Casey Anthony Found Not Guilty!

[LDSJewess]

I am speechless. So much for justice. Although there was no actual proof and never is unless there is an eye witness on the scene which is unlikely in ANY murder case, the fact remains that a little child died and she was not reported missing by her mother for a month. Someone killed that child. It's heart breaking!

Being a child of abuse many years ago, I have always held to the belief that not ALL women are meant to be mothers. I know the church feels differently, and I am not sure how a woman can have such blatant disregard for her child, but it happens.

Personality disorders and even mental illness can play a role, but so can a girl marrying too young and having children too young before she knows full well the responsibilities of being a mother once conception and child birth have taken place.

This is a very sad ending.

[Backroads]

I'm unsure what to think. If she didn't do it, she didn't do it, but there was so much going on that was WRONG.

[CaptainEm]

With so much lack of evidence, I feel a little bit better about this verdict than a guilty charge.

[LDSJewess]

Granted there is lack of evidence but what kind of mother has a child missing for over a month and doesn't report it. The child is dead and she didn't just mysteriously become dead. A lot is wrong with this picture and justice has yet to be served for this beautiful child.

[Mahone]

I have no idea who Casey Anthony is, but were drugs involved by any chance? In cases like this, drugs are usually the cause.

[Just_A_Guy]

I have no idea who Casey Anthony is. . .

The unimaginable bliss of being across the pond!

Granted there is lack of evidence but what kind of mother has a child missing for over a month and doesn't report it. The child is dead and she didn't just mysteriously become dead. A lot is wrong with this picture and justice has yet to be served for this beautiful child.

True; but convicting Mom if she isn't guilty (not just "deranged" or "out to lunch" or "slutty", but "guilty") doesn't get us to justice either.

This is the kind of system we bargained for when we insisted on trial by jury, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and all that jazz. I'd rather have a guilty Casey Anthony walking free, than an innocent Casey Anthony being beaten to a pulp in jail right about now.

(And, by the way, I think she was convicted of three or four counts of lying to police.)

[Traveler]

If a jury of her piers do not think her guilty of murder - I completely and 100% accept that. I also accept that OJ is not guilty for the same reason.

Contrary to popular belief I do not believe guilty get away with anything - ever. I also believe that people that cannot put such things behind them and move on in life - that they will suffer with the guilty (perhaps even more so); never finding comfort with the innocent - not just now but in eternity.

The Traveler

[LDSJewess]

I know you are right of course (Just-A-Guy and Traveler) but it is just so hard to accept at times.

I know a few with narcisstic behavior that remind me a LOT of Casey Anthony and people like this do not often ever feel accountable or guilty of anything. It is as if they are completely void of conscience.

What makes it difficult is that there are VERY rerely eye witnesses to murder. People who commit murder don't tend to commit their acts in public view so it makes it hard to convict.

OJ is a different story. Loads of money and a lot of politics involved. I son't believe he is innocent for a moment and neither did those when he was tried in a civil case.

But what is really sad is Casey Anthony may very well go out hand have another child or two and I feel so bad for them it is beyond words. And in the slightest possibility that she did not kill her child, she is certainly an irresponsible mother since he never reported her child missing for over a month. Some people should never have children.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

If a jury of her piers do not think her guilty of murder - I completely and 100% accept that. I also accept that OJ is not guilty for the same reason.

Contrary to popular belief I do not believe guilty get away with anything - ever. I also believe that people that cannot put such things behind them and move on in life - that they will suffer with the guilty (perhaps even more so); never finding comfort with the innocent - not just now but in eternity.

The Traveler

While I agree that our justice system must treat as innocent those found not guilty, that doesn't mean I or anyone else has to accept it or agree with it. OJ Simpson is a murderer, and the fact that he's in prison right now is proof that God is watching and will eventually, sometimes sooner, sometimes later, balance the scales. You're right that nobody gets away with murder. Ever. It's because I trust in the vengeance of the Almighty that I can endure that some people escape the justice of man.

[pam]

I've always been of the opinion that a not guilty verdict doesn't always presume innocence. Just that the prosecution was not able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Traveler]

I know you are right of course (Just-A-Guy and Traveler) but it is just so hard to accept at times.

I know a few with narcisstic behavior that remind me a LOT of Casey Anthony and people like this do not often ever feel accountable or guilty of anything. It is as if they are completely void of conscience.

What makes it difficult is that there are VERY rerely eye witnesses to murder. People who commit murder don't tend to commit their acts in public view so it makes it hard to convict.

OJ is a different story. Loads of money and a lot of politics involved. I son't believe he is innocent for a moment and neither did those when he was tried in a civil case.

But what is really sad is Casey Anthony may very well go out hand have another child or two and I feel so bad for them it is beyond words. And in the slightest possibility that she did not kill her child, she is certainly an irresponsible mother since he never reported her child missing for over a month. Some people should never have children.

