence. During this time the defendant maintained an active social life, and went out partying, despite knowing that her child was dead. Three days after the child was last seen, Casey Anthony tried to borrow a shovel from a neighbor. Even after the police were notified that the child was missing, Casey Anthony continued to lie about what had happened to her child.

The defense alternate version of events--given in opening argument--that the child drowned in the family pool and that George Anthony helped his daughter cover this death up--because this was allegedly a dysfunctional family with incest among its dark secrets--not only makes little logical sense, it was supported by no evidence presented during the trial by the defense.

If these jurors thought that Casey Anthony was involved in causing the death of her child, they should not have acquitted her of all charges in that regard--there were enough lesser included charges, including aggravated manslaughter of a child, on which she could have been found guilty, based on the evidence presented at trial, even if the death was unintentional.


I watched large portions of the trial and I found the evidence more than sufficient to convict Casey Anthony of either aggravated manslaughter of a child or aggravated child abuse, beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence, which supported a death by homicide, pointed directly to Casey Anthony as the only person with motive and opportunity to kill this child, whether accidentally (by chloroform used to sedate the child) or intentionally (with duct tape and chloroform), and with motive to then lie about the child's whereabouts before she finally disposed of the body.

I don't know how typical juror #3 was in her thinking, but if it was true that other jurors were "sick to their stomachs" over the not guilty verdicts they did render, then something was very wrong in that jury room because they were apparently concerned about letting a murder walk free, and perhaps they should have spent more time discussing the evidence against Anthony before letting her walk. Juror #3 felt there was no cause of death, no exact time or place of death, and no clear motive. Actually, none of those elements are necessary to prove that a homicide took place or who was responsible. The duct tape alone is evidence of homicide, the cover-up of the child's whereabouts is evidence of awareness of guilt on Casey Anthony's part--the presence of chloroform in the trunk of the car is evidence of at least child abuse--and Casey Anthony had motive to want this child out of her life, and/or to vindictively keep her parents from obtaining custody of her child. When the prosecution asked, at the end of the trial, "Who benefited from Caylee Anthony's death?" and showed photos of Casey Anthony out partying immediately after her daughter's death, it registered loud and clear, and the answer was obvious.

While I don't agree with the jury's verdict, their verdict is the final word regarding Casey Anthony's criminal responsibility. They shouldn't be the target of any public anger. I felt shock when the verdicts were read, but no anger toward the jury.

And the amount of public hostility and rage directed at Casey Anthony is also frightening. She has been acquitted, and a lynch mob mentality should not be allowed to flourish or be supported by the media. Let her disappear. Let her not benefit from this tragedy--don't buy any books she might write, don't pay her for interviews and movie deals or to boost TV ratings---she is such a liar that you can believe nothing of what she says, so why pay her to say it, or to be able to read it? Let her pay the costs of the investigation to find her "missing" child--the child she knew all along was dead.

I suspect they will secretly release her from jail, for her safety, and whisk her away somewhere. She has to live with the consequences of her behavior, and those consequences are not going to be pleasant, and everyone will have to settle for that as her punishment.

This is a good example of someone REALLY DOING something to make effective changes:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/08/anthony-case-fuels-caylees-law-proposals-in-state-capitals/?test=latestnews

Oh yes an event that played out in this manner once in the history of the country and we are going to made another damn law just in case there is somewhere in the world there is another Casey Anthony who a brain dead jury would let go for murder.

Oh by the way she was sentence to four years over lying to the police and this new law is unlikely to have a punishment over that term.

A nice way for some politician to get his name in the papers but it is not doing a damn thing and only fools would think so.

actually there was a lot more linking Peterson to the death of his wife than there was in the Anthony case, clearer motive/girlfriend, fishing boat/bodies in water, timeline of bodies in water/Peterson's movements

Did you even bother to read what the law was about? It was about making it a major offense if someone did not report their child missing, as in the case of Casey Anthony.

You are being a hypocrite aren't you? You want changes made and I am showing you how people go about doing that and not by just whining and complaining on a forum and you have a problem with it? Go figure.

Yes we have waves of two years old children disappearing and not being reported and such a law in some manner is going to be helpful!!!!!!!!!!

What to bet that there is a good chance if such a law was in effect that Casey mother would not have been willing to call 911 in the first place knowing that she is putting her daughter in danger of being charge with a felony.

I would love to see how this law is written as does it make it a felony not to report a 17 years old who had run away with her boyfriend for example? That a family matter dealing with 17 years old should now be a police matter even if the parents think that would not be a wise way of dealing with it.

Seems on every level a stupid law that will have all kinds of bad unintended consequences and do no good of any kind other then to get some dirt bag of a politician name in the papers.