casey anthony did not do it

1. 57

   Live Life Lovingposted 13 years ago

   Last time I checked there were not witnesses to this alleged murder, homicide, manslaughter accidental drowning whatever you want to call it. Everyone is angry because Casey did not get the death penalty however unless you can DEFINITIVELY say that she did it you just need to accept the verdict and move on with your life. And if you can say that she did it then she needed to get off because you did not step up to report you seen her kill her daughter. I understand she may not have displayed remorse (in your opinion) and she lied to the police however, everyone deals with emotions different. This is another problem with out society: everyone is so upset now but in a year or so everyone will forget and let her come out with a book or magazine or in a movie or something people are still going to buy it. Worry about things that matter that has an effect on society as a whole not just 1 person. And in closing I would like to say to little Kaleigh rest in peace baby girl although your life here was short you will live on forever.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Travis_S_Musicposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Decoding all of this was a little...bothersome. All I get from it is that you say you "know" she "didn't do it" because she was let off. That does NOT make her not guilty. I believe there was enough evidence, maybe not physical, but enough there from how she reacted to everything. People keep throwing out "well everyone deals with things differently." Well if that's the case, this whole thing would not be so rare. It would be quite common. Saying that everyone deals with things differently in such a case is a very poor excuse. The first thing any REAL parent would do when they find out their child is missing go as follows:
      1.Check all known areas the child tends to be in or around the house.
      2. Check with neighbors, friends, family, etc.
      3. If within a few hours they can not find their child, they would contact the appropriate authorities.
      I have yet to hear of a parent "searching for a month for their child on their own, because they couldn't handle the trauma emotionally enough to call the police." That does not make the least bit of sense. The whole thing is B.S. and I find it very disappointing that a jury can not call that out when anyone with a LITTLE common sense can see it.

      replyreport
      1. 57

         Live Life Lovingposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I am not saying that I know she did not do it. I am saying I was not there to see her do it whther I think does not matter. I am also saying all of the people who are upset because she was found not guilty shouldnt be upset because they can not 100% say she did it and if they can then they should be in jail for abstructing justice in not reporting a crime they seen take place. Following any "REAL" parent is a subject phrase as what you may think is real may not be considered real to another. That is the usual response yes however just because she didn't fall into that mold doesnt mean she did it. Finally, I live in america and by living here I support our justice system and within our system she is not guilty and I am fine with that verdict. There is no need to be angry because I THINK she is guilty.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Travis_S_Musicposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Sadly it's not against the law to not report a crime, so no they can not go to jail for that. It is not obstruction of justice, it is minding your own business. In america we are allowed the freedom to ignore crimes happening. I guess it really doesn't matter, she would have died in jail, and I wouldn't be surprised if people go after her when she is released.

            replyreport
   2. 81

      lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You are exactly right. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is the standard.
      Too bad it's not lived up to more.
      
      People are reactionary and unthinking. That is the problem.
      So glad this jury wasn't.

      replyreport
   3. 70

      Beth Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      There are very few murders where people see the murderer actually commit the murder.  The drowning story was so unbeliveable I thought the defense laywer was crazy.  Turns out it was just the jury. People don't put duck tape on a child the way it was done if a child drowns. Nor do they cover it up. She didn't even suggest someone else murdered the child but that she drown. Her father had no motive to cover up a drowning.  Who else put the child in the truck of her car?  She had the keys. I doubt her father would have placed the child in HER car and left it there till it stunk before dumping it in a swamp. Chloroform on HER computer, what was it, 89 searchs? Chloroform in the trunk and tire wells.  Why would chloroform even be in her car if the child drown? DUH??? Her lawyers admitted she was a huge liar so why would they believe she had ever been molested by her own father?  No proof there.  Shame Shame .  Had her parents been involved in a cover up they would never have called police to report the stench of death in her car when she was not able to produce the child.  They would have never mentioned she was missing.  The fake nanny. Zanny Nanny, like in using Zanex to drug the child so she could party most likely.  The photos of her partying while her child was rotting in her car is unexcusable.  The evidence was circumstanial but enough for me in it's totality.  I don't see how those jurors can sleep at night. Scott Peterson was convicted for far less evidence.  Not that I think he was innocent.

      replyreport
   4. 70

      Beth Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I think everyone should just ask themselves if that had been YOUR child or grandchild how would you feel after hearing the evidence and the jury set them free. Anyone on this forum who can honestly say they would think it was OK, speak up!

