Casey Anthony Verdict says not quilty

[Munchiez 74]

While she has tried scores of cases and prides herself on being a shrewd courtroom observer, West Palm Beach defense attorney Michelle Suskauer readily admitted Tuesday that when it came to the Casey Anthony case, she blew it.

"I was shocked," she said minutes after an Orange County jury acquitted the 25-year-old Orlando woman of killing her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, in 2008. "I did not think it was going to shake out the way it did."

She was not alone.

Audible gasps went up in workplaces and presumably living rooms throughout the country when self-appointed jurors and other hard-core devotees of the sordid saga realized they'd read the entire case wrong.

Other defense attorneys, however, insisted that unlike the countless armchair quarterbacks who watched gavel-to-gavel coverage on cable TV and listened to talking heads vilify the young mother, the jurors got it right.

Instead of convicting Anthony of a murder charge that could have sent her to Death Row or even aggravated child abuse that would have led to a lengthy prison sentence, the jury found her guilty of four counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer.

"They proved she was a liar - and the jury convicted her of that," said West Palm Beach defense attorney Richard Lubin.

Pat McKenna, a West Palm Beach private investigator who churned up critical evidence that helped acquit O.J. Simpson and also worked on the Anthony case, put it more succinctly.

"Yeah, she's a liar. Yeah, she's disturbed," he said. "She may be a very disturbed young woman, but she ain't no murderer. She loved that baby. I think the jury saw that this kid didn't commit first-degree murder."

While prisons are full of people convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence, prosecutors failed to offer any evidence to link Anthony to her daughter's death, defense attorneys said. There was no DNA, no eyewitness, no confession, not even any evidence that she had abused Caylee in the past. The medical examiner couldn't even determine what caused the child's death.

"A criminal trial is a series of puzzle pieces," said West Palm Beach defense attorney Gregg Lerman. "They were trying to put together a bunch of puzzle pieces that didn't fit. That's how they lost the jury."

Miami defense attorney Terence Lenamon, who initially persuaded the state not to seek the death penalty against Anthony, said the prosecution should have stuck by that accord. He described the state's decision to seek the death penalty as "a huge mistake."

That was from the local newspaper, I believe that she did this crime and she got away with it...makes me mad.

Here is the link http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/south-florida-lawyers-as-shocked-as-everyone-else-1584544.html

  Edited July 6, 2011 by Munchiez  

[Meg 368]

Please post the link you are quoting. We need to quote our sources for several reasons.

As to the topic in question . . . circumstantial cases don't always fly. No one knows how that poor child died, much less who was responsible.

imho, the prosecution didn't bring the right charges. From what I was told when I was on jury duty, a charge of child abuse or child neglect could have been reached. (of course, I do not know the details of Florida law so maybe not.)

Whatever happened, it appears she participated in covering it up. However, she was not charged with that.

[Munchiez 74]

Please post the link you are quoting. We need to quote our sources for several reasons.

As to the topic in question . . . circumstantial cases don't always fly. No one knows how that poor child died, much less who was responsible.

imho, the prosecution didn't bring the right charges. From what I was told when I was on jury duty, a charge of child abuse or child neglect could have been reached. (of course, I do not know the details of Florida law so maybe not.)

Whatever happened, it appears she participated in covering it up. However, she was not charged with that.

I added the link to the source, I do agree that she covered it up. And I however believe that she killed her daughter along with a whole bunch of people. Whether she committed the murder or not, everyone gets whats coming for them.

[Azkals 22]

She is definitely guilty of First Degree Murder, although the jury said that it can't be proven beyond the reasonable doubt, so she is not guilty.

She could still go to prison for up to 4 years, you know?

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/crime/2011/07/05/bts.casey.anthony.verdict.cnn

[pona12 3]

Im glad,imho i do not think she did it.There isnt enough evidence.W

  Edited July 6, 2011 by pona12  

[Munchiez 74]

She is definitely guilty of First Degree Murder, although the jury said that it can't be proven beyond the reasonable doubt, so she is not guilty.

She could still go to prison for up to 4 years, you know?

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/crime/2011/07/05/bts.casey.anthony.verdict.cnn

Yeah, It seems that she got away with it....there is nothing we can do. However by watching all of this and listening to what she said..there are/is/was clues and hints that swerved our points of view to her being guilty.

[blade2k5 1,523]

There's no doubt in my mind she murdered her little girl, she's damn lucky to have gotten away with it. Believe what you want whether she's innocent or guilty, but the way she lied her fanny off and tried to mislead investigators every step of the way like she did leaves no doubt what-so-ever in my mind she's guilty as sin. Oh well, she'll end up getting hers someday.

  Edited July 6, 2011 by blade2k5  

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Please post the link you are quoting. We need to quote our sources for several reasons.

As to the topic in question . . . circumstantial cases don't always fly. No one knows how that poor child died, much less who was responsible.

imho, the prosecution didn't bring the right charges. From what I was told when I was on jury duty, a charge of child abuse or child neglect could have been reached. (of course, I do not know the details of Florida law so maybe not.)

Whatever happened, it appears she participated in covering it up. However, she was not charged with that.

I added the link to the source, I do agree that she covered it up. And I however believe that she killed her daughter along with a whole bunch of people. Whether she committed the murder or not, everyone gets whats coming for them.

Basic principle of Law "innocent until PROVEN guilty"

[Munchiez 74]

Please post the link you are quoting. We need to quote our sources for several reasons.

