.
July 14th, 2011
05:00 PM ET

Did the Casey Anthony trial alter your view of the criminal justice system?

ALT TEXT

(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Casey Anthony is scheduled to be released from prison on Sunday. As a free woman, she will reportedly live in a secret location, likely under a new name. According to some reports, Anthony is being advised to dramatically change her appearance.

While her attorneys are aware how hated she is, Anthony may not fully understand that until she gets out. While she's been sitting in a jail cell, she has become a celebrity of sorts, getting letters of support and cash from all over the country. ABC News reports Anthony has nearly $500 in her jailhouse bank account. The money has come in from at least 17 donors since May, mostly from men. What a surprise.

In the grand American tradition, Casey Anthony stands to make millions from telling her story. Not that it would likely be the truth. She's a stranger to the truth.

A producer associated with "The Jerry Springer Show" has offered Anthony $1 million for her first televised interview. However, “The Jerry Springer Show” denies the offer was made to appear on that particular program.

You can bet that at some point there will be an interview, a book or a movie. She stands to become a rich woman while the questions about what happened to her beautiful little daughter remain unanswered. For 31 days, a child is missing, and Casey Anthony parties while lying to everyone about the child's whereabouts.

The trunk of her car was later found to smell of death, her daughter's remains were eventually found tossed in a swamp like so much trash, and the jury found her not guilty of her daughter's death.

She was convicted of repeatedly lying to police. But why would you lie to police if you had nothing to hide?

Here’s my question to you: Did the Casey Anthony trial alter your view of the criminal justice system?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Kay:
Yes, for the better. The jury did what they were supposed to do: put emotion and conjecture aside and weighed the actual direct evidence. There was "reasonable doubt" all over the case because none of the evidence was ever directly connected to Ms. Anthony. We cannot say a person committed murder just because we don't like him or her. Proof is required, and there was none.

Richard in Malvern, Pennsylvania:
The verdict only bolsters my cynical view of our justice system. It is a system run by lawyers a.k.a. liars. That being the case, juries do the best they can based on the evidence, or lack of evidence, they are presented. It supports the old adage that, "If you are guilty be tried by a jury; if you are innocent be tried by a judge." As a post script, I think she is a stone-cold killer.

Joan in Morrisville, Pennsylvania:
Yes. What possible reason can a mother give for not reporting her child missing for thirty one days other than having something to hide?

David in Alexandria, Virginia:
No. It worked. If you bring charges against someone and can't convince a jury of their peers that they're guilty, they walk. It is a vital, critical protection afforded all of us by the Constitution. Having said that, I wish the prosecutors had gone after a lesser charge which might have stuck. Something isn't right in the Anthony family and we may never find out what that is, or how else it may manifest itself on someone else in the future.

Carla in Alabama:
No. Those 12 jurors came from very different backgrounds, and each found that there was not enough evidence to convict. Even though they knew they would face incredible criticism after they delivered their verdict, they did what they felt was right, not what was popular. We may not always get it right, but I’d rather see one guilty party go free for lack of evidence than see an innocent woman sent to her death on popular opinion.

Paul in Texas:
The prosecution did not provide proof beyond reasonable doubt. So I guess the system worked. Those guilty will eventually pay. Right, O.J.?


Filed under: Law Enforcement
soundoff (273 Responses)
  1. d.dean

    no

    July 14, 2011 at 1:50 pm |
  2. Loren

    The Casey Anthony trial is just a repeat of the O.J. Simpson trial, but with less evidence and a lower paid attorney. Clearly, the prosecution failed to quantify a number of factors in the case and the jury was forced to find her not guilty. Justice is blind.

    July 14, 2011 at 1:54 pm |
  3. Carla Martin-Wood, Alabama

    No. Those 12 jurors came from very different backgrounds, and each found that there was not enough evidence to convict. Even though they knew they would face incredible criticism after they delivered their verdict, they did what they felt was right – not what was popular. We may not always get it right – but I’d rather see one guilty party go free for lack of evidence than see an innocent woman sent to her death on popular opinion.

    July 14, 2011 at 1:58 pm |
  4. Paul

    FromDeepInTheHeartOfHurstTexas

    The Prosecution did NOT provide proof
    ........
    beyond reasonable doubt

    so I guess the system worked

    Those guilty will eventually pay

    Right OJ?

    July 14, 2011 at 1:58 pm |
  5. David of Alexandria VA

    No. It worked. If you bring charges against someone and can't convince a jury of their peers that they're guilty, they walk. It is a vital, critical protection afforded all of us by the constitution. Having siad that, I wish the prosecutors had gone after a lesser charge which might have stuck - something wasn't right in the Anthony family and we may never find out what that was - or how else it may manifest itself on someone else in the future.

