05 July, 2011

NOT GUILTY: What are your thoughts and opinions?

Photobucket Prosecutors were unable to prove Casey Anthony guilty of capital murder in the death of her 2-year-old daughter Caylee Marie, a 12-member jury found this afternoon.

TO READ THE REST: PLEASE CLICK HERE

77 comments:

Phoenix said...

I always thought it was an accident. That Casey got scared and freaked out because she was afraid she would be charged for murder. I would be afraid of our justice system too. And the way she handled herself. Hell I would have acted the same way. People handle things differently and cope with stress differently. Not saying anything more but there are things that I have done and not talked about and my behavior wouldn't change one bit. It's internal suffering that is dealt with in private. She could have been grieving alone and no one would have known it. I think it was an accident.

Guilty until proven innocent.

Kidsitter said...

She should of received the death penalty.

Just My Two Cents Just Now said...

Honestly...I was not in the courtroom the whole time as the jury was so I need to respect their decision. My gut feeling is they probably thought Casey killed little Caylee, however there was room for reasonable doubt which forced them to acquit Casey.

I personally feel Casey is guilty...but it is mostly a gut feeling. Just the fact that she didn't immediately report her daughter missing speaks volumes to me, but in a court of law...I am not sure this would hold up. Also, the computer searches were very critical to this case..yet her mother claims it was she who initiated the searches...but later it was proved that she couldn't as she was clocked in at work when the searches were done. I think the prosecution had a lot of circumstantial evidence and not enough physical evidence.

Also, Casey Anthony is Female, young, pretty and White which I think also played a factor in this case. No one wants to imagine this woman getting her brains fried in seven years. She just doesn't fit the mold of what we see a typical death row inmate as....

Anyway, I had a gut feeling during the trial that Casey would walk. I believe she is guilty of killing her baby, but there wasn't enough physical evidence to prove it. Which is a very sad thing because I don't want to think that poor little Caylee Anthony died in vain.

Karma will get Casey. Just like it got O.J.

NanGal said...

I think the jury did the right thing. While personally I think Casey had a hand in her daughters murder the prosecution in no way proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.
I also think that maybe Casey did not mean to kill her daughter and did not premeditate it but in the heat of the moment when she got angry for some reason did something to accidentally kill her ie... covered her mouth til she suffocated or hit her too hard.
its a tragedy but this is how our justice system must work or innocent people would be put away too often.

Kidsitter said...

I can't even imagine what it would be like to
Sit and listen to testimony for six weeks and
For that the jury deserves a round of
applause and our respect. It is just so frustating
when it didn't turn out the way you would have
liked.

Tales from the (Nanny)Hood said...

Unfortunately, reasonable doubt led the jury to do the only thing they could do. I do believe that woman murdered her child, and I do believe she will be bitten hard by Karma in the future.

I think she will jump right back into her hedonistic lifestyle as soon as she can safely go out in public (and some people are predicting that will be no time soon), and she'll eventually be arrested again for some other crime. She's a sociopath, IMO.

I do wonder how her parents will live with themselves - they helped their daughter get away with murdering their grandchild.

Village said...

HMOG She is guilty as hell, and the prosecution proved it's case. The problem is the CSI phenomenon. If there is no DNA evidence out the yazoo and all tied up in a pretty bow, juries just don't understand circumstantial evidence.

It's just my opinion, so don't get excited. BUT, this is a road map to how to kill a child and get away with it. Dump the body in a swamp and stonewall for three years.

This is where the dumbing down of America is leading. Who else saw the Q/A over the weekend that showed 25% of Americans don't know who we defeated to win our independence. And for God's sake, we have people running for president who think the Revolutionary War freed the slaves. That was the Civil War, moran. Almost all, if not all of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were slave owners.

Can you see me up here on my soap box? I'm getting down now. PS I know how to spell moron. "Moran' is an inside the ballpark joke. (A teabagger was trying to insult liberals with a sign that read 'Get a Brain! Morans')

Nanny who loves what she does said...

So if it was an accident- in the bathtub-like mom said- why was there dust tape around her mouth? ITS JUST NOT RIGHT!! Now Caylee won't have any justice. The jury system is horrible!! Please love your children and hold them tight.

unicornsparkleprincess said...