As to the topic in question . . . circumstantial cases don't always fly. No one knows how that poor child died, much less who was responsible.

imho, the prosecution didn't bring the right charges. From what I was told when I was on jury duty, a charge of child abuse or child neglect could have been reached. (of course, I do not know the details of Florida law so maybe not.)

Whatever happened, it appears she participated in covering it up. However, she was not charged with that.

I added the link to the source, I do agree that she covered it up. And I however believe that she killed her daughter along with a whole bunch of people. Whether she committed the murder or not, everyone gets whats coming for them.

Basic principle of Law "innocent until PROVEN guilty"

Yes, However we believe that she is not innocent. She is innocent until proven guilty. The whole court case was a waste of time.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

You, and many others, my radionic friend, have been had by the publicity circus surrounding the trial. Sensational trials always make the accused seem guilty of the most horrendous crimes. You either trust your jury system, or you don't. Under the double jeopardy rule, she cannot be tried again having been acquitted by a jury.

She will pay the penalty for being stupid, however. Misleading the investigators is a serious offese. If she gets to go "inside" she may never come out again. Prisons have their own rules of justice.

My opinion: Scotch verdict: "Not proven".

[Meg 368]

One very important aspect of any trial is the instructions given to the jury. Link

These instructions usually include the legal definitions of the crimes the defendant is charged with.

I have been on a jury where we wanted to throw the book at the guy but could only find him guilty of 4 of the 5 charges based on the legal definitions of the crimes.

Yes, However we believe that she is not innocent. She is innocent until proven guilty. The whole court case was a waste of time.

The media focus on the case was a waste of time. The trial itself was not.

I do object to the way that the media grabbed onto this case and gnawed on it like a bone. I believe that cameras should not be allowed in the courtroom. It turns the court room into a circus.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Reasonable doubt when the punishment is capital means that few people are convicted.

By the way, mind your g's and q's, your thread says she is not made of quilts.

  Edited July 6, 2011 by OcramSeattle  

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[jacksunny 741]

That was like when Vancouver rioted. Global National (a half hour program) spent 20 minutes talking about the riot, 5 min. on commercials, 3 min. on the weather and that left 2 min. for other news. It was stupid.

[Meg 368]

I actually timed it (I was so bored) that they spent 25 mins on commercials, 30 mins on Casey Anthony, and 5 mins on the debt ceiling... and NOTHING else. Really? Nothing else? No Libya, no Afghanistan, no Greece, no tourist ship sunk in the Caribbean? No Mexican drug wars, no Gaza flotillas, no Japan nuclear updates? Just Casey Anthony and a pinch of only one thing that is actually important?

and that is one of my problems with the media today. They pick one story and chew on it until the facts are difficult to find while ignoring more important issues.

Of course, they did blather about how the media was being insulted by the defense team. Oh, boo hoo - bunch of whiners. When they tired of that, they wanted to talk about the evidence and reply the SAME footage every 15 mins (of programming, lol).

I enjoyed watching the defense team insult the media. Whether she actually did it or not, the media has behaved horribly throughout this whole story.

[jacksunny 741]

When reporting stories like that they usually just say the same things over and over again and then use an excuse like..."If you are just joining us"

[Munchiez 74]

When reporting stories like that they usually just say the same things over and over again and then use an excuse like..."If you are just joining us"

Until "If you are just joining us" and you have already seen it the day before... >_>

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

You, and many others, my radionic friend, have been had by the publicity circus surrounding the trial. Sensational trials always make the accused seem guilty of the most horrendous crimes. You either trust your jury system, or you don't. Under the double jeopardy rule, she cannot be tried again having been acquitted by a jury.

She will pay the penalty for being stupid, however. Misleading the investigators is a serious offese. If she gets to go "inside" she may never come out again. Prisons have their own rules of justice.

My opinion: Scotch verdict: "Not proven".

Just a point of note here: the Scottish(sic) verdict is either:- Not Guilty, Guilty or Not Proven. Scotch is a drink.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Just a point of note here: the Scottish(sic) verdict is either:- Not Guilty, Guilty or Not Proven. Scotch is a drink.

Quite true. A slip of the vernacular. I guess I was a little excited (PO'd) at the time.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

This is in the realm of pandering to the mob. My answer to this is not now, and probably not for fifty years. The jury role call needs to be classified top secret because releasing it would endanger them.

[Munchiez 74]

I was watching that she would be released next Wendsday, when the judge told her that she was not leaving just yet she had her stone cold face again.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

She got four years for lying to the cops. With time off for good behavior and time-served, she'll be out next week.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Just a point of note here: the Scottish(sic) verdict is either:- Not Guilty, Guilty or Not Proven. Scotch is a drink.

It is also a tape. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Barbarossa

The 3M company will surely thank you for that advertisment.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Just a point of note here: the Scottish(sic) verdict is either:- Not Guilty, Guilty or Not Proven. Scotch is a drink.

It is also a tape. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Barbarossa

The 3M company will surely thank you for that advertisment.

And it is also a verb meaning to wound. "We've Scotched the snake, not kill'd it" - Wm, Shakespeare in the Scottish Play.

[Larks2242 251]

I just wish, it would stop getting coverege from EVERY media outlet.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I just wish, it would stop getting coverege from EVERY media outlet.

It just means that the fourth estate has nothing more interesting to say that will sell more papers.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

All I can say is:

The system fails.. Again

Does it?

The jury would have access to more information than the public. That's why we have a jury system.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

All I can say is:

The system fails.. Again

No, it didn't. So you are willing to kill this girl on the flimsiest of evidence and the word of the bloodthirsty press. Shame on you.