    July 14, 2011 at 2:04 pm |
  6. David Gerstenfeld

    After the other soap opera trials i.e. O.J. & Robert Blake etc. it's almost expected. Couple that with over zealous prosecutors who think the trial is a slam dunk you end up with a media circus, an expensive trial, and worst of all ,an innocent child without justice. The D.A. & his merry men should be fired.
    David, Las Vegas

    July 14, 2011 at 2:09 pm |
  7. Bizz, Quarryville Pennsylvania

    No, it reinforced my belief in our justice system. I felt just like the jurors I felted, she was guilty but there were not enough proof presented by the state to convict her. I think this trial will cause prosecutors to make more sure they have their ducks in a row and enough evidence before they go to trial. That might be the only good thing to come out of this trial.

    July 14, 2011 at 2:10 pm |
  8. Dennis in Los Angeles

    Just one more reason why Holder's idea of trying terrorists in a civil court is ridiculous. What was the terrosit's motive? No DNA evidence left after the explosion. Terrorist was abused by father. Gee, the terrorist is kinda cute, he could never have done such a terrible thing...

    July 14, 2011 at 2:11 pm |
  9. johnathan

    It served to reinforce my belief in our justice system.In this day and age of media driven entertainment,the woman was already tried and convicted before a jury was even selected.It was good to see that the court of public opinion held no sway in a court of law.

    July 14, 2011 at 2:15 pm |
  10. Pete

    It convinced me that, at least some of the time, the trial-by-jury system works. But it also altered my perception of prosecutors. Used to be, it was VERY hard to get a conviction on just circumstantial eveidence, yet in this trial the prosecutors EXPECTED it...even though conviction could have resulted in the death penalty. Let's back up here, D.A.'s – provide hard facts and proof of guilt if you expect jurirs to convict.

    July 14, 2011 at 2:15 pm |
  11. Cecile Kazemi

    Not exactly, but it did solidify my belief that we need trained jurors. Unfortunately, so-called "random selection" of citizens is not quite as random as might we think (or hope) as both prosecuting and defense lawyers seek to fill the box with jurors that might possibly view their side of the case favorably. These individuals, while genuine in their intent to serve, are essentially untrained to deal with the drama and flurry of courtroom antics. I believe that the results of Casey Anthony trial speaks volumes – and we've heard it directly from some of the jurors themselves. Reasonable doubt vs "reason to doubt." We need to fill jury boxes with people that are thoroughly prepared for the tactics that lawyers practice to win their case. In that way, we may well see an emphasis on providing justice for both society and the plaintiff, instead of "winning."

    July 14, 2011 at 2:18 pm |
  12. Bit

    No Jack-

    The criminal justice system worked for OJ and it worked for Casey. It just didn't work for the prosecution. Maybe it altered their view.

    Bit
    Prattville, Alabama (Roll Tide).

    July 14, 2011 at 2:18 pm |
  13. Kay

    Yes – for the better. The jury did what they were supposed to do – put emotion and conjecture aside and weighed the actual direct evidence. There was "reasonable doubt" all over the case because none of the evidence was ever directly connected to Ms. Anthony. We cannot say a person committed murder just because we don't like them. Proof is required – and there was one.

    July 14, 2011 at 2:24 pm |
  14. David R Bebeau,Springfield Missouri

    Yes Jack it really did.How on earth in the United States of America can a child be killed in a house on a street with three adults living in that house and not a soul is accountable and no one knows anything yet we STILL have a dead child unaccounted for I ASK YOU SIR HOW ON EARTH CAN THAT BE????????HOW ON EARTH CAN THAT NOT BE CHILD ABUSE????????? HOW???????

    July 14, 2011 at 2:25 pm |
  15. Wilhelm von Nord Bach

    not really, Jack.

    high profile cases like Casey Anthony and before that O J Simpson, always seem to end up in wierdness. in the Anthony case, even though the jury was "sequestered", I think that nightly comments from "barking dogs" like Nancy "Dis"-Grace, who had Anthony guilty and exectuted a year ago on TV, might have been a factor in her acquittal.

    also high profile cases attract a high profile defense attorney. so once again, it's a case of "getting the justice you pay for". IF either Casey Anthony or O J Simpson had had a public defender, do you REALLY think they would have been aquitted?

    July 14, 2011 at 2:28 pm |
  16. Pete in Georgia

    Yes and no.
    For the prosecution to prove a capital crime while seeking the death penalty.................without eye witness, air tight proof is almost impossible in today's world. Jurrors will always have reason to doubt.
    The Prosecution needs to be smarter, less arrogant, and reach for attainable convictions.
    Defense attorneys love cases where they can introduce doubt in daily doses to the jurry.
    Sadly, it's all a big game......................and many times JUSTICE is not served.