@Village: what's a moran? ;)

i was really shocked she didn't get AT THE LEAST aggravated child abuse.

i know people grieve or 'freak out' in different ways, but not saying a single thing for 31 days is absolutely ludicrous.

at first i thought it was an accident, but with the beautiful life tattoo she got the day after kaylee died and her hot body contest that same day really made me think that it could have been intentional.

i will admit though, zanny the nanny made me chuckle a bit haha

Village said...

One more thing. If Tot Mom, or anyone else for that matter, used a drug to silence or knock out a child, or used duck tape to quiet a child, and any or all of these actions resulted in the death of the child, in FL that is FIRST DEGREE MURDER, although it is not in most other states.

So the accidental death of a child involving drugs and or duck tape is first degree murder in Florida. I don't think there is any question this is a case of jury nullification.

world's best nanny said...

I despise the American justice system! If the mom was named Kaneasha, and this took place in Harlem she would have had some overworked public defense attorney and would have been found guilty 2 years ago!

Spellcheck said...

The word is duct tape.

Just My Two Cents Just Now said...

To all the people in the world who thought our justice system was fair...have you all been delusional or what? Remember the O.J. trial?

There is no such thing as justice in this country. I thought you all knew that already!! It's based on the luck of the draw.

Just My Two Cents Just Now said...

@World's Best Nanny: I agree...if this woman wasn't White, young and pretty...if she were African-American, obese and on welfare she would be sitting on death row now, begging her Public Defender for an appeal.

MissMannah said...

I'm just sick of hearing about this case. Everyone keeps saying that Caylee needs justice. Well, no she doesn't. The poor baby is dead and no amount of blame or trials is going to bring her back or justify her death. In this country, a person is innocent until proven guilty and there was no real proof so the jury had no choice but to find Casey innocent. Too many people had already made up their minds about this case before the trial even began, thanks to people like Nancy Grace, so now they are horrified that it didn't go exactly how they thought it should. And to those people I say: get over it.

MissMannah said...

Two Cents, as for the OJ trial, surely you remember "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit"? The glove was the prosecution's big piece of evidence and OJ couldn't put it on, so there you go. Our justice system is based on evidence and concrete proof, not just on what people think probably happened.

It is entirely possible Casey killed Caylee and OJ killed Nicole. But we don't know for certain, none of us do. And I'm tired of everyone acting like they are psychics and saying they know exactly what happened when they weren't there.

america said...

I think Casey is a lying piece of shit. But I also think that the jury did their job. The burden of proof falls on the prosecution, and if the jury finds reasonable doubt, they have to find her not guilty.

I have seen so many people go to prison because of shoddy jurors who did not do their job. I feel this jury did theirs. It is the prosecution that failed.

alex said...

I am another one who thinks she is guilty. I understand why the jury had to say not guilty as they were shown things that provided doubt but just the fact she waited so long and the duct tape says there was definitely foul play. And honestly, I don't care whether it was an accident, if it was an accident and she drowned or something call the police. Sadly, it happens all the time and those parents are not put away in jail as murderers, those are true accidents.

Granted we did not see everything that went on in the court room etc. but I really do not think she should have gotten away with it... just waiting the amount of time she did she deserves some jail time at the very least.

Upstate Mom said...

I remember years ago in the Bronx, a woman was convicted of manslaughter after her infant died. The mother unknowingly was breastfeeding her baby after having had a breast reduction. That leaves you unable to breastfeed. Ignorance not malice killed the infant, but the mother was found guilty anyway. Our justice system just is clearly flawed. I don't really know if casey is guilty of capital murder, but she is guilty of more than they convicted her of; at least child negligence. She didn't report her missing for a month.

MissMannah said...

It is human nature to want to always place blame and to want closure. Unfortunately, that is not always possible. And there's nothing you can do about it, short of changing our entire legal system. If you think you're up to it, by all means go for it. It is antiquated and could use some updating!

You can think I am ridiculous all you want, that does not hurt my feelings because I think you are only functioning on emotions. You are allowing your emotions to get involved and it is a good thing you were not on the jury. Juries have to come to a decision based on FACTS, not a gut feeling or emotion.

And if you think this sort of thing only happens in the US, you are terribly naive. There is a lot more injustice in other countries.

I said...

I guess in the state of Florida, you're allowed to kill a child, bury it for a month, and go out partying. "Not guilty"?! That's such BS.

Kleigh said...

Upstate Mom, "That leaves you unable to breastfeed", this statement is false. In the case of the mom you mentioned yes, it may have been true, but breast reduction does NOT leave a mom unable to nurse a child. In some cases yes, but not all.
On the topic of lil' Caylee? How sad.. Truly sad sad sad.

