Yeah I know, everybody wants these types of discussions to die out, but I think it's a valid question. Somebody pointed out only two women have been executed in Florida, but how many men have been?

I think if she had been a man and she was the father and the same scenario had played out, it would be Scott Peterson all over again and he'd be on death row. But for some reason, people have trouble giving women the death sentence, and that was the big thing for this jury; they didn't want the death penalty, never mind the fact that she'd have about 27 years' worth of appeals, it's not like they just take them out the back of the courthouse and shoot them. But I think if it was a father who had done all this, the jury would've said 'fry him', but because she's a woman, suddenly they get all yellow about the matter. It's like they didn't even want to take a CHANCE on her getting a harsh sentence so they didn't even convict on manslaughter or child endangerment.

No. I think she was aquitted because the prosecution charged her with first degree murder (a capitol offense) and produced only circumstantial evidence while failing to produce any kind of direct evidence or motive. They also allowed the defense to introduce elements of reasonable doubt that the jury couldn't reconcile. If they had charged her with lesser crimes, and put on a stronger case, they'd probably have a conviction instead of an aquittal.

I personally don't believe that Casey Anthony intentionally murdered her 2-years old daughter Caylee nor do I believe that she was a bad mother. But I do believe that she definetely had some involvement in Caylee's death and then tried to cover it up for fear of being charged with murder. She probably tried to chloroform Caylee (hoping to knock her out for a while so that Casey could go out and party), except that she used too much or did it for too long and Caylee died. Then, not knowing what to do, she panicked, duct taped her in a plastic bag, burried her nearby and didn't report her death to anyone for a month. I think Casey should have been convicted of aggrivated child abuse, involuntary manslaughter, obstruction of justice and lying to police officers and she should have been thrown in jail for 15 years. But I don't think she should have gotten life in prison or the death penalty because I believe that she killed Caylee by accident. There was really no established motive for 1st degree murder. Why would a mother (who every witness described as being a good mother) all of a sudden and for no apparent reason murder their two year old? It just doesn't make any sense. Casey's true crime is that of being stupid (borderline crazy) and a liar.

Circumstantial evidence doesn't hold in court like it used to. A few decades ago she could have very well been declared guilty. Also, the amount of evidence barred from courts has increased. Without solid DNA the burden of proof was not strong enough.

I think the poster above has a believable theory, although I would place more intent on her actions and consider her too dangerous to walk among us. But she will walk among us, and if she did indeed do it then I wish her a lifetime of sleepless nights.

I don't think her sex had much bearing. There are men acquitted males out there, too.

I think being a woman would have more likely worked against her. Jurors hate (accused) murderous mothers. I think she was acquitted because the prosecution didn't have enough concrete DNA proof.

Quote :

I personally don't believe that Casey Anthony intentionally murdered her 2-years old daughter Caylee nor do I believe that she was a bad mother. But I do believe that she definetely had some involvement in Caylee's death and then tried to cover it up for fear of being charged with murder. She probably tried to chloroform Caylee (hoping to knock her out for a while so that Casey could go out and party)

That's your idea of a good mother? Really?

(Oh!) Rob Petrie wrote:

Quote :

I personally don't believe that Casey Anthony intentionally murdered her 2-years old daughter Caylee nor do I believe that she was a bad mother. But I do believe that she definetely had some involvement in Caylee's death and then tried to cover it up for fear of being charged with murder. She probably tried to chloroform Caylee (hoping to knock her out for a while so that Casey could go out and party)

That's your idea of a good mother? Really?

Yeah really.

The jury had 365 pieces of evidence to look at, NONE of which they asked to see a single piece of while in deliberation, and they took very few notes and left them behind in the courtroom while they went off to deliberate. So they had no notes, and no evidence to see again for a second time, do they all have photographic memories and never have to see something again to get it right? I highly doubt it. And even without a second look at ANYTHING, in 10 hours and 40 minutes they decided she lied to the police for no reason at all connected to the murder.

They said they believed she was responsible, but, but but, it's always a but. Well it's no longer beyond a SHADOW of a doubt, it's beyond a REASONABLE doubt, so if they already thought she WAS responsible, they can't REASONABLY say all the evidence circumstantial or not points to anyone else and makes anymore sense than that she killed her daughter either intentionally or otherwise. And they seemed to forget that they didn't HAVE to give her the death penalty, they could've given her manslaughter, or at least reckless child endangerment, but this part of the evidence seems to have gone over their heads. Also, they were too busy focusing on the death penalty, which was NOT their job. The jury's job is not to focus on the punishment but to determine the guilt, but they let that take the back burner to the idea of lethal injection, which she would've had a chance to appeal and probably appeal again and again and again. Everybody's saying, even lawyers, that if they HAD gotten her on murder one it's not likely she would've been executed anyway.