I do not mean this to sound harsh or cruel. Though I really do not know you are much about you but because I can talk to you - I have something to say to you. (Casey Anthony is not listening to me so I have nothing to say to her - especially on this forum). But my concern right now is for you - I am more concerned about you carrying this burden and the eternal effect that this will have on you than I am Casey Anthony.

As a side note concerning OJ: Did you know that 90% of White people in America think OJ. was guilty and that 90% of Black people think that he was innocent. If I were to bet - I would bet you are White and have very few Black friends that you converse with much concerning this matter. (all of which has nothing to do with OJ’s guilt or innocence.)

My point is that there is nothing to be gained from thinking someone to be more guilty than what the law has provided - as scripture warns us “do not labor for that which will not satisfy”.

The Traveler

[sixpacktr]

Exactly Pam. Same with OJ and some other completely out in left field verdicts. The jury is under strict rules to interpret what they have heard and the evidence produced and match that with the rule of law. I think everyone in the country knows this woman killed her child, whether willfully or accidentally. No one fit to be called mother would just not worry about a 2 year old that has gone missing and not call the cops within 30 mins of not finding her. To wait a month speaks volumes to me that this sociopath killed her kid. But, according to the law, and basing the evidence presented, it is very possible that each member of the jury knew that she was guilty as sin but that according to the rules of evidence the prosecution did not meet the standards necessary for conviction.

But Traveler is right. She may have escaped justice here, if guilty, but that is temporary at best. One day she will answer for what she did....

[prisonchaplain]

Our system is so far from perfect, and yet so appropriate for fallen humanity. If the gal was innocent, she still suffered for her selfishness. She got tried by the whole nation, and the media led us to believe she was a guilty, horrible person. As this thread demonstrates, most still do. On the other hand, if she was guilty, she still suffered some, and will indeed bare that guilt--if not in this life, then in immortality.

I leave the judgment of OJ and Casey to God. Some day I may have to serve on a jury and take responsiblity. In the mean time, I seldom give in to the temptation to waist my precious time by playing armchair jurist.

Having said all that...I totally understand why this is personal for many. child abuse, neglect, and molestation bring out the anger and pain in most parents. So, the frustration being expressed is understandable. May God grant us all peace to bare the burdens that our sin sick world bring us.

[pam]

As a side note concerning OJ: Did you know that 90% of White people in America think OJ. was guilty and that 90% of Black people think that he was innocent. If I were to bet - I would bet you are White and have very few Black friends that you converse with much concerning this matter. (all of which has nothing to do with OJ’s guilt or innocence.)

References?

[Truegrits]

As a side note concerning OJ: Did you know that 90% of White people in America think OJ. was guilty and that 90% of Black people think that he was innocent.

That trial turned into Black vs White, but there were many Black people that thought he WAS guilty, but wanted him to go free, as a vindication of the many blacks that, for years, had not been given a fair shake.

I have wondered how different their support of him would have been, even given his fame, if he had been on trial for the murder of a black wife.

[MarginOfError]

JAG, am I correct in my understanding that it only takes on juror to block a guilty verdict?

[Just_A_Guy]

In a criminal case, yes. There may be one or two states out there with exceptions; but AFAIK the general rule is that convictions in criminal cases must be unanimous.

[prisonchaplain]

References?

Sounds like rough guestimation. According to the Washington Post 71% of blacks thought OJ was innocent--until his later missteps. It's now about 40% that believe so. Black Opinion on Simpson Shifts

[pam]

Well 71% is a lot less than 90%. I was just wondering because my own personal conversations with blacks, not one thought he was innocent. Perhaps backgrounds and geographics come into play. I don't know.

[estradling75]

What I find sad is that in the minds of many she was found guilty long before trial, not innocent until proven guilty as the law states. Anyone of us could find ourselves in a similar situation where everyone thinks we are guilty even if found not guilty in the courts. How do you rebuild your life? How do you start over? And assuming you are really are innocent how do you handle everyone thinking you escaped justice?

[Just_A_Guy]

What I find sad is that in the minds of many she was found guilty long before trial, not innocent until proven guilty as the law states.

I understand the gist of your post, but surely you're not suggesting that I ought to have allowed her to babysit my kids even after indictment came down (or now, for that matter)?

[Truegrits]

How can she NOT be guilty of child endangerment?

How do you lose a child for 31 days, and not report it, to anyone?!?!

Not only do you not report it, you make up stories, tell lie upon lie, to account for her whereabouts.

What possible explanation/excuse could one have for such behavior, except that the truth was much worse...

[estradling75]

I understand the gist of your post, but surely you're not suggesting that I ought to have allowed her to babysit my kids even after indictment came down (or now, for that matter)?

I am using her case as a specific example of a larger and bigger problem. That is trial in the court of public opinion. The media wants soundbites, scandals, and anything thing else that will grab the eyeballs and get people talk. Truth is good if it works but gets tossed aside if it doesn't. Unless someone here was on the jury or in the court room that is the limit on the source of our of facts.