    July 14, 2011 at 2:28 pm |
  17. rose cline

    i think the woman is crazy and she is gone to make money from her dead chile. what a shame it make me so mad

    July 14, 2011 at 2:31 pm |
  18. Paul From Austin Texas

    What altered my view is that if you keep feeding bs to the jury they just might let you off as in this case. She would of never got out if she had a Texas jury.

    July 14, 2011 at 2:33 pm |
  19. Dan in Albuquerque

    Jack, my generally positive opinion of he justice system was reinforced by common sense jury members who followed the law. No one could prove exactly how Caylee died, No murder was proved, so there is reasonable doubt. Casey's lying and personal behavior may be disgusting, but that is not murder. The public has no legal right to know the answer and trheir anger will change nothing except to make it a crime to not report a missing child.

    July 14, 2011 at 2:34 pm |
  20. Marianne Geraci

    Yes. I think that should be a moderator in the jury room. Someone needs to be there to help guide the process and help jurors both comprehend the law and to ensure it is followed in their deliberations. In this case, the jury clearly confused reasonable doubt with all doubt.
    Reading, MA

    July 14, 2011 at 2:35 pm |
  21. Joan

    Yes, what possible reason can a mother give for not reporting her child missing for thirty one days other than having something to hide.

    Morrisville, Pa

    July 14, 2011 at 2:36 pm |
  22. Richard C.

    The verdict only bolsters my cynical view of our justice system. It is a system run by lawyers a/k/a 'liars'. That being the case, juries do the best they can based on the evidence, or lack of evidence, they are presented. It supports the old adage that 'if you are guilty be tried by a jury; if you are innocent be tried by a judge'.
    As a post script, I think she is a stone-cold killer.
    Malvern, PA.

    July 14, 2011 at 2:37 pm |
  23. Floyd Burgess- Crescent City,CA

    No. If you can get 3 or more sleazy lawyers, you can get away with anything. If you get a Public Defender, you go to jail forever.

    July 14, 2011 at 2:37 pm |
  24. Jodi

    YES I am saddened by the fact that the prosecutor had no evidence connecting the defendant to a murder or even manslaughter. I was further outraged over the fact that the State then put forth "false claims" rearding "84" computor searches for chloroform, a TV star as the medical examiner who then claimed (falsely) that no one ever hides an accidental death (she never heard of hit and run drivers even when not drunk driving) and a body farm geek who is not a chemist making exageated claims of high cloroform which he did not have tested in a way to caluculate the volume...........just his guess.
    NOW we hear Detctive Yuri say in response to the defense theory of accidental drowning, "That day this whole thing could have ended had we known the truth." Clearly Yuri knew this was an accidental drowning but was pissed that he culd not get Casey to admit it.

    July 14, 2011 at 2:38 pm |
  25. Ed in Harrisburg

    The Casey Anthony trial alterned my view of whether or not cameras should be allowed in the courtroom. Before I was all for it, but after seeing the major cable news services overdose on it and the aftermath and forget other news, I am very much against such coverage. Nancy Grace has become a disgrace and is a parody of herself along with Jan Velez Mitchell and the histronics they both convey in turning HLN into the new News of the World tabloid replacement.

    July 14, 2011 at 2:45 pm |
  26. Elizabeth From Toronto

    No. It reinforced that it works. The Prosecution did not prove it's case and the defendant is free.

    July 14, 2011 at 2:46 pm |
  27. D. Wilson

    D. Wilson, St. Louis, MO
    No if you look at the facts and the way they were presented the legal system worked. I think the prosicution should have approached he case differently as they had no hard physical evidience.
    HOWEVER what has changed is my view of the media. All the attention it was given compared to other NEWS. My god it ran on HLN 24/7 I finally deleted that channel off my remote

    July 14, 2011 at 2:47 pm |
  28. Sandy, NJ

    If anyone's view on the fairness of the American criminal justice system was actually altered by this show trial then I can only ask – When did ignorance become a point of view?

    July 14, 2011 at 2:52 pm |
  29. Guinne

    Writing from Fort Collins, CO:

    Yes, it has. I've all but moved through the shock of the jury's decision. I am well aware of the necessity of separating emotions from facts. But I still don't quite understand that we have a mother who acknowledged knowing her child was dead. This same child was found in a trash bag, discarded in a swamp. They found her guilty of lying to authorities. How could you not then find her guilty of child neglect? Forget how the child was treated when she was alive or not knowing how she died. We know how her mother treated Caylee after she died. Eaten by animals without so much as a proper burial. It is as disappointing as it is heinous a jury could not find her guilty of (at least) neglect. If this is not neglect, define for me please...what is?