Kleigh said...

Romans 12:19 Vengeance is mine saith the Lord!

america said...

Well said, Miss Mannah. Emotion simply cannot play a part in a good jury. Too often, it does.

Minka said...

Bottom line: The law is the law. Casey had her day in court (or rather weeks...) We may not like the jury's decision, but we need to accept it and move on.

Life is unfair. No one ever promised you a rose garden.

R.I.P. Sweet and Beautiful Caylee...Rest in Paradise young one. :(

UmassSlytherin said...

Anon @ 8:48: you wrote: i think anyone on here thinking the jury did the right thing is ridiculous. think of what you would do if a 2 year old went missing as a nanny, MUCH LESS A MOTHER! you wouldn't wait 31 days to mention it. you wouldn't party or get tattoos. you'd freak out if a kid was gone for even 5 minutes!

a killer went unpunished.

this really breaks my heart and makes me want to move out of US.


Don't let the door hit you where God splits you. Leave. You'd have it worse in most other places. Look at Amanda Knox in Italy: she's been in prison for years and there was absolutely no evidence to convict her on the charges against her. Feel lucky you are in the US where you are innocent until proven guilty.

The jury did their job. How long she waited, if she partied or got tattoos: those things are not evidence and cannot and should not be used against the defendant, as unfair as that may seem to you. Really, nobody can say the "proper" way to act in the midst of a tragedy.

I personally think she may be guilty. She probably is. But the prosecution did not prove its case. The jury did the right thing. They were discriminating, not emotional. You just can't convict if there is reasonable doubt.

You would be a shitty juror for our country. I hope you never get called for a case like this.

Wow said...

I agree that if she was poor and a minority she would have been found guilty and received the highest form of punishment.

Just My Two Cents Just Now...

I agree with you about there not being fair justice in this country, but I disagree that it's based on the luck of the draw. It's actually based on the size of one's bank account!

I believe she's guilty. Either way, she clearly has psychological issues and needs help.

UmassSlytherin said...

Keep in mind that jurors are made up of y'all. Would you put a minority in jail just because she was a minority? Would you let a white chick off just because she was white?

Why are you saying this? Is it because that is what you would do? Is it the public defenders that you find lacking in performance when paired with a pricey attorney, or do you really just have such low expectations of yourselves as humans? I find many of these posts very disturbing, not the least reason being that every time someone trashes the jury, I feel nervous that y'all are my peers.

Although the media ran away with this case long before it was tried, in actuality life is not like TV. It is not like on Law and Order.

unicornsparkleprincess said...

@UMass
I don't think people commenting think that they would personally convict her if she was a minority. However, there are countless cases in the past where a mother who was poor, lower class and nonwhite and was suspected of killing her child, didn't receive as much media attention and do get worse sentences.
y'all.

A nanny who cares said...

This whole case makes me really sad. Our legal system is not perfect, but it is better than most. I feel so bad for that jury! I'm sure at least a few of them thought she did it, but without the proof they couldn't justly convict her. I applaud them for doing a job that no one in their right mind would want. To have to hear all the gory details and know there would be no justice for Caylee will be something they will live with for the test of their lives.

Wow said...

UmassSlytherin...

It is a fact that poor people and minorities get worse treatment. I've consulted with a lawyer friend (a very good one who is a partner in a law firm) for another friend whose son was falsely accused of something. I asked her about public defenders and she said many of them are actually really good, experienced lawyers, but they have so many cases that they don't have time to invest much time to each one. Their goal is to get people the lowest and quickest penalty possible without going to trial, rather than go through a long, drawn out case. She admitted that poor people who use public defenders get the shorter end of the stick.

Concerning your comment about the jurors being made up of "us", I will NEVER serve on a jury. Never. No one would ever choose me so I don't even go to jury duty. I write them a letter every time I'm served and I get excused because of my family history. Without going into detail, I'll just say that I know the injustice of the judicial system. I've seen it repeatedly. There is another side that you wouldn't understand unless you experience it.

I agree that our system is better than in some other places, but ours has many flaws. It's not the worst, but it certainly is not the best in the world.

Wow said...