Lets take a made up example... Just_Some_Guy, get accused of child molestation. Its not funny and its not true. He maintain his innocence, and he fight the bogus charge with everything he's got. The media gets wind of it and its their next breaking story. Clearly they have a 'good story' here so they dig up all the dirt in your life. After all, he is human, he has made mistakes, as now his every mistake is laid bare to the world.

He get the coveted 'Not Guilty' and he thinks it is over. But it is not. Someone posts on internet how they are speechless that you were found 'Not Guilty' because clearly the press releases and sound bites are more authoritative then a deliberative legal process were both sides are heard. Others say well maybe he didn't do that, but you see all this other dirt they dug up on him... Well were their is smoke there got to be a fire. And when someone tries pointing out how wacked that whole thought process is, they get "well would you leave your kid with Just_Some_Guy?"

Its an absurd question fogging up the more serious point. I don't leave my kids with people I don't know, I don't even leave them everyone I do know. I leave them with the small handful of I know really well and trust. I wouldn't expect any less from anyone else. I don't know Casey Anthony and I doubt anyone here on the forum does either and probably never will. So it is a meaningless question.

I know courts can get it wrong, but they have alot more safe guards and checks in place to get it right then the court of public opinion does. But how does someone get the court of public opinion to reverse it's verdict when it just moves on to the next story?

[LDSJewess]

I do not mean this to sound harsh or cruel. Though I really do not know you are much about you but because I can talk to you - I have something to say to you. (Casey Anthony is not listening to me so I have nothing to say to her - especially on this forum). But my concern right now is for you - I am more concerned about you carrying this burden and the eternal effect that this will have on you than I am Casey Anthony.

As a side note concerning OJ: Did you know that 90% of White people in America think OJ. was guilty and that 90% of Black people think that he was innocent. If I were to bet - I would bet you are White and have very few Black friends that you converse with much concerning this matter. (all of which has nothing to do with OJ’s guilt or innocence.)

My point is that there is nothing to be gained from thinking someone to be more guilty than what the law has provided - as scripture warns us “do not labor for that which will not satisfy”.

The Traveler

Traveler,

No problem, I do not offend that easy and do not think of you as harsh and cruel. It is true you do not know me, nor I you, and so we each are entitled to our own opinions.

Although, you guessed correct, I am white; and I can also tell you that I have hugged, held the hand, and advocated for a number of black women who were abused, (at some at the hand of a white abuser). Abuse is abuse and it matters not if the abused or the abuser has light or dark skin.

OJ Simpson was an abuser. Were there witnesses to the murder of his wife Nicole and Mr Goldman? Again rarely are there witnesses to murder. We may never know but we do know that he had abused in the past and that is a fact of record. At the VERY LEAST the man was a violent offender and his color of skin has absolutely nothing to do with that fact. The Simpson trial was a media circus not because of his color rather his celebrity.

Regarding Casey Anthony, is she guilty of murder? Apparently not according to our judicial system and the amount of evidence presented. But that said, she should have been found guilty of abuse. It is a fact that she did not report her child missing for over a month. Pure common sense would show that this alone is endangerment to a two year old child. We have Amber Alert and many options to find missing children when it is reported. Not reporting her missing endangered the child, (assuming she was still alive at the time she actually went missing), which is abuse.

Murder? We may never know. But the entire family seems very dysfunctional, and they need therapy which I hope at least the judge will order long term. If another child is born into that family without serious healing, then another child can be at risk.

Do I bear a burden of this? Yes I do and frankly I do not see that as all negative. I grew up in a time when both child abuse and spousal abuse were not even against the law. And I was indeed a victim of both child and spousal abuse and (none of my abusers were black).

The experiences that I had years ago, made me very aware that bearing a burden to help change the system and lobby for laws to protect the innocent as well as provide safe havens for the abused. Many changes have occurred to portect others because many stood up to bear the burden, and it is far from a waste of precious time. It is truly a labor of love, and indeed whatever I can do to help just a little is very satisfying.

[Just_A_Guy]

I agree with much of what you say, Estradling. (Just last month I was involved in a "rape" trial that, IMHO, should have gotten the county attorney disbarred.)

I guess my beef is, it's a big leap from "not guilty" to "factually innocent". It's one thing to say "she wasn't convicted". It's entirely another to say "well, yeah, she partied like it was 1999 for thirty days after the kid disappeared; and yeah, someone at her house googled the use of lethal drugs; and yeah, there was DNA and whatever else; and yeah, she lied and lied and lied and lied and finally tried to implicate her own father--but how DARE anyone even THINK that she might have actually done it!!!!"

There seem to be some people out there (not you, of course) who honestly believe that a jury has some supernatural power to travel back into the past and re-define reality. The rest of us are supposed to suspend critical thinking and historical interpretation, because one of twelve people decided that there wasn't quite enough evidence to convict.

"Acquitted" has no more relation to "innocent" than "charged" has to "culpable". Your position--that you don't trust who you don't know intimately--is eminently sensible; I just wish those who enshrine the pronouncements of juries as gospel truth (at least, when the pronouncement is "not guilty") would take that to heart a little more.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Just_A_Guy