    July 14, 2011 at 2:52 pm |
  30. Phil, georgia

    YES!! I didn't know you can be sooo guilty and still not be charged with anything. Atleast I thought you would be charged with something. If you don't get found guilty on a major charge, you should be retrialed on a lesser charge so you don't walk free on something you clearly took part in.
    This is sickening, how could Casey or attorneys be so happy when the daughter is dead. Somebody is guilty cause Caylee sure is not here no more.

    July 14, 2011 at 2:54 pm |
  31. Gordon NJ

    No. America's legal system is so highly politicized that it usually rewards prosecution, not justice. As a result, prosecutors who are either incompetent or lacking solid evidence, often seek to try their cases in the media. The American legal system and the media really need to take the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" more seriously.

    July 14, 2011 at 2:56 pm |
  32. Michael "C" Lorton, Virginia

    Jack: Yes it has Jack--Our civilization has decided that determining the guilt or innocence of person is a thing too important to be trusted to trained law professionals. When we want a library catalogued, or the solar system discovered, or any trifle of that kind, it utilizes its specialists. But when we wish for anything to be done, which is really serious, it collects twelve of the ordinary individuals standing round.

    July 14, 2011 at 3:06 pm |
  33. CRAIG R. MCNEES

    tampa, fl no, it is pretty bad when a guy with 1 semester of college law can predict the outcome. how about some new laws on the books that no matter who wins, any money from all book deals, interviews, movies of the week, etc. must go first to the state to reimburse the taxpayers, then to the victims?

    July 14, 2011 at 3:06 pm |
  34. B. J., Quincy, Il

    Yeah, It showed me that if you get into trouble , you better get a good attorney because you can get away with murder.

    July 14, 2011 at 3:07 pm |
  35. Ed from California

    It started long before that. We have a "Justice System" that is bought and paid for! It's blindfold is off (In case some Kochplican is on trial) and the scales removed (In case some Kochplican is on trial). Unless your from means, or one of the "pretty people", then your just screwed. Keep on voting for the Koch/FOX"News" party.

    July 14, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
  36. Cathy

    No, because the prosecution did not meet their burdon of proof

    July 14, 2011 at 3:11 pm |
  37. Larry from Georgetown, Tx

    The only complaint that I have is that the jurors don't get to see all of the information to make a decision.

    July 14, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
  38. Rich McKinney, Texas

    No not really Jack. Our criminal justice system is not much but there are worse justice systems throughout the world. What happened with Casey Anthony is what occurs when the prosecution can not prove their case. The prosecution should have never brought this case to trial without enough evidence to convict. It was a waste of money, time and resources and there was no real urgency to bring her to trial because the statute of limitations on first degree murder never runs out.

    July 14, 2011 at 3:24 pm |
  39. pat in michigan

    No !the O.J "Circus "took care of that.!This was just a confirmation !

    July 14, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
  40. Will Thames

    The media portrayed Casey Anthony guilty from the beginning. Placing in the minds and hearts of America, the same fallacy being brewed. Whether she did it or not, the final judgement is God's to decide.

    July 14, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
  41. Bert Gibbons

    The verdict, along with similar verdicts from high-profile cases show that the jury system in our country does not work. A jury comprised of pool of drafted citizens is no longer appropriate in our country. The average America is too stupid to digest complex scientific information/evidence, and has the attention span of an 8-year-old. Sitting on a jury trial for weeks on end is simply not feasible for most people, and those that can afford to take the time are not up to the task. It's time we grew up as a country and employed professional jurors. Educated in law, science, etc.
    Either that, or educate the public. Otherwise each and every jury trial is a crapshoot. Bingo! A way to create 3 million jobs!

    July 14, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
  42. Curtis in Philadelphia

    No Jack. I think OJ pretty much took care of that.

    July 14, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
  43. Scott, Phoenix AZ

    No, it did not alter my view of the justice system, however it did alter my view of the media's non-stop coverage of what was really a local event, while ignoring other national news stories for weeks.

    July 14, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
  44. Bruno Mihaljevic

    ...jack...jack...jack...the criminal justice system just does not work...a jury or a bunch of people without proper training & expertice in law will never replace a well experienced judge...&...his sound decision making...
    ...b.

    July 14, 2011 at 3:33 pm |
  45. Ed Hoffman

    No, the jury found that a reasonable doubt existed, and acquitted the defendant.
    The prosecution did not lay out a complete case and the defense drove a "fully Loaded Semi" through the evidence.

    July 14, 2011 at 3:34 pm |
  46. Denny from Tacoma

    Actually I am more impressed with our criminal justice system. I too was surprised of the outcome, but I commend the jurors for acknowledging that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and am happy that the trial outcome was not swayed by Nancy Grace, the media and public opinion (including mine).

