It's a wonder this hasn't been posted yet

The problem with out system is that the evidence can be extremely compelling, but in a criminal case like this there can't be any doubt. Any doubt at all. If a juror for one second doubted that Casey was not the one that murdered Caylee, then they had to deliver a verdict of not guilty.

That's a problem with your system, though. One person's doubt shouldn't let a murderer walk free. The doubt of a dozen random people shouldn't allow a murderer to walk free. Average people are morons and shouldn't be given this responsibility.

Ewww, please bring this appeal to a higher Court, please >_> (yes I realize I said that twice).

But for cases like that there was doubt. You cannot explain in any means why a mother would wait a month to report her child missing, then lie about the child was abducted, only to find the child dead in the back of the trunk. Sure there were no dna or pictures but jesus. There's no, 0, justification of just leaving your child in the unknown for a month only for her to turn up like that.

The child wasn't found in the trunk. Not like it matters, really, but I'm just pointing it out.

You can explain it, and they did. Even if they didn't, there is still doubt as to exactly what happened. She's obviously psychotic and didn't want to be charged with killing her own daughter. There's a reason right there. Pomegranatety, but it's a reason nonetheless.

The child wasn't found in the trunk.

Wood's whatever, it was clearly in the trunk at one point, and not a bag of hot garbage, I mean really, do you drive around with a hot smelly piece of pomegranate garbage in the back of your trunk?

This was sheer ignorance, there is no justification of how dumb these people were. Like none.

That's a problem with your system, though. One person's doubt shouldn't let a murderer walk free. The doubt of a dozen random people shouldn't allow a murderer to walk free. Average people are morons and shouldn't be given this responsibility.

There are those who would argue that the doubt of millions isn't enough to keep her locked up on circumstantial evidence (a.k.a. the U.S. judicial system).

That's a problem with your system, though. One person's doubt shouldn't let a murderer walk free. The doubt of a dozen random people shouldn't allow a murderer to walk free. Average people are morons and shouldn't be given this responsibility.

I'm giving you a chance to make an angry dome thread about it before me@@

The other thing that really bothers me about this is that people are now saying

CASEY DIDN'T DO IT? WHO DID THEN? WE MUST FIND THE KILLER

As if some jurors saying she's not guilty actually means that there is another killer out there.

The other thing that really bothers me about this is that people are now saying

CASEY DIDN'T DO IT? WHO DID THEN? WE MUST FIND THE KILLER

As if some jurors saying she's not guilty actually means that there is another killer out there.

HAHAHA I saw that sh'it on Twitter. Someone said they were coming to Orlando to help Casey Anthony find her daughter's killer, LOL!

Can't speak for america, or this case, (were all the court proceedings televised there?) since this is the first i've heard of it. All I know is last time something hugely publicised went wrong in the UK involving a person and their offspring with tragic consequences, the media decided the parents were guilty and gave them hell, and convinced a very vocal amount of the country they did it, without any solid proof. Yeah, turned out they didn't have anything to do with it.


If the people whose job it was to convince the jury that she did it were not able to do so, they can therefore chose to vote not guilty as they did.

I also think its extremely dubious that some of you think the judge should just go on and say at the end of the trial,"nope you're all wrong, heres the right verdict : guilty". Really?

The other thing that really bothers me about this is that people are now saying

CASEY DIDN'T DO IT? WHO DID THEN? WE MUST FIND THE KILLER

As if some jurors saying she's not guilty actually means that there is another killer out there.

That is the implication, yes. Of course the police should keep investigating until more evidence turns up that eithers is enough to convince jurors that Casey did do it, or infact, someone else did.

I'm sure everyone on southperry knows better than to try arguing with you over anything though, that'd be like trying to cut grass by staring at it, nothings going to happen to change your mind no matter what because once you make up your mind, you insist you're right no matter what (I know I'm pretty much the same about it.) but you're not in the jury for the trial. it was not up to you to decide if she was guilty of murder or not.

Can't speak for america, or this case, (were all the court proceedings televised there?) since this is the first i've heard of it. All I know is last time something hugely publicised went wrong in the UK involving a person and their offspring with tragic consequences, the media decided the parents were guilty and gave them hell, and convinced a very vocal amount of the country they did it, without any solid proof. Yeah, turned out they didn't have anything to do with it.


If the people whose job it was to convince the jury that she did it were not able to do so, they can therefore chose to vote not guilty as they did.

I also think its extremely dubious that some of you think the judge should just go on and say at the end of the trial,"nope you're all wrong, heres the right verdict : guilty". Really?



That is the implication, yes. Of course the police should keep investigating until more evidence turns up that eithers is enough to convince jurors that Casey did do it, or infact, someone else did.

I'm sure everyone on southperry knows better than to try arguing with you over anything though, that'd be like trying to cut grass by staring at it, nothings going to happen to change your mind no matter what because once you make up your mind, you insist you're right no matter what (I know I'm pretty much the same about it.) but you're not in the jury for the trial. it was not up to you to decide if she was guilty of murder or not.

I'm sorry but your opinion is way off if you don't even know what the case or circumstantial evidence was. In fact you just look stupid by posting that gibberish.

Ewww, please bring this appeal to a higher Court, please >_> (yes I realize I said that twice).

The prosecution can not appeal a ruling.

The prosecution can not appeal a ruling.

They can't? Who can?

They can't? Who can?

The defendant can, only if they really want to. Appealing is typically if you've been falsely found guilty or believe that you were prejudiced against.

The defendant can, only if they really want to. Appealing is typically if you've been falsely found guilty or believe that you were prejudiced against.

Makes sense. It could be a revolving door, though allowing them one appeal would be ideal. It would probably be overturned if the prosecution was able to get their sh'it together. They had way too many screw-ups.

My Facebook got a lot of hate when I said it was obvious they would rule not guilty. I didn't say I thought she was not guilty...damn. People gotta learn2read.

She also can't be tried for this again, regardless. She will never be brought to justice.

She also can't be tried for this again, regardless. She will never be brought to justice.

Not legally, at least. Most likely not illegally either, but the possibility is always there.

Justice is indeed blind. Because there's no other pineappleing reason not to see what happened there, and what she deserves.

She also can't be tried for this again, regardless. She will never be brought to justice.

At least not on the capital offense. Which is why double jeopardy feels ridiculous in light of the guilty/not guilty outcomes, even if they find evidence to prove without a doubt she did it, there's no way to bring the prosecution except to demonstrate that something shady was going on with the original trial.

God, I just have to say that the media, people and certain people like Nancy Grace has been annoying the hell out of me with this whole case.

She was found innocent, innocent. Personal opinion about if she did it doesn't mean did it. Most everything about this whole case and how it is being covered is beyond unforgivable. Everyone was so sure that she did it because of their own twisted personal opinion, and when she was found innocent it had to be one of the greatest things in a long time.

God, I just have to say that the media, people and certain people like Nancy Grace has been annoying the hell out of me with this whole case.

She was found innocent, innocent. Personal opinion about if she did it doesn't mean did it. Most everything about this whole case and how it is being covered is beyond unforgivable. Everyone was so sure that she did it because of their own twisted personal opinion, and when she was found innocent it had to be one of the greatest things in a long time.

I think you're getting your personal opinion mixed up with how the jury system actually works. Everyone knows she did it, but legally they couldn't provide proof without a reasonable doubt, though I expected that, I did not expect her to get off with the child abuse bull shyt. She had the kid missing for a month, I mean come on, how is that not some form of child abuse or red flag. It's dumb, and I don't have much faith in people if they cannot figure this out.