The relevance of the public defenders is that sometimes people wind up making pleas and suffeing penalties even when they are innocent. They're scared by being told that a jury might find them guilty and they would serve more time or penalties. My poor friend was so upset about what happened with her son, who is innocent, but has a mark on his name because they couldn't afford to pay a private lawyer.

world's best nanny said...

In 3 suburbs of my town, Roxbury, Dorchester, and Mattapan, a person of color can't get into a cab, let alone a decent lawyer! Karma is a bitch Casey Anthony and she's looking for you! If she starts getting rich off of books and movies, I will personally fly down to Florida to kick her ass! Her "party girl" days are over, I think she'll get her narrow ass thrown out of every club in the area, plus she has totally messed things up with her family. I hope to God the rest of her life is a living nightmare!!

UmassSlytherin said...

Wow,

I don't understand why you would not serve on a jury. Is it not your duty to? So basically you write them a letter and say that it would be impossible for you to be impartial because of your "family history?" I find that a huge cop-out.

princess,
I agree that racism runs rampant in our country, for sure. Think back to the women who have let their kids bake in the car seat because they "forgot" to drop them off at daycare. I recall some of those parents getting off pretty much scott free. I don't think some of them were even charged with homicide. They were white, educated professors and executives.

That being said, I have read a great deal of news coverage and books on cases in our country such as Casey Anthony's, as well as a lot of other types of cases and true crime stories. The ones that I find the most horrible are ones in which people have been falsely convicted and sentenced.

I think the bottom line is that until we hear the interviews with the jurors, we should give them the benefit of the doubt. There was an extreme lack of physical evidence in this case.

I am curious to hear what the missing pieces were for these jurors. I think they should be commended, not lynched. It was not an easy job.

But hell, maybe they were all a bunch of idiots. If the blogosphere is any indication of the pool of jurors, they very well might be.

y'all.

Phoenix said...

unicornsparkleprincess said...


A Moran is the name of one of my cats! Seriously. My little Moran...like the gangster

Upstate Mom said...

Kleigh: Thanks for the clarification about nursing after reduction surgery. I only said it because that was the prosecution's claim: the woman should have known she could not adequately feed her child. If it is not in ALL cases, then my point is even more valid: she was found guilty because of her race and poverty, not because she deliberately failed to nourish her child via nursing after reduction surgery. To be honest, I have no idea whether or not a woman can sufficiently nurse after reduction, but I am happy to take your word for it.

I said...

“Casey Anthony was found not guilty of murdering her daughter, as the American public stands by in shock and awe. In other news, millions of sick and dying American children and adults still don’t have healthcare, to the shock and awe of absolutely nobody.” -Jon Stewart

LIKE ABOVE said...

Huge LIKE for the above comment!

Tara said...

I have been looking at the verdict like this: Maybe this is justice for Caylee. She has already been through her own tragic death, why put her through more heartache by sentencing her mother to death or life in prison? I am in NO WAY defending Casey. My heart aches for Caylee and I cannot imagine killing a child. I just think maybe Casey has been given another chance for Caylee. Maybe Caylee, with her warm heart and selfless love, wanted another chance for her mommy.

UmassSlytherin said...

great quote lol :)

Minka said...

That is sweet Tara...maybe so. After all, a child's love for her parents is unconditional.

Wow said...

Umass...

No, I do not think it's my duty to serve on a jury. I wouldn't even waste my time. You don't need to understand it because you don't know me.

And I don't care if you think using my family history is a copout because you don't know what it is. The circumstances are obviously extenuating, if I'm allowed to be excused, so please don't be so insensitive as to comment on it, thank you.

Tales from the (Nanny)Hood said...

I think one of my favorite authors said it best, although this is not a direct quote from Jen Lancaster:

Vote guilty with your pocketbooks, people. Don't buy the books, don't watch the movies, don't turn on the TV programs. Do NOTHING as a consumer that allows the defendant, her family, or any of those involved in the case to profit from the death of this child.

So, for anyone feeling outrage, that's my suggestion.

Tales from the (Nanny)Hood said...

UMass, I think that lawyers (particularly defense lawyers) seek out the lowest intelligence denominator for their juries. If you read the paper, listen to certain radio shows or watch certain TV shows, and are generally informed about the world, the chances of being tossed from a jury pool are higher, IMO.

Is that right? No, but it's a good way to get clients off - who wants intelligent jurors deciding guilt??