      replyreport
   5. 60

      HattieMattieMaeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I think that if any of us were on trial whether we lied or not there would have to be physical evidence to prove we were guilty. I know the saying goes,  no reasonable doubt that she is guilty. Although it sounds easy to agree with people she may be a liar, she was either very clever, or someone else had killed the little girl. Either way someone botched up something in evidence or there wasn't any. It's hard to say someone is guilty without witnesses and evidence on the body, or around the scene, or some kind of reciepts, her buying stuff on camera, or something tieing her too the incident. Even if she was at a gas station on camera with her, some how there is nothing tieing her too it, or someone is withholding the information. It's sad, but so many people are usually on death row, and proven innocent later and another person found guilty of the same crime. So how we can really judge her just because she is a liar. There is lots of liars out there and even been falsely accused because simply they fit the bill and were liars.

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Beth Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I think that the evidence that proved the child was in her car post mortum ties her to the crime. She was the only person with the car and she had the keys. She rode around approxamatly five days with the child in the trunk after death according to the smell and post mortum hair loss.  She didn't notice that? As well as the presence of chlorform in her trunk along with the numerous searchs for the subject on her computer. Not to mention the duck tape on the childs mouth and nose. I am not sure it was an intentional murder.  I wonder if she was chloroforming the child and putting her in the trunk while partying.  It was hot in June and a child could die of heat stroke.  The duck tape would insure if the chloroform wore off she could not be heard. She would have panicked and covered it up.   Her story does not make sense.  I am a former investigator and it stinks to high heaven.  They should have found her guilty on the counts of manslaughter and child neglect at any rate.  She would not have been sentanced to death for those charges but she wouldn't have gotten off scott free.

         replyreport
2. 70

   Diane Insideposted 13 years ago

   I don't know pretty much anything about this case, but I would like to say this. 
   
   We have to let the justice system work the way it was intended and as far as we know it did. 
   
   But to the OP, like you said we were not there and are not witnesses, so Your original Title.
   
   Casey Anthony did not do it! How do you know did you see who did?
   
   She was aquited because of lack of evidence. So there was reasonable doubt. That does not mean that she didn't do it, it only means that the prosecution didn't have enough evidence to remove all doubt.
   
   However she may not have done it, see, the only one who knows is Casey.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Carliismiles<3posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed, and it's Caylee not Kaleigh

      replyreport
   2. 57

      Live Life Lovingposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Ok so maybe I should change the title however, I was trying to say she was found not guilty. And i todays world where, technology can work wonders and DNA is readily available I think since they didnt find any speaks a lot towards the defense. I just want people to stop being angry and worry about things that matter.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Travis_S_Musicposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         This is something that matters. Whether it's relevent in your life or not, so what. It's about having a justice system that isn't more broken than it already is. And if you read the reports, the body was to messed up for them to be able to gain much evidence at all from it. It's not THAT easy. Technology isn't that great yet.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            This speaks to the prosecutions failure to make their case.  Seeking the death penalty increases the level of complexity and difficulty of gaining a conviction.  The lack of strong physical evidence helped but so did the idea of capital punishment. 
            
            Prosecutors frequently over reach.  In the Rodney King beating case the prosecution went with attempted murder when they would likely have won a conviction if they had gone with aggravated assault thus staving off the subsequent riots.

            replyreport
3. 68

   galleryofgraceposted 13 years ago

   Ask any Judge-  "Acquitted" means : We know you're guilty but we can't prove it." It's that simple.

   replyreport
   1. 64

      prettydarkhorseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Not Proven "Guilty"

      replyreport
   2. 60

      uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      No, no, no.  A trial is about gulty and not guilty. Guilty is a product of the procecution doing a better job convincing the jury that the accused is the best candidate for the crime.  One is always innocent unless convicted and only then.  Acquited merely means the prosecution failed to convince the jury.
      
      If the prosecution in this case had asked for manslaughter instead of capital murder she would probably been convicted.  Seeking first degree murder asks the jury to vote to end someone's life.  The standard for that verdict may on paper be the same but inside jury psychology it is very different.

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Beth Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I agree with your statement that she might have been conviced on the lesser charges.  The Procescution failed to develop the case to address those issues.  Nor did they do a good job picking a jury.  One of the counts with which she was charged was child neglect.  The prosecution was so focused on getting her convicted for 1st degree murder they did not develop or pursue the child neglect or lesser charges.  Caylee was in her care at the time of her death. Where was Casey when she died? Not watching her 2 year old for sure.  Her neglect caused the death of the child, and the facts of this issue should have been addressed.  Where was Caylee when she out partying?  She admitted the nanny was made up. I would have like to have heard this part of the story.

         replyreport
4. 61

   knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

   If we know they are guilty why waste time with a trial. Just put them Gitmo.

   replyreport
5. 61

   TMMasonposted 13 years ago

   You all see them retards and idiots threatening the jury and her family?
   
