A verdict has been reached after 10 hours and 40 minutes of deliberation and they'll announce it at 2:15, or 1:15 my time which means in about 25 minutes. I'm anxious to see how this turns out.

Bitch better be guilty.

NOT GUILTY!!!

I don't even know what to say....

CALLED IT. SHE'S THE NEW FUCKING OJ.

Bulllllshiiiiittttt.

I am thunderstruck. Who did this, if she didn't?

It's official. Everyone can do anything now. You're not guilty.

I'll bet she maybe not necessarily did it herself, but knew about it the whole time, and had some "assistance" from someone who had no qualms about killing a toddler.

The jury--that's a tough call. If they found her guilty and she got the death sentence, they'd probably feel like there was blood on their hands, too. I don't know if I could live with knowing I sent someone to the gallows, either.

Hyacinth Girl wrote:

I'll bet she maybe not necessarily did it herself, but knew about it the whole time, and had some "assistance" from someone who had no qualms about killing a toddler.

The jury--that's a tough call. If they found her guilty and she got the death sentence, they'd probably feel like there was blood on their hands, too. I don't know if I could live with knowing I sent someone to the gallows, either.

They had a choice, if not first degree they could find her guilty of manslaughter, and they could also find her guilty for reckless child endangerment, but NO! They said she didn't do ANY of that! That she only lied to the police. Well WHY WOULD SHE LIE TO THE POLICE IF SHE DIDN'T KILL HER KID? Does this jury have tapioca pudding for brains? Were they discussing PING PONG for 10 hours and 40 minutes? Whose pocket are they in? Who are they sleeping with? Do all of these parents and grandparents on the jury hate their own kids and want to kill them so want that door open to them with this verdict? What the hell happened down there?

I don't think enough of Casey Anthony to believe she would sit in jail for 3 years, just to cover for someone else killing her daughter.

And the jury did not have to give her the death penalty. It was not attached to the verdict. They could have still found her guilty, and not imposed the death penalty.

They use lethal injection, they don't hang people anymore.

DanaShelbyChancey wrote:

I don't think enough of Casey Anthony to believe she would sit in jail for 3 years, just to cover for someone else killing her daughter.

And the jury did not have to give her the death penalty. It was not attached to the verdict. They could have still found her guilty, and not imposed the death penalty.

They use lethal injection, they don't hang people anymore.

No, but either way if they HAD given her the death penalty, I would've hoped they'd broadcast it live, I would've watched, with a bag of popcorn.

DanaShelbyChancey wrote:

I don't think enough of Casey Anthony to believe she would sit in jail for 3 years, just to cover for someone else killing her daughter.

And the jury did not have to give her the death penalty. It was not attached to the verdict. They could have still found her guilty, and not imposed the death penalty.

They use lethal injection, they don't hang people anymore.

Just a figure of speech on the "gallows", but there obviously is something fishy going on with the whole trial. Maybe she figured a few years jail time was a good trade off for the rest of a lifetime of partying and living for herself, kid-free--who knows. Or maybe, someone on the jury knows more than they're letting on and swayed the vote because of that.

Or either they're A. stupid, or B. were tampered with by somebody. But why would ANYBODY want Casey Anthony to go free? She has proven she is inhuman, no conscience, no heart, no soul, just pure concentrated me me me I want I need evil. She is of no use to anybody.

Supernova wrote:

Or either they're A. stupid, or B. were tampered with by somebody. But why would ANYBODY want Casey Anthony to go free? She has proven she is inhuman, no conscience, no heart, no soul, just pure concentrated me me me I want I need evil. She is of no use to anybody.

Well, I'm a firm believer in "what goes around, comes around". Your deeds may not necessarily catch up with you in this lifetime, but they will catch up with you eventually; if not now, then when we all face God someday and account for our lives. Casey Anthony is no exception, and the truth will eventually come out on her, someday.

Of course if it would be sooner that would suit a few million of us just fine.


But that's true, it's like on the show Quincy M.E., he had a case that was a suicide covered up to look like a homicide, but he found out ruthless, persistent jerkoffs pushed the woman to suicide and told the people at the inquest 'if there's a God and is Heaven, then He knows what's gone on here, and His justice system is mightier than ours'. That is exactly the truth, she's gonna burn in hell one day, though if somebody would speed that date up, I wouldn't complain.


You know, that reminds me of something. I don't know if this jury just hates kids, or thinks if you're under a certain age you don't count, but if CASEY Anthony were to disappear for a month, of course WHO would bother looking for her? and in six months SHE was dug up and decomposed so no cause of death could be found...by the jury's logic that would mean nobody is responsible for her death and there's no murder, right? It was good enough for Caylee, why not for an adult too if it would happen? Or can only adults count as murder victims?

I haven't been following this case but the general consensus that I get from the public is that people like to convict based on their feelings. In a court of law, you have to be PROVEN guilty. If there isn't any concrete evidence that proves she killed her daughter, then you have to acquit her. Stop getting mad at a jury for upholding the U.S. Constitution and the law.

Nothing I can add to NY and Shale's comments

Shale wrote:

Like I said before, we all KNOW that OJ killed those ppl, but there was not enuf evidence to convict him. From what I know of that trial I too would have voted to equit.

As much as I hate to say it I think I would have too. Realistically we know he did it but a verdict has to be based on the evidence & that evidence was mishandled. I think there were a lot of things factoring in there during that time. But when the evidence fails or it isn't handled using proper procedure there isn't much choice.

As far as this particular case I backed away with the duct tape. I hate when the innocent are treated in such a bad way & discarded as if they're just trash. So I don't know what the jury actually saw. But it has to be based on evidence & not emotion.

Except has to be and are are two different things. When the judge orders a jury to dismiss something they heard, do they really? Or do they keep in mind what the witness said? They're not perfect, they're human, and humans, despite what they're ordered to do, often DO act on emotions.

Supernova wrote:

Except has to be and are are two different things. When the judge orders a jury to dismiss something they heard, do they really? Or do they keep in mind what the witness said? They're not perfect, they're human, and humans, despite what they're ordered to do, often DO act on emotions.

They better because if they can't those jurors should be excused. There's no point in even having a jury system otherwise. People will just convict or acquit based on religious, personal or racist & sexist beliefs.

Except there are facts that say she did at the very least have SOME involvement in the death, but the jury decided she only lied to the police for some reason totally unconnected to the death. I mean I would love to know how many mothers when their kids die in pool accidents decide to bury them in a swamp because they panic? How many mothers will go a month knowing their child is missing and never think to report it to the police? These are facts from the case, and the jury thinks that she didn't kill her, intentionally or not, or even recklessly endanger her. What do you call it when a mother knows her 2 year old is gone and says nothing about it for a month if it's not at the least reckless endangerment?

I'm not that surprised. From what I heard the prosecution kept on trying to push a mountain of theory to the jury but had little facts to back any of it up.

I can see them not agreeing on murder one but they could've gotten her for manslaughter or even reckless endangerment, but nope, though I'd love to know what it IS called then when a mother has a 2 year old missing for 31 days and doesn't report it to the police or ANYONE; especially since most people are aware if a missing person isn't found within the first 48 hours they're usually dead and 2 year olds can't defend themselves like adults can.

I'm surprised. I didn't think she'd walk.