    July 14, 2011 at 3:34 pm |
  47. Richard35 Canfield, Ohio

    Yes! Getting at the Truth should be the object of the Justice System. Not who can obstruct or cast doubt on the Truth.

    July 14, 2011 at 3:37 pm |
  48. Paul, New Port Richey, Fl

    No Jack. It re-inforced my contempt for the injustices. OJ Simpson, Charlie Rangel, and the long list of those who got away with it goes on and on.

    July 14, 2011 at 3:39 pm |
  49. Annie, Atlanta

    Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson, Wall Street Bankers, The Bush Administration's war crimes. Take your pick. Then we have a biased Supreme Court with the appointment of Bush in 2000 and the recent Citizens United Case. We're screwed.

    I worked for defense lawyers years ago who always filed a Jury Demand with their answers. They're reasoning: force Plaintiffs to settle rather than try a case in front of 12 people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty. There you go.

    July 14, 2011 at 3:41 pm |
  50. METALWORKER

    No. It mostly works as it did this time. The law found a young girl who acted badly over some dumb mistakes. A single mom in her late teens missing out on life happens all to often,. and looked no futher.
    The law felt that an uniformed youngster would be overwhlemed by a group of over confident Att.
    Thank God she had three who could see her for what she was and were able to get most of the truth out.
    Now if only there wer some way to convince everone that it is time to accept what is and Let GOD be the JUDGE going foreward. METALWORKER

    July 14, 2011 at 3:43 pm |
  51. AlanB

    The criminal justice system is a farce and always has been. Letting 12 unqualified people make decisions about the guilt or innocence of anyone without the benifit of extensive training is foolish.

    July 14, 2011 at 3:46 pm |
  52. Sylvia from San Diego, CA

    Absoultely not!! The typical jury is made up of a bunch of dummies, just like the OJ Simpson case. No common sense or ability to think 1 step ahead.....

    July 14, 2011 at 3:49 pm |
  53. MNResident

    Nope, I always thought the US Criminal Justice System was garbage (like most of the rest of government), and at most, the trial confirmed it....

    July 14, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
  54. Stephen N. Blesofsky

    Not at all. The problem was prosecutorial over reach: first degree murder was a huge stretch and seeking it began an undermining of the prosecutor's case.

    Look at the the lastest examples of prosecutorial errors: Anthony, OJ Simpson, Roger Clemens, strausse/Kahn (poor vetting the "victim").

    Has anyone ever questioned how much this bungling and/or lack of ego control costs the taxpayer? Why not hold prosecutors (and others) to the same standards as teachers are being held to?

    July 14, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
  55. marie smith

    Yes it did. I am very disappointed in the jury. I saw the evidence and Casey Anthony just got away with murder. In my view the evidence was overwhelming. I do imagine she will be having to look over her shoulder the rest of her life. People do not like child killers.

    Marie Smith
    Lynn Haven, Fla

    July 14, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
  56. Dan

    In a time when many Americans -myself included- think that we are overregulated and overlegislated, the fact that there was no charge that covered not reporting Calee missing, just blew me away. I think the criminal justice system was follwed, but the legislative system was to blame for that deceased little girl not recieving the justice she deserved.

    Stewartstown, PA

    July 14, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
  57. Sharon from Savanna Illinois

    It didn't alter my view of the criminal justice system-but it did alter my view on incompetent prosecutors and corrupt investigators. We'll never know what happened to that little girl.

    July 14, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
  58. Cheryl - Tennessee

    People are not educated with facts and common sense when voting, we should not expect any thing different when being on a jury!

    July 14, 2011 at 3:53 pm |
  59. Cheryl (South Dakota)

    yeah judges should make the call and dump the jury system that wouldn't know a murderer if he/she were flipping their hair and smiling in front of them

    July 14, 2011 at 3:55 pm |
  60. Bud Rupert

    It's easy to sit in judgement from our easy chairs but I must say, that to this observer, the prosecution should have at gotten a guilty verdict on conspiracy/criminal misconduct – at the very least. I think they boxed themselves in with the frist degree muder rap. When there is no evidence linking the someone to the actual murder – its' a problem. BUT, not having alerted auhtorities for a month on Caylee's disappearance – and then lying should have gotten her 10-20 in my book. It's a complete miscarriage of justice.

    July 14, 2011 at 4:00 pm |
  61. Grant

    No it did not! The real injustice is the people who have been falsely convicted, some of whom may be on death row. The more significant bad outcome from this case is how some people have reacted in a potentially dangerous way. I think we need to go back to newpaper reporters in the courts who then inform the public rather than TV media / entertainment coverage.

