Casey Anthony Acquitted of Murder

Make sure your children don't go to Florida for an education.

50 bucks says she moves to LA and hires a publicist!

My point is that she's not even being held accountable for the things she has admitted to doing!!  That seems crazy to me.  Lets say for arguments sake the death was absolutely an accident and she had nothing to do with it- She still lied to her parents and police about where the little girl was, didn't even place her as missing for a month, and continued to party and act like a teenager all the while her daughter is supposedly "Missing"   That is wrong, no gray area at all, wrong. 

I agree the prosecution didn't do there job to the full extent. How much money and time was spent on searching for the "missing" girl? IF this was an accident and "they" (collective b/c we dont know who exactly) knew where the body was then they should have to pay back the money it cost the state. 
This was not an open shut case - I watched Legs Akimbo's links to abc - ALL OF THEM and cried - so damn sad BUT I agreed with that juror.  No hard evidence linking she actually murdered the child. Sure she is an idiot and should be charged with something way more then lying.  Just wait remember she had a DWI before and they may go after her for that now.
In my OWN opinion she is white and from a middle class family she walked and didn't get charged on a higher count because of this.  If it was someone from another social economical background I highly doubt the same outcome.  That is obviously my opinion and I have no concrete evidence on why it would be but based on years of news stories its how I feel.
Is there a better way to hold a jury? So everyone is treated the same - no not really.
Sorry I went a bit off track there.

I dont think we have seen the end. I do think they will go after her for the DWI and who knows what else and ya know what serves her right.  I would like someone to audit her parents taxes as well just to shake the trees a bit because I feel "grandpa" was involved.
I am glad she didn't get sentenced to death because we all "think" she did it or had something to do with it as that wouldn't be right. I am a person of evidence - I need scientific proof to believe most things and murder is one of them.

In my OWN opinion she is white and from a middle class family she walked and didn't get charged on a higher count because of this.  If it was someone from another social economical background I highly doubt the same outcome.  

I agree that there's an unfair socio-economic aspect to the US criminal justice system, but in this case didn't the defendant get charged with first degree murder?  What higher charge do you think should have applied?

I agree that there's an unfair socio-economic aspect to the US criminal justice system, but in this case didn't the defendant get charged with first degree murder?  What higher charge do you think should have applied?

I meant convicted not charged sorry...She was up for murder and got lying...

Ah, ok, I get what you meant.

I wonder if they can prosecute her for child neglect now. 

If the charges weren't brought against her in the first place it wouldn't be double jeopardy and she admitted it in court, so they would be able to use her previous testimony against her.

I wonder if they can prosecute her for child neglect now. 

If the charges weren't brought against her in the first place it wouldn't be double jeopardy and she admitted it in court, so they would be able to use her previous testimony against her.

Double jeopardy also applies to the incident...so unless they can prove she was negligent in a situation that had nothing to do with the death, I don't think it would be allowed.  Plus I'm sure the lawyers who get paid to do this type of thing for a living would have thought of it and already had it in the works if it was allowed.

I could get behind that, as long as it isn't used against non-custodial parents.   

I don't see any reason why the non-custodial parent should get out of the responsibilities of being a parent.  Obviously there would be certain criteria that would need to be met for a person to be convicted of this and they wouldn't go around willy-nilly throwing completely oblivious non-custodial parents in jail.  The disappearance could happen while the child is with the non-custodial parent and therefore the custodial parent would have no knowledge of it taking place. 

Well, yes obviously if the parent has the child they are responsible. 

I'm just saying if the child disappears while under the care of one parent then you shouldn't blame the parent who was not responsible at that time. 

As for being reasonable, we have all seen how the three strikes you're out law and the sex offenders registry have worked in terms of reasonable judgements. 

No, the problem I have with the jury is that they misapplied the law. No reasonable doubts doesn't mean the absence of any doubts at all. However, she indirectly admitted being present when the child died. her actions over the subsequent month indicated both a lack of guilt and an attempt at a coverup. Plus, how is dumping your kid's body in a swamp any less nuttier than killing him?

Sure, DNA evidence would have been nice. But a mountain of circumstantial evidence was there.

Well, part of the problem was that the prosecution went for the death penalty, and when they do that the jury are even less likely to convict on circumstantial evidence.
Being British, I'm astounded by how the media in the US are allowed to cover such trials. Admittidely it's mainly been on Fox News I've seen it but when, during a trial, people can go on tv and discuss the trial and what they think happened etc - this would be classed as contempt of court in the UK.

The prosecution have to prove guilt, they didn't.....it's not up to the defence to prove innocence.