UmassSlytherin said...

nanny hood,
I respectfully disagree. I think both the prosecution and the defense choose jurors based on many different criteria, including race, sex, social class, religion, family history, etc. That's what the whole Voir dire is about, so that the lawyers can choose jurors that will be sympathetic to their case and to their client. I don't really think it has anything to do with intelligence: if a defense attorney purposely chose a dumb juror, that would be foolish. They all want them to be intelligent, intelligent enough to see their point of view. You are assuming that all defendants are guilty in implying that most defense attorneys want jurors to be stupid.

Dr. Juris said...

Umass has it right, Wow. It's your DUTY as an American citizen to serve on a jury if your number is called. And yes, it is a copout whether you choose to see it that way or not. Plenty of people have faced tragedies regarding the justice system....serving on a jury is a great way to overcome those tragedies and ensure justice for someone else.

Phoenix said...

I got out of jury duty once. I just went up there and told them I hate cops and I am racist as shit and that I am sexist and hate both women, men, and children.

Of course having my husbands family as proof of disfunctionality they wouldn't want me 100 feet from a courthouse. My mother got out of it by taking a copy of her prescription bottle of her pain medication and said she couldn't go because she was on meds. They have NEVER asked her back

Kloe K'shian said...

I was trying to believe that maybe Casey Anthony was sorry for what she did..that she carried some type of remorse for her crime, yet I turn on the news, and there she is, with her long hair down and smiling, smiling, smiling...even as she is being handcuffed. It's like she is making a mockery of all of this and we are all just the suckers. This angers me beyond belief, but what I need to keep focused on is that even though she was not found guilty of the crime, her life from today on will be a life of prison. She is today the most vilified person in the United States and she will be shunned and ostracized from society for a long time to come. No one will want her as a neighbor or employee and she will eventually figure out everything would have been more simple for her if she just would have been put to death. It saddens me how many healthy, young and beautiful cats and dogs are euthanized each week in the U.S., yet this woman is given the right to live. She should have been euthanized, or at least sterilized. (Did anyone hear that story that she wants to get pregnant soon??!)

Tales from the (Nanny)Hood said...

Dr. Juris, if you are willing to serve and are excused due to circumstances in your life, that's hardly a cop-out.

Would you want a victim of the same sort of crime acting as a juror on your case? (IOW, if you were accused of child abuse, would you want a victim of child abuse to be on the jury?) I would guess the answer is no.

Tara said...

Kloe K'shian, I heard she has even written about wanting to ADOPT a child. Ummm, good luck, Casey, convincing ANYONE to EVER sign a child over to you.

UmassSlytherin said...

nanny hood,

the question "have you ever been a victim of child abuse" I am certain was asked of the jurors. If you are eliminated due to an honest answer to an honest question, you have still done your duty as a citizen and come to court for jury duty.

Taking it upon yourself to write a letter to the court about extenuating family circumstances regardless of what the case may be (before you even go to court, so that you never HAVE to go to court) is a cop-out, in my opinion.

WickedWorld said...

Oh well! Pretty soon everybody will get away with killing their kids. I wish that I could reach into my TV and slap that smirk off of that "Mother's" face! She needs to be spayed before she runs out and gets knocked up again. I mean COME ON!! When people are accused of abusing/killing their pets, they are not allowed to have any more animals! I think that it should be the same way with Woman and Men. Children are way more important then animals, but we don't protect them nearly as much as the animals are protected! The whole world is messed up! I can't look at a picture of Caylee any more....I get angry, and then sad :-(

MissMannah said...

Did it ever occur to any of you that maybe...just maybe...Casey is "smirking" because she really was innocent and she is just happy to finally have been exonerated?

Just because everyone still thinks she is guilty doesn't make it true. I am going to remind you once more that none of you were there to witness Caylee's death.

UmassSlytherin said...

wicked world,

your comment strikes me as, at best, emotional, and at worst, mildly retarded.

Phoenix said...

she actually does act like a victim of child abuse. My best friend was sexually abused by her dad for 10 years and she would have acted no different than Casey. They do acutally know how to cover that shit up. But in Caseys case I don't really know if she was.

And she wanted to adopt a child from Ireland.

Tales from the (Nanny)Hood said...

Umass, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the legitimacy of being excused from jury duty without going in to earn your $25 a day and on the characteristics lawyers look for in jurors.

Miss Mannah, no normal person would have neglected to report their child was missing for 30 (31?) days. That alone, IMO, makes Anthony guilty as hell of extraordinary neglect and inhumanity. Sadly, she'll likely go on to commit further crimes, although she hopefully won't have the chance to hurt another child. Sociopaths tend to be repeat offenders, especially if they get away with a crime.