    July 14, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
  62. Warrren

    No. A jury is still made up of ordinary men and women, and anything can happen. As the citizenry continues to show less and less wisdom collectively, these abominations can be expected to continue.

    July 14, 2011 at 4:05 pm |
  63. Debra Mersereau

    Unfortunately; I think the prosecutor did not have a strong enough case built against the mother and I have faith the jury based their decision on the evidence presented... so the system worked the way it should work. Do I believe our system can be improved on.... YES; but I felt that way long before this case!

    July 14, 2011 at 4:05 pm |
  64. Mary

    Jack:

    I lost faith in our criminal justice system long ago, this is the icing on the cake. Our system is horrible and should totally be trashed.
    It seemed as tho anymore anything that SHOULDN'T BE IS and what SHOULD BE ISN'T.
    The U.S. caters to criminals, blush prisons, tv's, rights that they should not have once found GUILTY. Making money off of movies, books, etc. 3 meals, cot, meds, all paid by the tax payers.It's just all to disturbing to handle any longer.
    Just too much INJUSTICE IN OUR SYSTEM.
    DUMP IT AND START ANEW.

    P.S. ANOTHER MURDERED JUST WENT FREE.
    Where is the Justice for Lil Caylee?

    Sincerely,
    Mary ~ Mt. Prospect, IL

    July 14, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
  65. Chris. Hillsborough, NJ

    Not in the least. People often forget the criminal justice system is just that: a system. It doesn’t necessarily make a difference if you’re innocent or guilty, but instead, whether you can beat the system or not. The plain truth of the matter is that there are many innocent people in jail and many guilty people on the street. It has its shortcomings. But we shouldn’t forget that it’s a system which provides its citizens with certain liberties not seen in other countries. What would you rather have: innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent?

    July 14, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
  66. Kenneth from California

    It is a good system, except for the fallibility of Juries. As in the O.J. Simpson trial as soon as the sequestered juries were given the case to deliberate, they went packing their bags. The O.J Simpson was the longest trial in California history, and in less than four hours of jury deliberation, they found him not guilty. It took the Casey Jury about eleven hours to deliberate seven weeks of testimony. Chances are their bags were already packed.
    May be a Jury should be required to deliberate one day for every week of the trials testimony.

    July 14, 2011 at 4:13 pm |
  67. Peg in NY

    Totally.

    July 14, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
  68. Gary - Woodhaven, Michigan

    It altered my view in a positive way.

    We romanticize about many of our beliefs, we at times create a type of spirituality from our most endeared passages. One of the sacred tenets we hail most is the belief, innocent until proven guilty. Though most aspire to this, it has became evident hardly any Americans walk the talk.

    If the jury could not believe that this presumed innocent person was proven guilty, then the system worked. No matter what many million judges may assume.

    My hat is off to the jury and judge for this most difficult decision.

    July 14, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
  69. AppletonTPF

    No.

    In the media you are guilty until proven innocent. Under the law, you are innocent until proven guilty. A guilty verdict must meet a standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt".

    Don't blame the jury, the system works and they followed the rules of the system – even though it made some of them sick.

    The problem is not the criminal justice system, the problem simply lies within the definition of what is a "reasonable doubt". It is obvious that is is not a one-size-fits-all expression.

    The system does not need to change – but the definition of "reasonable doubt" does!

    Appleton

    July 14, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
  70. Cheryl in Bluffton, SC

    Not at all, Jack. "Not guilty" is not the same thing as "innocent." There just wasn't enough physical evidence to convict. The jury did their job and the system worked. Having said that, I would slap upside the head any family member or friend who would buy Casey Anthony's book.

    July 14, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
  71. Joseph Gallant

    Sorry Jack I could not find any other place to submit this rant !

    July 14, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
  72. Dan Louisville, KY

    Yes, even though I also witnessed the O.J. trial. Over-hyped, over-publicized trials with sequestered juries do not produce a just verdict. I no longer think I would be willing to serve on such a jury.

    "Beyond a reasonable doubt" apparently now means that if you cannot prove that guilt is "obvious", then you must acquit? The fact that the jury could not convict is one thing, but to think that out of 12 jurors, all 12 concurred so quickly and no one wanted to argue any longer than a day shows that lengthy sequestered juries is a big mistake. It is also increasingly clear that ordinary folks are turned off by the many PhD types that testify to completely opposite conclusions. You may be a forensic archeologist or a forensic pathologist, or worked in the FBI lab for 27 years -0 blah, blah blah – not guilty!

    If the trial is long enough, you can no longer get 12 people to agree that 2 plus 2 is absolutely 4.

