RE: Is there any chance Casey Anthony might REALLY be innocent?

I wonder the same about this Terri Horman chick. Trial by media - no concrete evidence.

HER FATHER IS NUTS. It's pretty obvious the Mom left the gate open by the pool and Kaylee drowned. The father (who was an Ex-Cop in Ohio and lost his job cuz he was a complete ass, and lost their house because of his online gambling problem) thought he could outsmart the Police and then put on this whole Kaylee is missing BS.

Casey is pretty much nuts by default having such sh*tty parents. She loved her kid, was the only thing good in her life.

You mean like when a jury unaminously finds someone not guilty!!!

She is innocent. I swear what part of NOT GUILTY does the Nancy Grace lynch mob not understand??

A Media Circus wrote:

But is there any possibility in your mind that she might REALLY be innocent and the jurors were correct?

You clearly don't understand how a trial by jury works. The juror did not declare her innocent.

Juror 3 has spoken and said what many have said after the verdict...she was very likely involved however there wasn't enough evidence to prove any of the charges.

Anthony Insider wrote:

She loved her kid, was the only thing good in her life.

Yep, she showed tons on remorse in the aftermath of her death. I believe she competed in a "hard body" contest at a local nightclub 2 or three days after the kid was last seen. Quite remorseful over losing the "only good in her life."

She had other "goods":

A great job at Universal Studios - oh wait, she lied about that.

A wealthy boyfriend who loved her in Jacksonville whom she often stayed with during the time the kid was missing - oh wait, he never existed.

A great nanny who would watch Caylee anytime - oh wait, "Zanny the Nanny" was a figment of her imagination.

innocent of what?

Even if it was an accidental drowning, it is still pretty disgraceful to dispose the body in the woods and wrap duct tape around her mouth.

My somewhat off-the-cuff impression is that the prosecution knew they didn't have a good case but they felt they had to give it the old college try, since she was obviously a liar and somehow culpable. The DA (or Attorney General?) after the verdict made a statement about how the case was a "dry bones" affair which made it a huge uphill battle.

i don't think she murdered caylee. I do think manslaughter would have been very possibly. I really think that caylee died because of recklessness on casey's part, but obviously we'll never know.

people are saying our judicial process broke down, but in reality, this case was a very good example of how the US judicial process is still holding strong. I'm glad the media didn't influence anything.

no one else could have done it, she admitted kaylee drowned. basically she 'accidentally drowned', so the only logical thing they could think of was to drive her to the nearest forest, armed with duct tape and leave her daughter there to decompose.That in itself should be a crime, but i'll tell you what was going on in those 30 days before she even reported her daughter MISSING, she was letting kaylee rot to skin and bones, to the point where no cause of death would be proven. on top of those 30 days it took additional MONTHS for her body to be found by a parking meter guy, who the defense claims could have put the duct tape over the mouth of the DEAD BODY....what?! It's a shame the prosecutor didn't take time to gather real evidence before making his laughable case.

Investigators never looked for an alternative suspect, rather, they just failed to prove casey did it. she's guilty until proven innocent.

I do, however, believe Nancy Grace is the antichrist.

Anthony Insider wrote:

HER FATHER IS NUTS. It's pretty obvious the Mom left the gate open by the pool and Kaylee drowned. The father (who was an Ex-Cop in Ohio and lost his job cuz he was a complete ass, and lost their house because of his online gambling problem) thought he could outsmart the Police and then put on this whole Kaylee is missing BS.

Casey is pretty much nuts by default having such sh*tty parents. She loved her kid, was the only thing good in her life.

PollyAnnaaa....

It must be weveryone esle's fauklt but hers.

True the apple does not fall far from the tree, but my discomfort is that the child was missing for a month, without her reporting it, and with her partying herself hard like she had something to hide.

Its not disputed in the evidence that she was asked repeatedly by her parents, and she came up with a bs story.

She is guilty of being involved in discarding the body, but they still don't know whether the child was murdered or accidently killed.

She's at the root of it however.

I believe she wanted her daughter dead and conspired to make that happen. But I dont think she did the actual killing. I think she probably gave some guy a bj and money to do the dirty work for her. Then let that same person use her car to dispose of the body.

I just wonder who the father is. She lied several times about that. If you wanted to have a real conspiracy theory mind you could think it was her own father. That would explain a lot of things. Like the difficulty of living with that memory day after day and wanting it to end. A deep dark family secret. The party life theory is possible but not to the point of murder. Many mothers go out and party and act like whores with children at home or with a relative or babysitter. You dont have to kill your kids to be able to go out, drink, party and get laid.

They tested the father's DNA - not the father of the kid

You don't hear of.people putting.duct.tape cover the mouth and.nose of a.dead.person. She and/or her father clearly were involved.in her.death, and the prosecution simply did not have the hard evidence they need for a murder conviction. I don't pretend to understand the law.and the case as well as.the prosecution, but I can't help but feel they did a poor job.

The Magic wrote:

They tested the father's DNA - not the father of the kid

I haven't been following the trial all that much. It was overkill. But I guess that DNA test rules out the dad doesn't it.

A jury acquits OJ Simpson in 1994 because they are too stupid to understand DNA evidence. 17 years and 47,000 CSI episodes later, a jury acquits Casey Anthony because the are too stupid to understand the case without DNA evidence.

Remmeber kids, juries are made up of the people who are too stupid to get out of jury duty.

vasternan wrote:

You mean like when a jury unaminously finds someone not guilty!!!

Go back and re-read the post you were responding to.

Try to get it this time.

You're welcome.

Atticus Finch wrote:

A jury acquits OJ Simpson in 1994 because they are too stupid to understand DNA evidence.

Tampered DNA evidence.

Remmeber kids, juries are made up of the people who are too stupid to get out of jury duty.[/quote]

I assume you're one of them.

If you didn't witness the crime and don't have compelling evidence of guilt, then YOU HAVE NO IDEA what happened.