proved what? What showed she had anything to do with the death of her child? What shows that the child was murdered? The jury got it right, do I THINK she had something to do with it, YES, but you can't convict somebody because you THINK they did it....simple as that.
No murder weapon - AGREED! No cause of death - AGREED! Is the child dead? - AGREED! Who was the child's immediate caretaker? - THE MOTHER - AGREED! The child came up missing and was reported by the mother as stolen by an imaginary nanny - CORRECT! The child's remains were found 15 minutes from the person's house - AGREED! The duct tape found on the child's skull was consistent with duct tape found in the Anthony house! - AGREED! A dead body smell was found in the car, I haven't smelled a dead body but have smelled garbage that smells, it must have been awful - AGREED! I'm sure I am forgetting a lot of things but did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she is guilty, in my opinion YES!
This will be my last post in this thread, as arguing with people on the internet is like banging your head against the wall.
The autopsy bro. THE AUTOPSY. You know, when people died or are killed, they run an autopsy to determine what killed her.
are you for real, the Autopsy didn't show she was murdered, you clearly no nothing whatsoever about this case, argue about something that you know about. 
Again, everyone has an opinion. I understand that the defense has a job to try and poke holes in the theorys of the prosecution. The fact that there is no confirmed death creates a huge problem for the prosecution, however I think they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey was guilty. The great thing about our justice system as well as the downside is that people view this evidence in different ways and in my opinion, I thought the evidence was overwhelming against Casey. I'm not going to get overly upset about this as it is over with, but I just feel bad that we have another case where a child was murdered and we will never find out the answer, although we know what that answer is!
Jurors are not entitled to their opinion. They are charged with weighing evidence and basing their decisions off that. Jurors have to think a little differently than someone like you and me watching from the sidelines.
are you for real, the Autopsy didn't show she was murdered, you clearly no nothing whatsoever about this case, argue about something that you know about.
Lol. Aslong as the autopsy didn't show she died of natural causes, SOMEONE needs to be held responsible for her death.
Sorry if I have a life and didn't follow the trial from my couch since day 1.
Anyone with half a brain (this might exclude you) knows, knows beyond a reasonable doubt she was guilty. I'm pretty sure the autopsy showed she died of asphyxiation or of the chorloform. Murder = guilty.
I'm sure if covers was around you would have been saying OJ was not guilty aswell.
No murder weapon - AGREED! No cause of death - AGREED! Is the child dead? - AGREED! Who was the child's immediate caretaker? - THE MOTHER - AGREED! (1)The child came up missing and was reported by the mother as stolen by an imaginary nanny - CORRECT! (2)The child's remains were found 15 minutes from the person's house - AGREED! (3)The duct tape found on the child's skull was consistent with duct tape found in the Anthony house! - AGREED! (4)A dead body smell was found in the car, I haven't smelled a dead body but have smelled garbage that smells, it must have been awful - AGREED! I'm sure I am forgetting a lot of things but did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she is guilty, in my opinion YES!
1. so she is a shitty mom, doesn't prove she killed her kid.
2. true, what proves that she had anything to do with putting it there?
3. True, what proved that she put it on the child, is she the only person to have access to it?
4. This is where it is very questionable, you had tons of people that never smelled anything that where trained police officers and others who rode in the car. ...Even so, it wasn't like the car was always in her possession is it?
Listen, I THINK she had something to do with it, IMO, I think she tried druging her kid to go out and party and it went all wrong, but they never proved that she did it....So if I was on that jury , as I argued with my wife the last week, I would have found her NOT GUILTY..... Simple as that, they did not prove it , even though I think she had something to do with it.
This will be my last post in this thread, as arguing with people on the internet is like banging your head against the wall.
The autopsy bro. THE AUTOPSY. You know, when people died or are killed, they run an autopsy to determine what killed her.
What are you talking about? They don't even know what the cause of death was. 
Lol. Aslong as the autopsy didn't show she died of natural causes, SOMEONE needs to be held responsible for her death.
Sorry if I have a life and didn't follow the trial from my couch since day 1.
Anyone with half a brain (this might exclude you) knows, knows beyond a reasonable doubt she was guilty. I'm pretty sure the autopsy showed she died of asphyxiation or of the chorloform. Murder = guilty.
I'm sure if covers was around you would have been saying OJ was not guilty aswell.
Apparently not a group of her peers 
autopsy showed she died of asphyxiation or of the chorloform. = WRONG
that would seem to be correct, but we both know that there is zero chance of that happening.
that would seem to be correct, but we both know that there is zero chance of that happening.
zero chance that she is ever tried again because of prejudicial errors.
zero chance that she is ever tried again because of prejudicial errors.
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