    With 4 one-year consecutive sentences for lying, the Judge (who was great), signaled to all that Casey Anthony got away with murder. She may well run afoul of the law again, just like O.J.

    July 14, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
  73. Fred In LA

    No the verdict doesn't alter my view. The Prosecutors couldn't prove Murder 1. Yes common sense points to Casey. Unfortunately jurors have to deal with the facts presented and only those facts. It's a shame, but it's the way our system works and I wouldn't trade it off for anything.

    July 14, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
  74. Karl in Flint

    I have ways accepted the fact that our criminal justice system isn’t perfect. What boggles my mind in this case is the fact this murderous tramp will be given a new identity essentially at taxpayer expense. The part of that I don’t understand is when you get a new identity, you are transplanted and blend into the woodwork. If she does write a book, how can she hawk it on TV and on tour and not at least give up her physical appearance? Will she wear big hats with heavy veils? Of course, on Monday, she could instead announce she’s joining the GOP presidential race. After all she’s as qualified as the rest of the field.

    July 14, 2011 at 4:29 pm |
  75. Lisa IL

    It's the law enforcement I am losing faith in, if they would have done their job when Kronk first called they would have had tons of evidence and we would of had a much different outcome. See the stories in the headlines Jaycee Dugard and Caylee Anthony both were failed by law enforcement, they did not do their jobs. I am not saying all law enforcement but those who are to lazy to follow through on their jobs.

    July 14, 2011 at 4:29 pm |
  76. J. Moore, Virginia

    The criminal system did fail- Casey Anthony killed her sweet little girl.
    Who else did it?????? The jurors could of charged her with child abuse. Neglecting to notify anyone including her parents that her child was missing for 31 days is child abuse and a crime.

    Why is Casey Anthony being protected? Who protected Caylee?

    The best thing the media can do is to IGNORE HER!!!!!

    July 14, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
  77. Mark, Oklahoma City

    No, Jack, that happened about 15 years ago when a jury of 12 morons decided to ignore a mountain of evidence and find O. J. Simpson not guilty of a vicious double murder in front of his ex-wife's home where his children were sleeping just a few feet away. Do we really want killers to have a "jury of their peers"?

    July 14, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
  78. Donald in New Mexico

    Not at all Jack. The criminal justice industrial complex is a total mess. We spend too much on enforcement and incarceration. The war on drugs has over filled prisons, back logged court dates,and the cost is bankrupting the states. There is little justice for the poor. A common saying is "You get as much justice as you can afford". Outcomes of cases differ from state to state. Texas would have killed Casey for being a bad mother, then her dad for being a pervert, then her mom for lying. Florida lets them go. Where is the justice? The media needs to quit convicting people even before a trial. D.S.K. is just the latest case of media driven, conviction in the court of popular opinion. And how often are cops caught on video acting as judge, jury, and administer of punishment? How often does that happen off camera? Justice comes down to who you know, and who you can afford.

    July 14, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
  79. Alex in Bremerton, WA

    Not really, Jack. The side with the most money usually wins.

    July 14, 2011 at 4:33 pm |
  80. Lori - PA

    Jack,

    While I'm not happy with the verdict, I am glad to see that the media wasn't able to influence the hard decisions that the jurors for the Casey Anthony trial had to make. I still do have faith in the criminal justice system; we have to remember that there are a lot of countries that don't have a justice system that's anything like ours.

    July 14, 2011 at 4:40 pm |
  81. Margie

    It sure did!!! In my opinion the jurors needed help in understanding the
    evidence. It almost seems they did not use the circumstantial evidence, maybe they thought they couldn't. Then maybe they did not fully understand the "reasonable" doubt issue. Someone should be making all this clear before they go and start deliberating. Heck, they didn't even discuss the case long enough if you ask me. Some of those jurors must have been bullies. I'm sorry, the jury was wrong. People say we have to respect their decision, I do not. They are not always right, and this proved that, now, didn't it? I'm so upset. It's like these 12 people were smarter than the Judge, smarter than the the detectives, smarter than the expert witnesses. UNREAL!!!!

    July 14, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
  82. Sean in Michigan

    No. It's unfortunate that the prosecution didn't do it's job, but it is good to know that the jurists could set aside opinion and look at the evidence as presented and hold the prosecution to it's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the core of our justice system.
    The fault isn't in the system, but in the failure of the prosecution to prove it's case.

    July 14, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
  83. Judie Williams

    Absolutely this has changed my view...I, as many others was in disbelief upon hearing the verdict, and the question(s) remain...how, why, etc. For me the state presented evidence which was more that sufficient for charges....certanly other than lying.. I KNOW she is proficient in that. Each juror no doubt will have a different story as to how/why the not guilty verdict was determined. Yes, she (the accused) stands to make mucho bucks, yet the outrage will linger for a long time, if not for her lifetime. Was there juror fatigue & frustration...just wanting to be dismissed and return home ?