CatEyes10736 wrote:

I think being a woman would have more likely worked against her. Jurors hate (accused) murderous mothers. I think she was acquitted because the prosecution didn't have enough concrete DNA proof.

Agree with Cat.

I am sure it helped. They'd have had no trouble putting a man away on poor evidence if the unpopular factor was as strong as it was for her. My question is why they let her go on the lesser serious charges that wouldn't have carried the death penalty.

They had the option of convicting her on manslaughter, obviously or she wouldn't have been found not guilty of that too.

And no I have not served on a jury but there are a lot of people who have commenting on this and they say the same thing, they didn't take any notes, they didn't examine the evidence, they got through it far too fast. It was actually found out one of the jurors had a cruise vacation coming up two days after they gave their verdict, I find it a little hard to believe she didn't have that in mind at all. There are several ex-jurors saying on the cases they sat on, they too found not guilty due to lack of evidence, but they didn't come to the verdict in 10 hours it took them 7 days to reach that conclusion.

So it's one thing to say I don't know what I'm talking about, but when it's people who have actually been in that box saying the same thing, that's a little harder to dispute because if anybody would know about it, they would.

She was acquitted because there wasn't enough evidence to convict her. I don't know why people are still stuck on glue over this shit. From what I've read....they don't even know HOW Caylee died, they don't even know WHEN Caylee died. You cannot convict people based on circumstantial evidence. That is not what a court of LAW is about. LOL.

Supernova wrote:

They had the option of convicting her on manslaughter, obviously or she wouldn't have been found not guilty of that too.

And no I have not served on a jury but there are a lot of people who have commenting on this and they say the same thing, they didn't take any notes, they didn't examine the evidence, they got through it far too fast. It was actually found out one of the jurors had a cruise vacation coming up two days after they gave their verdict, I find it a little hard to believe she didn't have that in mind at all. There are several ex-jurors saying on the cases they sat on, they too found not guilty due to lack of evidence, but they didn't come to the verdict in 10 hours it took them 7 days to reach that conclusion.

So it's one thing to say I don't know what I'm talking about, but when it's people who have actually been in that box saying the same thing, that's a little harder to dispute because if anybody would know about it, they would.

You will never serve on a jury. Anybody interviewing you for a jury would toss you right out. Yes, none of us have served on that jury, but we realized that the ones who did....THEY received the hard, cold facts and all the testimonial evidence. THEY were the ones who sat on the jury for over a month. THEY were the ones who saw everything and made their decision and they did it in accordance to the law which is what you're supposed to do. Because you're so emotionally wrapped up in the case, you fail to see that. Everyone who agrees with the jury's decision doesn't agree that she didn't kill her daughter. She did. But we know that you can't convict based on what you think. It's doesn't work that way.

Nystyle709 wrote:

THEY received the hard, cold facts and all the testimonial evidence. THEY were the ones who sat on the jury for over a month. THEY were the ones who saw everything and made their decision and they did it in accordance to the law which is what you're supposed to do.

A lot of people are letting emotion lead the way. I understand that Caylee was a sweet innocent child & people want someone to PAY. But it needs to be the guilty party based on the evidence. Now I don't believe for a minute this bitch is innocent but if "beyond a reasonable doubt" based on actual evidence wasn't there, then there wasn't much choice. I don't believe jurors are always right either but this is the system we have. It keeps people from being dragged out & hanged in the public square because they "look guilty".

Shale wrote:

A point mentioned in the papers lately was that the jury never found her "innocent." They just found her "not guilty." Semantics maybe but that is the way the law works.

My ref to OJ Simpson was that I woulda been voting to acquit by what I know of the evidence, knowing full well that the brut killed those ppl.

Absolutely. There isn't a tiny bit of doubt to me. Even though a lot of people claim that it was just payback for the cops acquittal, the fact that the evidence had been mishandled alone would make the "not guilty" verdict the only real choice. I don't like it. But that preservative alone being found cast enough doubt to keep him from being found guilty. I would have voted the same way although I wouldn't have been happy about it.