Casey stopped crying ..........

[tfcrew]

Wanna know why?
The jury stopped looking at her.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2011/06/casey-anthony-ratings-why-are-people-watching-crazy-stuff.html

[Boethius]

Not guilty on all serious charges.  She was found guilty of making a false police report.
 
I thought she'd get off on first degree murder, but I'm surprised on acquittal on the other charges.

[Rubicon]

I am personally very shocked.  I think she is guilty as sin.  Guess that's why it pays to hire top notch expensive attorneys.  At the very least she should have been found guilty of manslaughter, preferably 2nd degree murder.

[Gator]

The evidence was circumstantial.  Also, do not forget the "reasonable doubt" doctrine.  However, it seems that they could have convicted her for child endangerment. 

[BC]

In the end, I doubt she is rejoicing, and will have to live the rest of her life with the truth, whatever it is.

[Anotherkiwi]

I am personally very shocked.  I think she is guilty as sin.  Guess that's why it pays to hire top notch expensive attorneys.  At the very least she should have been found guilty of manslaughter, preferably 2nd degree murder.

First, the disclaimer - I know nothing of this person, or what she is accused of doing.  However, as someone with a reasonable amount of courtroom time, my questions to you, Rubicon, are simply "Were you on the jury?  Were you even at the trial?  Did you hear every single piece of evidence from every single witness?"
 
Media reports on any trial are always edited and, even if this trial had been covered live by TV in its entirety, I assume that you, like most of us, were at work earning a living while it was on.  There have been plenty of court cases where I have thought it highly likely that the defendant was guilty but, without hearing the evidence first-hand, I'm content to let a jury make up its own collective mind.  As a side-bar, I was on a jury many years ago where we all agreed that the defendant was as "guilty as sin."  The reason we found in his favour was quite simple - we didn't believe that the prosecution had proven their case "beyond a reasonable doubt" (in fact, we didn't think that they came even close).  Despite our feelings, we went with the law.

[tfcrew]

  She was found guilty of making a false police report.
 

She made no report at all. She did however lie to authorities about her actions.
No one will be held accountable for what happened to the child.
Maybe they should hang the jury?   

[Rubicon]

First, the disclaimer - I know nothing of this person, or what she is accused of doing.  However, as someone with a reasonable amount of courtroom time, my questions to you, Rubicon, are simply "Were you on the jury?  Were you even at the trial?  Did you hear every single piece of evidence from every single witness?"
 
Media reports on any trial are always edited and, even if this trial had been covered live by TV in its entirety, I assume that you, like most of us, were at work earning a living while it was on.  There have been plenty of court cases where I have thought it highly likely that the defendant was guilty but, without hearing the evidence first-hand, I'm content to let a jury make up its own collective mind.  As a side-bar, I was on a jury many years ago where we all agreed that the defendant was as "guilty as sin."  The reason we found in his favour was quite simple - we didn't believe that the prosecution had proven their case "beyond a reasonable doubt" (in fact, we didn't think that they came even close).  Despite our feelings, we went with the law.

There was plenty of evidence to convict her with.  Furthermore, she is a liar who changed her story several times.  The jury should have convicted for that alone.  Honest people who are not guilty do not fabricate stories like she did.

[Muzh]

Who the hell is this Casey person????

[SANDRO43]

Who the hell is this Casey person????

See Tfcrew's opening post .

[Gator]

However, as someone with a reasonable amount of courtroom time, my questions to you, Rubicon, are simply "Were you on the jury?  Were you even at the trial?  Did you hear every single piece of evidence from every single witness?"

Exactly.  A person's fate should be decided based on an analysis of facts rather than emotional feelings.  An alternate juror did speak about the verdict:
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43651613/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

[tfcrew]

  Guess that's why it pays to hire top notch expensive attorneys. 

Jose Baez is a relatively inexperienced lawyer.
Read this profile to see how mediocre he really is [or was] ............

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Baez_%28lawyer%29

[Anotherkiwi]

There was plenty of evidence to convict her with.  Furthermore, she is a liar who changed her story several times.  The jury should have convicted for that alone.  Honest people who are not guilty do not fabricate stories like she did.

I'm really glad that you will never serve on a jury in my country!

[Boethius]

The jurors are beginning to talk to reporters -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/06/casey-anthony-jurors-sick-to-stomachs_n_891798.html#s303265&title=Casey_Anthony_Verdict