Stunned.

[rosedemon]

I am. I watched the basically the same court case that a jury of twelve people sat through. Although I did not think that Casey Anthony would be convicted of Murder One, I did think she would be convicted on one of the other charges. How wrong I was

Comments

[adawnrae]

I am also stunned, but for a wholly different reason. Juries rarely seem to listen to the instructions, re: weighing evidence, rather than sentiment. I waited patiently for some credible evidence of her responsibility for her child's death, but it never came, what was presented was mostly a jumbled mess of maybes and possible scenarios and her not behaving appropriately. In the end, they completely failed to prove their case. But I figured she would be found guilty, anyway, because your average juror either ignores or fails to grasp their duty to uphold the law, no matter how unsatisfying it may be. She is probably guilty, but probably is not the standard in criminal cases, and with good reason.

[rosedemon]

I did not get that impression at all. I felt the procecution did a great job of piecing together a case against Anthony. Could they ever say what killed Caylee..no the remains they recovered could not tell them this. However, I did think Dr. G's remark that it was a homicide based on the fact that no child would have duct tape covering his or her mouth for any other reason but murder.

She got away with it for now. The idea that a socio-pathic liar is running the streets upsets me.

[adawnrae]

Dr. Garavaglia's finding of homicide as the manner of death based on the "fact" that there is no other possible explanation for duct tape being on a child's face had no basis in fact whatsoever. She ruled out natural causes and suicide, okay, but she also ruled out y default accidental death, which could not have been done forensically. It was an emotional argument designed to inflame the jury, as was much of her testimony, where she frequently left the realm of medical expertise and strayed into tangential speculation on human nature and behavior, which speculation was clearly based not on any specific knowledge or expertise, but on her own biases. It was appalling and highly unprofessional, and I would be astounded that the judge allowed it, if the judge hadn't been making reversible errors from practically the moment the trial began. That he allowed, among other things, an enormously inflammatory created video that superimposed pictures of the child's face with a ravaged skull would have been grounds for an appeal, if the

[rosedemon]

The jury did their job...and now they are demanding a 5 figure fee for interviews. Somehow, I yesterday I respected them...today I don't.

[shiv5468]

I've not seen the trial obviously but what I read of it didn't seem to me to show she'd done it. Clearly a failure as a mother and human being but not much in the way of evidence

[rosedemon]

I found the evidence, although indirect and circumstantial, compelling. The DA of Orange County never said this case was a slam-dunk. There were holes they could not fill the largest was how the child died. But, like I mentioned, the ME said there was only one way the child could have died and that was not natural causes or suicide but homicide.

As a failure of Ms Anthony as a human being, I imagine she will not find the future as bright as she would have hoped it to be. All ready she is being treated as a pariah. Considering how much she wanted attention, it might be a more fitting punishment that time behind bars.

[shiv5468]

Yeah but you need to prove that she dunnit not just that homicide was the cause, and they seemed to fail at that. SHe could have been responsible, or involved, but all of the evidence could have pointed to other people as well.

The forensics were weak - air from the car trunk could have been decomposing body, or not, really. We had a recent case turn on that sort of evidence and it was very hotly disputed.

I should think she's going to have a very nasty time of it.