Dereliction of Duty

Well as X pointed out they didn't have a case against her that was nearly as strong as they thought they. As well the Jury most of not liked or the evidence wasn't causing the Jury to think in a way that got rid of resonable doubt and they couldn't prove that she killed her daughter. Also it is the prosecutions job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is guilty if they fail to do that then guess what no murder no crime. Which she was found guilty of lying to a police officer. And having recourse against a jury because you don't like the decision is lunacy at best. But I know from previous discussions for you that you lack an understanding of the United States Justice System. So I guess I am talking to a wall. The Jury found her innocent of murder. In a rather short time 11 hours which means the DA really failed at doing their job. That short of a time means their was very little in the way of deliberation which means everyone felt the same. Also them not taking notes doesn't mean anything many people can keep track of stuff in their heads. Generally they would only write things down if they maybe didn't quite understand something for latter. So our justice system worked perfectly this time and it will continue to work perfectly as it has for some 200 years.

None of that happened. The state didn't prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, leaving the jury with no choice but do what they did. Some jurors have spoken out how it was a difficult choice to make, and they did not necessarily think she was innocent.

They are a pitaful excuse for human beings. Saw yesterday on tv where one of the jurors had offered to tell his story for $50,000. He should be put in jail for that.

The jury in the Casey Anthony case exercised their civic duty in accordance with our legal and judicial system though I personally think they reached the wrong decision. The evidence was circumstantial but if you added up all the credible evidence it was unmistakably clear that she murdered her child. The sleazy defense was very effective in sidetracking the case by maligning key witnesses such as George Anthony and Ray Kronk and hypothesizing that Caylee drowned with no proof to substantiate it to create "reasonable doubt." Baez's statement in his opening and suggestive questions that George Anthony and Lee Anthony sexually abused Casey were highly inflammatory and not made in good faith since there was no evidence to support such claims unless Casey took the witness stand. While I respect Judge Perry as a jurist, he should have given a specific instruction when he charged the jury to completely disregard those statements and questions suggesting that Casey was abused by her father and brother since the defense had no reason to make them other than to influence the jury without evidence. From my understanding, jurors often misunderstand the abstract principle of "reasonable doubt" by hypothesizing about reasons to doubt guilt outside of the evidence. Given the circumstantial nature of the evidence the defense preyed on that and won.