Why can't people accept the verdict in the Anthony trial?

The jury found her not guilty of first degree murder, not guilty of aggravated manslaughter and not guilty of aggravated child abuse. They did find her guilty of providing false information to a law enforcement officer.

A jury of 12, the accepted way to determine guilt in this country. The trial was presided over by a prosecution leaning judge. The law was followed in his court.

The prosecution presented their evidence, the defense presented their case.

The jury decided.

What's the problem?

The jury wasn't duped, they weren't bribed. They sat and listened. The weighed and evaluated the evidence, and made a unanimous decision. I seriously doubt that as some have insinuated, that they merely made a decision so that it could all be over with. They aren't stupid.

They had the opportunity to convict her of a lesser charge in the death of her daughter, but they felt that the prosecution didn't prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt.

You and I weren't there, we didn't sit in one of those 12 chairs. They got ONLY the information that was admissible in court. WE tried her in the media. Most of the public that she was guilty based on the MEDIA, not the facts.

She was an irresponsible mother and a liar, but neither of those makes her a murderer, nd she was convicted on the lying part.

For every expert witness the prosecution called, the defense called one to rebut, that's their job.

What would you do if you were in the defense seat? Would you want a fair trial? I bet you would, but it's not acceptable that someone else should get one?

Nancy Grace is not always right, she was wrong on the Duke LaCrosse players, and she settled a lawsuit with the Duckett's, and she was obviously wrong here, of course she was one of the ones who tried her in the court of public opinion using the media information as her 'facts', and her faithful followers as her jury.

So the jury decided, you can dislike it if you want, but the fact is, they did their job.

2011-07-05T21:58:30Z

To either answer, and your presumption of guilt is based on what? What evidence do you have? Please share. If you can convince me, I will be happy to not only join the lynch mob, but supply the rope.....

2011-07-05T21:58:31Z

2011-07-05T22:00:24Z

I am in no way saying that there isn't a dead child, to insinuate that is just making a complete fool of yourself. Try putting forth an intelligent argument, it's easier for someone to accept.

2011-07-05T22:00:25Z

I am in no way saying that there isn't a dead child, to insinuate that is just making a complete fool of yourself. Try putting forth an intelligent argument, it's easier for someone to accept.

Eisbär2011-07-06T05:16:49Z

Legally speaking, it was what I expected. The prosecution didn't have any solid evidence against her. It was all circumstantial and based on speculative theories. The thing that has most of the general population outraged is her character. People have a lot of disdain for bad parents. And especially her. So whether she did it or not, there was not enough evidence to convict her beyond a reasonable doubt, so I agree with the verdict (in that respect). If they convicted her solely based on inferences and dislike of her as a person, I would think that would set a bad precedent, especially when the defendant is facing the death penalty. People just want someone to go down for this, and think that Caylee was denied justice. Well, as society, we also have to be concerned about justice for all of us, including those accused of crimes. As one of the most famous and influential justice Blackstone once said, "It is better to let ten guilty go free, then let one innocent suffer."

We can't forsake our laws and our rules of evidence because our emotions get the best of us.

People should be more outraged at the fact that the prosecution decided to go and prosecute a case that they didn't have totally solid yet. There is no statute of limitations on murder, and they could have worked harder on finding some good evidence. There are many others that I also think they ignored that could be viable suspects. I think they got too focused on Casey, when there is a whole other set of people to look into. I find it odd that the mother said she looked up chloraphyll and 80 times it came up as chloroform instead. She also is the one who reported it, and immediately stated the car smelled like a decomposition and then pointed the finger at her own daughter. She also never knew who the father of her grandchild was. She said he died in a car wreck and read the obituary but doesn't remember his name. And what is with this father and his weird behavior? And the brother? There are too many unanswered questions here. And Casey acts like a nut ball, not necessarily a sociopath. She seems almost detatched from reality and believes her own lies. Something that I know from my psychology days, is often a learned behavior and self defense mechanism. She probably had a rough upbringing, and I bet there is some truth to her allegations against her father, but who knows. It's something they should continue to investigate, and even if they learn some day that it was Casey, and can't re-prosecute due to double jeopardy (which is why they should have waited to get more evidence), at least they should try to find more answers.

1 0

Why can't people accept the verdict in the Anthony trial?

Related Questions

Trending Questions