The justice system is flawed.  Some guy named Bruce Wayne was put on death row for something a different Bruce Wayne did.  Fortunately he got out of it after it was decided ridiculous to execute a man for a typo, despite the fact he was still found guilty.

There was more than enough evidence that she did it.  Everything found with the body directly led to Casey.  The rare duct tape, the bag from a set of two,  the search results for chloroform and how to make it...  She had a motive, and tried to frame someone else (a fake nanny and her own father).  It doesn't exactly take a psychic detective to prove she did it.

I understand that argument.  But the closest look at these evidences is required for such a case.  We're dealing with someone's life here.  People outside the courtroom are so negative and quick to judge, but the jurors aren't stupid, they just saw something we never did.

Is she guilty of negligence?  Yes

Is she guilty of lying?  Yes

Is she responsible for her daughter's death?  Yes

Did she murder her daughter?   No.

I feel that she needs to serve for her negligence, but I do not think she deserves capital punishment.

The main reason the jury voted not guilty of charges of murder was because the prosecuter (the state) failed to provide enough evidence to prove that she killed the child.  Their main argument was "she lies."

To be honest, a lot of people don't know about this trial. It further shows how insignicant this case is. The biggest hype of course is in Florida.

You are quite possibly the most forgiving guy out there...
Perhaps I don't wish her the death sentence, but not many would say that she'd cover up for someone else...can you explain that?

exactly

And finally: http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey-anthony- … d=14020260
Good news?

JazzJackrabbit wrote:

Clock-la wrote:

Is'nt it kind of a crime in itself for failing to report the dissaperence?

It should be.

I assumed that was what the charges of "aggravated child abuse" were for, but she was found not guilty of that too. I dunno, that is pretty messed up that she got away with that, because that's one thing they could definitely prove. There's no way a mother could be ignorant of her child's disappearance for a month.

that is stupid as for the movie thing well thats just even more stupid, its a murder case not a bloomin family trip to the cinima

Maybe you need to explain everything you say because you need to make it more clear in the first place. If it's something that happens often with many different people, it's probably not their fault and likely that it's yours.

believe it or not, that's actually not how it is. it's not usually my words that people are confused by, it's the atypical/"unconventional" thoughts i express with them. but don't get me wrong, in this case it was my words/my fault. if you want to continue this, i'd say, continue this in private messages, for relevancy's sake.

hm.. perhaps it is deserved, for the victim's sake, but definitely not this kind of publicity. or this outcome. she's a *bleep*ing murder victim, not something to entertain the masses with and rake in more money.

You guys know that there actually making a movie about this right?

This is what I don't like about the trial. As I said earlier, this isn't a unique case by any means. Casey Anthony may have committed a horrible act, but to put it into perspective, there are many other cases that were just as bad. The media just happens to publicize it, and now it's going to be made into a movie? The amount of publicity is undeserved.

Clock-la wrote:

Is'nt it kind of a crime in itself for failing to report the dissaperence?

It should be.

I assumed that was what the charges of "aggravated child abuse" were for, but she was found not guilty of that too. I dunno, that is pretty messed up that she got away with that, because that's one thing they could definitely prove. There's no way a mother could be ignorant of her child's disappearance for a month.

Before we formed our country, Britain was being a PITA for the colonies. The king kept charging political opposers with crimes they never committed, and the founding fathers took this into drastic consideration when forming the court system.

Personally, I would rather a guilty person get off than an innocent being punished. And besides, in today's age, she will definitely get punished outside of the court system. She will be getting death threats, attacked, unemployed, and belittled for the rest of her life.

Maybe there is a connection to be made?  :-P

It may help if you take a public speaking or rhetorics class. Most people here expect perfect communication between each other. It is difficult to explain something over text.