Phoenix, I would bet money that Anthony or her lawyers made all that crap about abuse up out of thin air to save her sorry butt. Plenty of people have experienced trauma in their childhoods and don't turn into sociopathic compulsive liars.

sadly not only this case... said...

Where I live, we had a case where the father killed the children to get revenge on the cheating mother. On the same day as the Casey Anthony verdict, this man was found not guilty my reason of mental state.. Just google "turcotte"

Northern Nanny said...

I personally think she is guilty, but had I been on the jury i would have not been able to find her guilty of murder either. I followed the case fairly closely, and the trial (during nap time anyways) , and I knew fairly early on that they would not be able to convict her of the murder charges... had it been murder2, or manslaughter they may have had a better chance. But still I don't fault the jury at all!

Katie said...

Miss Mannah: I see your point that no one...not one of us knows what truly happened to little Caylee.

But c'mon...Caylee's own MOTHER didn't report her to the authorities...if any of my children were missing, I would call the cops ASAP. Any mother would. Casey is only a mother biologically. She never was a real mother to her child.

I think we all need to accept the verdict and move on. I am angry and disappointed as the next guy, but what can we do? The justice system says we all have a right to a fair and speedy trial before a jury of our peers. It also dictates that if there is any reasonable doubt, the jury must convict. It also states that the jury must be 100% anonymous in their verdict. The fact that TWELVE PEOPLE only needed eleven hrs to acquit Casey shows me that prosecution didn't do a very good job proving their case. It is the prosecutions responsibility for proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey killed Caylee and they were not able to establish that. Don't blame the jury...they just followed civic law. Don't blame the defense..they don't need to prove anything...only defend Casey. Blame either the prosecution or the Constitution which gave the power to convict/acquit to normal every day people vs. people who had experience in the law itself.

Think about it..put yourselves in the jurors shoes...it is a HUGE decision to convict someone. To do so, you must be 110% absolutely confident that the person committed the crime because nothing is worse than sending an innocent life to the electric chair just because you based your decision on emotion, etc. That would be blood on your hands that could never be washed off. If I was responsible for the death of another person, I would have to be 100% confident of my decision...because another person's life would be in my hands.

Katie said...

*the jury must convict.

CORRECTION

Katie said...

*the jury must acquit..

UGH sorry...where is my mind???!

WickedWorld said...

UMASS,
Yes. Unlike Casey, I am emotional over the murder of this child. No. I do not have any form of retardation. My Step daughter has downs, and it's truely distasteful to throw the word "retarded" around. PLEASE don't.
We all have our own opinions on this trial. I only WISH that Judges could rule "tube tying" for Woman, and "Snip snipping" for Men who kill, molest, abuse, neglect children. I know it's a far fetched idea, but as MARY POPPIN'S says, "anything can happen if you let it!"

UmassSlytherin said...

hey wicked world,
I have a special needs child as well. sorry if I offended you. I have a knack for offending people. It's in my blood. Don't take it personally. It is really my freedom of speech to use offensive language.

We will never live to see involuntary sterilization happen in this country. If it did happen, you'd better believe we're all in trouble. Because it is a matter of opinion who needs to be sterilized first.

I say the stupid people.

Dr. Juris said...

Agree with Umass on this one. There's a world of a difference between going down to the courthouse before you even know the type of offense charged with an excuse because you don't feel like serving and being let out during Voir Dire.

MissMannah said...

Tales, I was unaware you were a psychiatrist and that you've been treating Casey Anthony for mental illness. You really ought to take your Hippocratic oath more seriously in that case and stop blabbing her diagnosis all over this forum.

Oh wait, you have no possible idea if she's a sociopath.

another opinion... said...

Like a lot of other people, I think that Casey is guilty but that if the prosecution didn't prove their point beyond a reasonable doubt the jury needed to acquit.

I do want to comment on 'getting out of jury duty'. Wow - I understand that your family history must be a very sensitive area for you based on how you have responded. However, one of the best facets of our legal system is the fact that we are tried by a jury of our peers. This is a great privilege that allows us the opportunity to do our part in assuring a fair and responsible outcome for trials. If a person refuses to participate in this process FOR WHATEVER REASON I think that this person looses the right to take offense to outcome achieved in their absence.

