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

a court of Law found her NOT GUILTY.

Deal with it. Or continue to suck on Nancy Grace's left tit.

Innocent? No Way in Hell! She got away with MURDER!!!!!!!!!

I guess the jury needed an actual video of her murdering her own kid to convict. How much more evidence do you need. She lied over and over to everyone to cover it up. Send the police on a wild goose chase. The more time elapsed the better for her. She did not report her kid missing? What kind of mother could do that? someone who has no remorse and is pure evil. Duck tape on the mouth and nose, wrapped in a bag and thrown into a swap only a minute drive from the Anthony home. She was out partying and getting tattoos while her kid was DEAD! Casey.....Karma is coming after you.

Atticus Finch wrote:

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

And whose fault is that?

If you want your justice system to work, you might want to participate in it.

This is why I might be the last dope on the planet that believes going to jury duty is your civic duty.

BurgerFriesAndShake wrote:

No, but the issue is that she was not proven guilty.

This ^

Casey's a pretty awful person, but I seriously doubt that this was deliberate murder, and the people calling for the death penalty really should check themselves out.

If my husband did not report me missing for a month, lied to my parents and friends repeatedly during that month about my where abouts, lied to the cops when I was finally reported missing, and my dead body was found months later in the neighborhood there is no chance that he would not be found guilty of my murder. As I am slim and blond it would also be on the Today show.

I do not think that the murder of Caylee was premeditated but I do think that she died due to her mother's negligence or abuse. Since Casey is a nut she thought it would be better to cover it up. If she had been honest after whatever happened none of us would even know her name as the story would have not been sensational enough for the nation to become obsessed with.

Way to make it all about you, xxxx. In case you didn't know the victim was a child, not a shallow, self-centered woman who's obsessed about her bony self.

xxxx wrote:

If my husband did not report ME missing for a month, lied to MY parents and friends repeatedly during that month about MY where abouts, lied to the cops when I was finally reported missing, and MY dead body was found months later in the neighborhood there is no chance that he would not be found guilty of MY murder. As I AM SLIM AND BLOND it would also be on the Today show.

OP, nobody knows for sure, but I can't imagine it was a murder, but an accident due to negligence. Then again, what about the chloroform searches on the computer? The mind boggles. All around a very sad case.

I only included the slim and blonde part to mock the media's obsession with attractive women either as victims or as criminals.

I was just trying to point out that when people lie and cover up things that is usually considered evidence that they are guilty.

My main point was that you made it all about you. This is such a sad case, involving a child...how can you make it about you?? If disappeared and [MY] husband did that to [ME] blablabla. Self-centered doesn't seem strong enough to describe you. You seem just plain awful and certainly not the sharpest crayon. Wait...are you Casey??

There is big difference between not guilty and innocent. Something happened to that girl and likely Casey Anthony played a part in that however, we live as a society by the laws that govern us and we must have a strong belief that the institutions which carry them out are fair as possible.

I think the real question is why are people so obsessed with these crimes? Why do we put up with 24 hour news channels putting on hour after hour of speculation, emotion and buffoonery while there are real news stories which go gleefully uncovered, or at the very least, underreported. Maybe the news channels have it right. Maybe we prefer bread and circuses to actually having to deal with reality. Maybe we are content with but if you don’t see this trial as a massive waste of time and part of a larger trend of infotainment than you are playing into the game which is meant to keep us passive and dumb.

Totally agree with that. Humans can be easily fooled

and why was her defense team crying? because they won the case??

wonder how much screaming that little girl while she was being killed.

WOW!

I think she's probably mentally ill.

The prosecution says she did it this way, "Colonel Mustard, in the Study, with a candelstick". The defense doesn't have to prove anything - they just have to demonstrate that there is reasonable doubt as to the prosecutions claim. Hence the verdict of "guilty/not guilty" and not, "guilty/innocent".

It has nothing to do with whether she actually did it or not. Its only if the prosecution presents a case that cannot be denied.

exactly. There is just a good a chance of her being guilty as there is her being innocent, because 99.999% of people have no idea what REALLY happened. They "think" they don't "know" There is so much hatred spreading around, when most people are clueless. Opinions are still opinions until they are proven as facts. People all too often will base their argument on their morals, and not logic. Just becuase you see "facts" being presented, does not make them true. I swear everyone thinks they were there and saw the murder, if that were the case, you should've spoken up and helped that weak prosecution out.

You are right. It is disgraceful but she was on trial for murder, not bad taste.

Rockhound wrote:

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.

."

Why must we equate partying mothers with whores?

This case was a media storm precisely because our society is obsessed with motherly etiquette (or proper gender etiquette for that matter) and continues to conflate "bad behavior" among women and criminality. I agree with Kre that partying mothers aren't necessarily killers. But I have very little tolerance for this way of stereotyping women. As far as I'm concerned, anybody--mothers, fathers, or whoever--should be able to go out and party without being dubbed a "whore." By conflating the two, Kre perpetuates the very same stereotypes that cause people to assume wild women (partiers) are criminals or deserving of punishment.

What we have here is a pretty, young, and white woman who behaved badly when her daughter went missing. Maybe she killed her, maybe not. Either way, I think it's time we stop calling women whores unless they're taking money for sex. In that case, I still prefer "sex worker" or "prostitute"--unless whore is a term of endearment.

This attitude is precisely what's wrong with our society today; you can't actually call someone what the are because it has to be sugar-coated and buried under mountains of socially acceptable jargon. She was out partying while her daughter was missing, fact. She slept with two guys so closely together that she was able to convince one that he was the father when he wasn't. If this isn't a whore, what is by definition?

You're actually happy that an obvious child-killer walks free?

The fact that she was found not guilty teaches a lesson about rationality. The line is 'beyond a reasonable doubt', not 'beyond any doubt'. In the face of more evidence than it takes to send an innocent black man to death row only to be exonerated decades later by DNA evidence, a white woman manages to instill irrational doubt into jurors.

1. The body was possibly never in the car trunk.

2. Duct tape may not have been used to kill her.

3. The blanket was not wrapped around the body as it decomposed.

1a. Something was put in the car trunk to rot. Why?

2a. Duct tape may have been placed over her mouth after she died. Why?

3a. The blanket was definitely wrapped around the body after it decomposed. Why?

First examine the scenario of the same person performing each of the above acts.

I. Is there one person whose reasons for doing all three things would be consistent with all three acts?

II. If the answer to I. above is no, does one of the above three acts stand out as possibly unique to just one person?