How was Casey Anthony found NOT GUILTY of Aggravated Manslaughter?

i'm no lawyer, somebody please help me out with this...

---
- Casey Anthony was charged with Aggravated Manslaughter, and found Not Guilty.

- under Florida law, 'Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child' (s. 782.07) is defined as:
"A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(3) ..."

- s. 827.03(3) is defined as (in the first-degree):
1. A caregiver's failure or omission to provide a child with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the child's physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the child; or
2. A caregiver's failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a child from abuse, neglect, or exploitation by another person.
Neglect of a child may be based on repeated conduct or on a single incident or omission that results in, or could reasonably be expected to result in, serious physical or mental injury, or a substantial risk of death, to a child.
---

the statute goes on to define second-degree manslaughter and so forth, but i'm not sure that is applicable to this case if the charges are issued in the first-degree (again, not a lawyer). i'm trying to wrap my head around how the jury ruled the way they did and simply cannot -- say what you will about 'fantasy forensics', 'reasonable doubt' and the prosecution 'overcharging' ... to me it seems the jury dropped the ball on so many levels, it is seriously upsetting.

common sense tells me that a child's caregiver did not provide a reasonable effort to supervise and protect her child -- how does that not warrant a 'guilty' verdict on this charge...??

Betsettler2011-07-05T20:20:06Z

Favorite Answer

At the risk of aggravating people I will say (with similar jury selection experiences) that a 7 woman jury combined with 5 men tending towards white and younger means that there is a hefty dose of willful disbelief that a woman (particularly a young white pretty woman) not only would but could commit a heinous crime. To put it another way on the jury there was a good possibility of 7 or more jurors believing women really are incapable of evil and 5 jurors who fall to being "white knights."

?2011-07-06T01:22:18Z

Because the jury had more important things to do--thinking about going on vacation, remembering their own run-ins with the law (DUI) and doodling on the free notebook paper they were provided. They didn't take notes because they didn't understand any of the "complicated" evidence presented. Evidence like duct tape over the mouth and nose of a child, the fact that Casey never actually called the police to report her daughter missing for 31 days (her mother actually made the 911 call), the fact that Caylee's body was found near the family home, the fact that Casey was the last person to see her daughter, the fact that the trunk of her car smelled like death, the fact that Casey partied, drank, and had sex for the 31 days her daughter was missing, the fact that Casey is a documented compulsive liar and thief, the fact that children do not drown with duct tape covering their faces. These "complicated" facts were just too much for the jury to comprehend, especially with such an "attractive" young lady sitting across from them for almost 2 months. The jury rushed through the process. They didn't take their duty seriously. They were seduced by an attractive sociopath who appeared "vulnerable" in court. To be blunt, the jury was made up of a bunch of gullible suckers. I suspect, over time, they will regret their rash and illogical decision.

?2011-07-05T21:58:38Z

because the jurors didn't want to look like hypocrites.

seriously, some of them had charges of drug paraphernalia possession and DUI'S and family members with charges against them as well. The jury are obviously morons and i don't care what anyone says THEY are all brainwashed into believing Caylee's death was an "accident" when there is no proof of that whatsoever. Its funny if there so confident that Casey was not involved in murdering her daughter, why not speak to the media and share there thoughts? I am disgusted and for Casey, karma's a *****, this isn't over for her, trust me. She will make a mistake AGAIN, just you wait and see.

Anonymous2016-10-22T06:20:11Z

She substitute into acquitted because of the fact of incorrect coaching$ from the decide. $omeone substitute into paid off. no person hides an by risk drowned newborn. Asking if she meant it? She researched a thank you to kill, she have been given the components jointly, she killed her. What area of that isn't premeditated? Cindy proved Casey did it by utilising pretending she made the searches 80 4 cases, by risk. because of the fact Cindy could not have made them, there is not any confusion. Casey positioned stickers from (interior the homestead) on the overlaying tape. The phony conceal up tale of the nanny/kidnapper wasn't even seen because of the fact it substitute into shown fake in the past the trial. not too many random kidnapper/nannies could difficulty.

Ashley Brooks2011-07-05T20:13:03Z

Because the jurors were 12 of the most ignorant people on earth.

Show more answers (2)