Casey Anthony found Not Guilty

[larrygator]

Plain and simple, SHE DID IT!

[no_brain_er]

Now, what do you think she'll get for the one charge she was found guilty of?

Personally, I think she'll get off with time served. She has been in prison for 3 years, after all.

Personally, I'm hoping for maximum sentencing (which is still only like 4 years) since I've sided with the "She Did It" crowd since day 1, but it's anyone's guess. We'll find out tomorrow morning at 9am...

[the ghost]

Now, what do you think she'll get for the one charge she was found guilty of?

Personally, I think she'll get off with time served. She has been in prison for 3 years, after all.

Personally, I'm hoping for maximum sentencing (which is still only like 4 years) since I've sided with the "She Did It" crowd since day 1, but it's anyone's guess. We'll find out tomorrow morning at 9am...

SAME! She deserves a lot more though.

[AllenA07]

^Ha! My wife works in a court room and she just told me like 20 minutes ago the judge she used to work for used that EXACT example to clarify circumstantial vs. direct evidence in her courtroom.

 

I wish I could take credit for the cake example, but it has been going around for a long time! Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if that example is older then I am!

 

She should walk free today. Even if they max out her sentence (which they likely will) my guess is they're going to release her due to good behavior time. I know part of the sentance was in regards to another crime, but I would guess that the court will essentially "stack" those sentence. That means that she was doing jail time for more then one crime at a time. As long as that is the case, with good behavior time I can't see them holding her beyond today.

[OISU8P]

Plain and simple, SHE DID IT!

 

that sums it up perfectly. +1 on that.

[AllenA07]

I know you can base a case off of circumstantial evidence, I was just under the impression that it was more difficult. I was under the impression that the prosecutors had a strong case until I heard more of what had gone on after Casey was found not guilty. I thought there was direct evidence presented, and I thought the circumstantial evidence was incriminating enough to get a guilty verdict. However, because it was all circumstantial evidence, the defense was able to give reasonable doubt.

 

Generally it really isn't all that much more difficult, in fact it may be easier. There are a huge number of studies out there that talk about how unreliable eye witness testimony is. DNA evidence which everybody is so in love with is circumstantial. I can bet you that had they found a knife out near the body that had both Casey's and Caylee's blood on it (when you stab somebody you often will cut yourself in the process) this would have been a whole different outcome, despite still being based on all circumstantial evidence.

 

For what it's worth considering that I didn't watch a lot of the trial, I do understand that Baez promised several things during his opening statement that he didn't actually deliver on. If that was the case there is some case law out there which would suggest that his actions there may have been considered ineffective assistance of counsel. So I promise you that I'm not one of those people out there saying that the man is a genius. He frankly was just in the right place at the right time.

[Jew]

After watching the interview w/ the alternate juror, it is pretty obvious the prosecution screwed up big time in wanting this to be a capital crime instead of going for a lesser charge of manslaughter. The dude basically said they ignored the judges instructions about certain evidence (IIRC, he said something like "despite the objections, we heard it and couldn't get it out of our minds") and thought they were the ones deciding whether or not she lived or died, so they were extra careful with what constitutes "reasonable doubt."