   What a bunch of morons. And it is the whole country... facebook... youtube... myspace... and everywhere else. WTF am I missing?
   
   This country is screwed.

   replyreport
6. 61

   knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

   They will embrace fascism, while the rest of us will be put in FEMA camps.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      lol... I hear ya.
      
      They have no clue that the 2nd amendment is specifically for defense against an over-bearing and tyranical Govt.
      
      But I know exactly why it is there.
      
      And I will excersize my Rights to their fullest extent.

      replyreport
7. 57

   Live Life Lovingposted 13 years ago

   Yes my mother is saying the same thing. I don't care what happens to her I just want it to be over already.

   replyreport
8. 68

   galleryofgraceposted 13 years ago

   You have to look at the whole forest in this case not just a tree.
   
   We saw Casey mouth words when her Dad testified. We did not see her mouthing anything when her Mom and brother testified.
   
   Lee had been out of the picture, probably because he was sane and level headed.
   
   George supposedly made a police report for some stolen gas cans! Duh! Who in everyday life would call the cops for missing gas cans, when several vehicles belong to the household. I suspect that was some sort of cover up.
   Casey did a good job of making her Dad look guilty. She could be  covering for somebody and it's not Lee.
   
   This is how it is with people who have money and resources. If it was some poor mother whose on welfare, you never would have heard about the trial. She would have been given a court appointed lawyer, sent to prison and it would have been over 2 years ago..

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Beth Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Even the defence stated Casey is a liar. Why would you believe a word she says?  She lied to EVERYBODY including the police.  This is not an act of an innocent person.  People are so ready to think the worst of her dad just on her word.  No proof her dad lied.  It was just courtroom theatrics, a ploy.  Her dad was understandably upset after having been accused of such and it showed.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I've lied to people before, probably even a cop at one point during a traffic stop...
         
         ... but i've never killed anyone!
         
         See? They're two different things!

         replyreport
         1. 70

            Beth Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            If you are caught lying in a courtroom you no longer have credibilty and your whole testimony is disreguarded.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Yeah, probably. If you get caught lying in a courtroom, you go to jail for a year or so. Anthony is going to jail for four years, the she was already in custody for a ridiculously long time, and is getting let out in a week or so.
               
               So now the question is "did her testimony have any bearing on her sentence".
               
               She was found guilty of lying to law enforcement, but she was not found guilty of murdering her child.

               replyreport
9. 61

   Evan G Rogersposted 13 years ago

   The statement "Casey Anthony did not do it" is not necessarily true.
   
   Like the OP stated - there were no witnesses.
   
   All we can say about the case is that Jurors were not convinced that she committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
   
   "Innocent" and "not guilty" are not the same.

   replyreport
10. 92

    Robephilesposted 13 years ago

    I had this exact same reaction.  I knew she would be aquitted because there was not enough evidence but people were saying things like, "why even have a trial.  She is obviously guilty."   In my opinion, she is a loathsome human being whether she was guilty or not but we don't put people in jail or execute them just for being heartless jerks.

    replyreport
11. 61

    ChristianReccaposted 13 years ago

    No one knows, but it's fascinating nonetheless. Clearly she did something wrong to lead to that child's death (if only not reporting a kidnapping), but our justice system is designed to put a heavy burden on the state. Check my hub on the topic.

    replyreport
12. 70

    Beth Godwinposted 13 years ago

    She was aquitted by a jury and will be released.  She has served her time for lying to police.  The verdict of public opinion is another matter entirely.   The quality of her life will probally be most unpleasant.  I will not be surprised if she is called a murderer every where she goes.  Not to mention having to worry about the crazies who might want to do her physical harm.  Her relations with her family will most likely never be repaired.  Therefore, in a sense, she will never really be free.

    replyreport
13. 58

    litlestarrposted 13 years ago

    I have one question if she is innocent, who killed that little girl? Hmm it's for certain someone killed her.
    No innocent mother waits a month to report her child missing.  I had 5 kids, if a 2 yr old was out of my sight 5 mins I was looking for him/her. We need a little more outrage in this country for the people that are committing crimes and walking.

    replyreport