If you don't like how the system works - Take Steps To Fix It!!!

Please don't think that I am insensitive to your feelings. I have my own family history. My father was murdered and the man that killed him was not only acquitted but was awarded a large amount of money in a civil suit b/c he was hit while in jail awaiting trial.

Tales from the (Nanny)Hood said...

Wow, MissMannah, did I hit a nerve or what? I've never seen you be so terribly rude - is someone pretending to be you and trying to make trouble?

Tell you what - I won't attack you for your belief that Anthony might just be as innocent as a babe in the woods, and you don't attack me for my belief that she's a murdering sociopathic harpy who deserves whatever bad things happen to her for the rest of her hopefully miserable life.

OK?

UmassSlytherin said...

Nanny Hood,

I thought Miss Mannah's comment was right on the money. You are an armchair psychiatrist. You really don't have any idea what the defendant's diagnosis is. Any indication you make that you do is just foolish.

MissMannah said...

Darling Tales, if you look very closely, you will notice I have never once put my own opinion in this thread. I am trying to specifically not formulate a concrete opinion on this case because I understand that it is none of my business. I am, however, making it my business to make others realize that it is none of their damn business either! The baby is dead and her mama is getting off scot-free, like it or lump it. That's really all there is to it. I am astounded by how much complaining and finger-wagging that goes on after something like this.

Actually, I take that back. Americans are obsessed with sensationalism, and that is just sad to me. Yes, I might have been a tad rude and I do apologize for that. I was trying to bring your attention to the fact that you don't really know what you're talking about when it comes to diagnosing someone with mental illness. Unless, of course you really are a psychiatrist, in which case I apologise again.

Tales from the (Nanny)Hood said...

Umass and MissMannah, what do you call someone who does what Anthony did? Do you both feel it's somehow within "normal" boundaries of human behavior to forget to report that your child is missing for 31 days? Or is that how you would both act as well?

I'll call her a sociopath if I wish to, since that term seems to fit her best. You all can call her whatever you like.

MissMannah said...

You're just not getting it, are you? It doesn't matter what you or I think of Casey. Really, it doesn't matter anymore if she even killed Caylee...as sad as that is to say.

Sure, you can call her a sociopath all you want. I just hope you understand the difference between just you calling her one and her actually being one.

And I've said this about a billion times...you don't know what she did or did not do, so you cannot say in complete truth "what do you call someone who does what Anthony did?" All you (and the rest of the world) can do is speculate. Speculations don't hold up well in court, as well all found out last week.

I'm starting to feel like a broken record.

Tales from the (Nanny)Hood said...

MissMannah, you and I are obviously not going to see eye to eye on my opinion of that woman. I don't get your POV either, so lets just both cut our losses and disengage.

UmassSlytherin said...

Who is to say what is normal? I know for me personally, I would flip out if my child were unaccounted for for a few minutes. But "normal?" What is that?

"All you (and the rest of the world) can do is speculate. Speculations don't hold up well in court, as well all found out last week."

Miss Mannah pretty much summed it up in a nutshell right there.

MissMannah said...

Tales, you're right. We're never going to agree on this and I can fully admit that it is silly of me to even try to convince you to think otherwise.

I do respect you very much on this board, so I'm offering the proverbial olive branch because this discussion has gone on far enough.

My only request is can you please slow down and reconsider for a second before throwing around terms such as "sociopath" to describe someone? It can be seen as very offensive to some, very much like "retarded" can be offensive. Pretty much any mental health condition should not be used as a negative adjective in casual conversation, IMO.

Tales from the (Nanny)Hood said...

I'm certainly sorry if you were upset by my use of the term sociopath (http://sociopathx.com/), but as a psychology major who considered getting an advanced degree and practicing, and as someone with family and friends who do practice in the psychiatry/psychology fields, I feel pretty certain that I am not only correctly using the term when applied to Anthony, but that I don't just "throw around" such terms willy-nilly.

Regardless, let's move on.

Cakeland said...

There was no confirmation of a cause of death, therefore they couldn't say for sure that she was murdered, and in light of that I feel this quote from one of our founding fathers is appropriate:

"It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, "whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection," and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever."
— John Adams

Cakeland said...

There was no confirmation of a cause of death, therefore they couldn't say for sure that she was murdered, and in light of that I feel this quote from one of our founding fathers is appropriate:

"It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, "whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection," and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever."
— John Adams