Casey Anthony Trial - How Did You See The Evidence?

She wasn't charged with, "any type of murder, manslaughter or child abuse".

She was charged with first degree murder. The prosecution could not prove that charge.

They could have proven a lesser charge, but went for broke and lost.

I think she did it, but we'll never know, until she writes her book and makes millions.

There can be little doubt that Casey Anthony participated in, and benefitted from, covering up the death of her daughter. She was not charged with those actions (which I suppose might have been rolled into some sort of conspiracy charge). The state failed to provide a reasonable story of HOW Casey Anthony murdered her daughter. That was the essential weakness in their case.

Moreover, I suspect the jury had watched too many CSI shows and demanded hard proof when circumstantial might have done the job once.

I have the experience, and I suspect many of us on here do also, of being called for jury duty from time to time. During jury voir dire, as soon as I've said I was an engineer, I would get dropped from the panel. Lawyers don't want jury members who can think critically.

What does this trial have to do with engineering? NADDA!

I'm so sick of hearing about Casey the Killer.....it's nothing but media hyperbole for months and months, just like the OJ trial and verdict back in the late 90's. Both perps will roast in Hell ultimately, getting their just rewards even if they got away with it in this life. Fry baby fry!!!!!

People also forget that the public does not see the same performance as the jury. The judge decides which evidence is admissible and which arguments are legally valid. It is this condensed set of evidence that the jury exclusively sees. The jury does not see endless hours of "talking head" reporters babbling on about one speculation or another.

I agree that it is likely that Casey Anthony had a hand in the death of her daughter. I also agree that by not reporting her daughter as missing immediately it proves that Casey was a negligent mother (but not charged of this) and impeded the police investigation (convicted). But the prosecution choose to only charge Casey with aggravated homicide charges that included premeditated murder and child abuse. The prosecution did prove beyond a reasonable doubt (IMHO) that this is the crime committed that caused Caylee to die. They did not prove that Casey is the one individual that did this evil deed.

IMHO the media circus that has swirled around this tragedy has skewered any possibility of finding out who actually killed Caylee Anthony and why. Certainly Casey Anthony's parenting skills (allegedly party hearty) contributed to the death of her daughter. But that contribution does not rise to the level of criminal responsibility for the charges leveled against Casey. This case has raised so many speculations by people but one that I've yet to see is the idea that somebody outside of this family may have been actually responsible. Yes, the timing of Casey's business trip with Caylee's disappearance and the rotting flesh smell of Casey's car trunk does put the prime suspect in the Anthony family. However, what if these are just red herrings that have just led the investigators to not look in the right direction. I wonder what Hercule Poirot would think about this?

Dear Monthow,

<much of todays crime solving technology is recent and involves many of the sciences represented here.>

There are many parts to this issue; two that I concern myself with are-

(a)What is it in us, that seeks justice? An imperfect person or persons did an awful thing and a jury of peers, sequestered for 6 weeks has shown us…. (b) We all have limitations and some of them are…… in our thinking.

The media tried Casey before the state did. The media found her guilty with speculation not facts which they did for ratings. Which they do often enough that those with good sense should not be offended by the out come of the trial. Those naive enough to be drawn in by the media hoopla and are angry about the out come. Shame on them because they let their emotions over weigh the factual evidence which the state had too little to bring it to trial. Their emotions maybe they reasons that she got off in the first place. Their out cry cause by the media may have force the state to go to trial prematurely.

As far as being guilty don't know and at this point don't care as the media has place a sentence on her life that she may never out live.

Your post of this question is another indication of it. Your still trying her here.

If you have new evidence to present take it to the state of Florida. If not let it rest the judge did.

I wanted to stop by and say THANK YOU to all who responded.

After a few days I find it interesting that not one non US forum member has posted in this thread. This was in fact one of the reasons I chose this forum to place the thread. Could it be not as much International exposure and interest as we thought may have been given this case?

I am from the US and live 4 miles from where the crime took place. If you all are tired of this circus, consider my recent (several years) aggravation.

As others have so succinctly stated, it seems obvious that Casey probably killed her child, and IMHO accidentally, while putting her to sleep in order to party. The defense did not win this case, the prosecution lost it by going for a home run to the advancement of their careers. Turns out to be to the detriment.

Although a child killer may have gone free, our Constitution was upheld and proven to work. We live in a country where you have to be proven guilty before our government can incarcerate you or take your life. Thankfully, that "proof" will be determined by the woman you see in the grocery store and the guy beside you at work, not some government worker climbing a ladder.

It was all over international media, but bearing in mind that is just a rehash of the US media; who outside the US, or probably the court, or without a copy of the judges summing up, could make any informed contribution?

Or this is a post is saying; I have 'no idea', am none the wiser, so I have nothing to post.

I imagine most "non US forum members" came to the same conclusion.

I just heard on CNN AC 360 that the prosecution claims of 84 computer searches for chloroform was apparently only ONE search. The prosecution was told about this in late June.This is what the software designer who testified during the trial is telling the New York Times.

Knowing this, it would make since that Casey's mother was not charged with Perjury after her testimony of making a single search for chloroform during the trial. In addition this would also pretty much blow the idea that Casey used chloroform on Caylee.

It is looking more and more like we had a prosecution team out for accolades after what they thought would be a total win in court.This prosecution has me wondering if they grossly misrepresented material facts to gain notoriety and a conviction for this widely published case.

What motive would a prosecution witness have to refute prosecution claims at this time if this is not true?

the district attorney made a huge mistake by taking her to trial before he/she had enough evidence to convict her. that is if she is accually guilty. many people think it was a tragedy of justict when she walked, but it proved to me that the system does sometime work, for better or worse.