Just the fact that a mother doesn't report her child missing after a month has gone by , then makes up a fictitious nanny to put the blame on. Just that alone makes her guilty of child neglect
yes, that's why i keep saying she is obviously crazy guilty but they should have built a stronger case before going to trial.
Or charged her with the right charges . Not a jury issue, but a prosecution issue.
hey douchbag! i watched the entire trial on tv! i saw and heard everything the only thing they didnt allow to be shown is her dead body some people actually watched the trial and didnt just get their information from the media
Well, the jury saw it all too. And they listened to the judge's instructions and came back with the only verdict they felt they could render. http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/05/anthony.trial.jury/
I watched the trial as well... The Jury did the best job they could with the info the had and were presented with and they had to follow the judges instructions as well. This is life.. this is our jury system.. It isnt flawless.. but it seems to work. We need to stop hating on everyone and calling each other rude names. The jury was selected by both sides and the evidence was presented as such and the jury made the decision. That is our justice system!
holy wow, i just learned a new word today! lol
Wow, I really thought that 'TV' qualifies as 'media'...
Um.... Ned, have you buried a body or something? You are taking people's reactions awfully personally...<br />
All I'm saying is I don't like the fact that, if you hide your crime well enough, then you aren't guilty.... even if you DID do it.
wow what about the baby justice she knew and im not upset bc she will suffer and rot in hell shell probably commit suicide
i hope she dies and rots in hell
I second that emotion! LOL
I study serial killers and watch all I can son. Saying that ***** didn't murder her daughter is like saying Dahmer didn't like boys. Even though she was found innocent people like me will make her regret it for the rest of her existence. All I'm sayin'. You prob thought Peterson was innocent as well.
She was not found innocent. She was found 'not guilty'. There is a difference.
Same diff lolz
jurors declared "not guilty", but yet this was her after the verdict.<br />
Never did she shed a tear whilst they were talking in details about Caylee's death.... BUT only when they attacked her lifestyle. -- ugh
Her bizarre behavior is indicative of a mental problem. If she'd been "acting" don't you think she'd have done a better job of being believable?
u r right
I feel they should have waited for more evidence before trying this case. Then she would have been found guilty which she obviously is, it was an error on the prosecution to rush it to trial without concrete evidence. They would have been smarter to let her walk free for a couple of mos, years until, they had what they needed to convict her of murder. Beyond the shadow of a doubt. It was a big case, which means movies and book deals. The End.
Solid answer, and the correct one.
Our local TBT Headlines point out "It seems that only Caylee knows the truth about her mother". Caylee is now resting with the angels who will love her and keep her safe. And remember one thing - what goes around, in the end, comes around. Justice within the jail walls will take place. <br />
Let us look for the children who are still missing and unaccounted for. Let Caylee have peace; she has earned it.
I did not watch it I am not surprised the only thing I know is this my child my grandchild missing for 5 min and I'd have everyone I could see yell or scream at to help find them not a day later or a week and for sure not 30 days only she knows what happened that I am sure of.
Don't yell at me...I never thought she did it. I didn't think O.J. did it, and I never thought Elvis was the king.
did you know that Elvis used to Rubberneck ... all the time ... strange for a king.
or queen ... whatevah innit ?
if your daughters missing a person would more than likly report her missing hiding her body for 30 days would be enough evidence for me..how can you even think about killing a child something so innocent
I'm not suprised this happened. Admittedly I saw very little of this trial and what I did see well it was obvious that the case was shakey due to lack of evidence and ect. But the fact that she lied to obstruct justice proves that something was amiss that she was trying to hide. Her lawyer didn't want her to take the stand because of the crap that would obviously come out of her mouth. <br />
She knows what happened to that little girl.
I truly felt that she did it, but its just opinion and you're right the jury chose their verdict ba<x>sed on facts and there really wasn't any evidence that was substantial.It's awful, but she got away with murder literally.
i think the prosecution put on more than enough evidence to prove her guilt. too bad the crack smoking jury didn't see it that way.
Too bad you can't be called upon to support your unfounded allegations. That's what I would like to see... people like you, Nancy Grace and Jane Mitchell, you just say anything no matter how ridiculous. Are you sure you aren't the one on crack? Just saying.......
i stand by what i say, the prosecution put on enough evidence to find her guilty and obviously you don't agree. thats your business. maybe you're smoking crack too? and btw, screw you. just sayin...
Yeah, they proved beyond a reasonable doubt who did it, why they did it, how it was done, when it happened, and where it happened. Oh, wait....the prosecution mentioned in their arguement it was their theory (best guess awaiting empirical proof) on her actions. Check the court record.
hey ned check out the meaning of hypocrites Thought she was guilty then still think she is nothing hypocrital here
if only they would have found the body earlier.....
she will still be tried for lying to the court, and her actions no doubt detail a negligent mother, which brings with it responsibilities.<br />
negligence alone would have been convictable.
its cause she white shes
Thanks for the laugh.
i think there may be some truth to your theory, sorry76.
what planet are you from people are convicted every day with no evidence the court systems are broken its all about how much money you have
thats china pal
Which explains why she was broke and unknown before this started...got it
isn't illogical to have a species governed by emotion and logic to not use either? even impartiality is a desire. i think the terms evidence and proof are being confused here. there is damning EVIDENCE suggesting her guilt, but there is no PROOF she committed the crime. Didn't the Nuremberg, trial convict people for their adherence to the "rules" and "laws" of that point in history? When do American judges, face trials for imbibing the law, imposing harsh legal sanctions and excessive sentences which destroy lives and families, fall under the gavel? In ten years if we find new information revealing extraordinarily harsh sentences are unnecessary, do the judges then serve time for the lives they have irreparably damaged and destroyed; or is it okay because they were just following the "law"? i know these a very different trials, but the same principle of unabated legal adherence applies. those in Germany received incredible sentences. can we appeal to consistency?
first off hypocrites is an ignorant term to use here. the only hypocrite posted this message. because you assume something of the respondents without knowing their full story and you condemn us for the same reason others convicted casey anthony not knowing the full story.. the thing is if anyone here was on the jury they would have rendered a decision similar to the one passed. however certain facts remained in the dark and you could have revealed that but instead you just stood by knowing that the evidence to the public would most likely lead them to convict Casey Anthony. it wasn't emotion that did it, it was the lack of facts.