    Something's is rotten in FL.......same state that had the "chads" not too long ago.

    Sadly the news media will NOT shun her, but rather pursue her, and feed her ego all the more.

    I want to believe our justice system WORKS....not in this instance, but other cases of murderers, rapists, parents who have inflicted harm to their children, big shots & little squats.......

    (jw)

    July 14, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
  84. Jim

    Jack, No bur Supreme Court Justices; Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy have. Now Big, Rich, Power, and Ideology trumps: Small, Poor, Naked, and Existing. We are now an Imperial Nation with Imperial Justice being applied.

    July 14, 2011 at 4:51 pm |
  85. Michael Bindner, Alexandria, VA

    No. The justice system is predatory with prosecutors seeking publicity for higher office or cable TV shows. Most defendents need treatment, not trial and punishment.

    July 14, 2011 at 4:51 pm |
  86. Paul P.

    I don't question so much the legal system, but of people ourselves. While the murder evidence wasn't perfect, her actions alone were damning enough to me to find her in some way responsible for the child that was supposed to be in her care. Be it murder or manslaughter, how a jury managed to throw common sense out the window and talked themselves into completely acquitting her, concerns me greatly.

    July 14, 2011 at 4:52 pm |
  87. barbara in nc

    I just hope God sees fit to never let that woman have another baby.

    July 14, 2011 at 4:55 pm |
  88. Anthony J. Frascino from Swedesboro, NJ

    The trial against Casey Anthony was open and shut in my opinion. Casey was a young party girl involved in many liaisons, one of which resulted in, oops, pregnancy. She found her partying seriously curtailed by the overwhelming demands of this nuisance of a child who caused her to stay home and miss all the local highlights at the nightclubs. I'm sure her "boyfriends" complained about her lack of availability for their prurient ambitions. What's a mother going to do? It's obvious to me that the child must have tired of her mother's wayward ways and went off to the woods to commit suicide.
    Casey couldn't believe her good fortune and partied hardy for thirty days. Now that a discerning jury saw the truth, she's finally free from the shackles of the police state and going through the catalogs to pick out her next party dress. How about getting an agent, a reality show and a book signing? Isn't American Justice just wonderful?

    July 14, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
  89. Ralph Nelson

    No. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Jury had doubts.

    July 14, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
  90. Eve of Texas

    Not really, but the sequestering system failed. Two types of people sat on that jury–ones who wanted to pursue financial endeavors of a high profile case and those who did not want to lose salary, family time, etc. Then after weeks of sitting through boring, unorganized babble, particularly from the defense, most just wanted to go home. The only decision that would get them home the same day of the decision was "not guilty." Eve of Texas

    July 14, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
  91. Mark....in Houston

    Jack...

    The Casey Anthony trial did nothing to alter my view of the criminal justice system.

    What has altered my view ...is watching how it doesn't work in Texas.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:00 pm |
  92. Dennis in Florida

    I believe the Casey Anthony trial was a great example of the American judicial system functioning properly despite the media hype.

    I have no doubt that she was guilty of something; however, it seemed that she was grossly overcharged. It took the prosecution over two years to assemble the ‘evidence’ that was presented. Unfortunately for them, other than outright lying, the evidence did not support the charges. They weren’t even able to find one person to claim she was an unfit mother to her child.

    *************************************

    July 14, 2011 at 5:00 pm |
  93. JK (Minnesota)

    Not really – nothing surprises me, Jack because we have way too many attorneys in this country for starters. Let's face it, most of the lawyers are probably as greedy as Wall street these days to make as much money as they can – doesn't matter how. It's a bad combination.

    The really talented attorneys aren't going to be a local government prosceutor and are going to be at a disadvantage to the high priced attorneys that seem to flock to the high profile cases to add a notch in their belts for winning and possibly cashing in on the fame.

    IF the nacy Graces of the world (the media) would not turn these cases into high profile, then the problem should get better.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:02 pm |
  94. Linka Rayburn

    YES ! My opinion of Defense Attorneys, who abuse the system with innuendo bombs, has gone down hill drastically. The Jury thought they were doing the right thing and should not be reviled, but they gotta think about that baby every night. They did NOT look at REASONABLE Doubt. They could have fought for the lesser charges. 11 hrs and they wanted to leave after a long trial. They wanted the CSI DNA or video of Casey smothering her child.(I would still be there fighting !) The jury was sidetracked by the Defense, throw and hope it sticks defense. It was ruled a homicide....not a accident. Casey knew her daughter was GONE for 31 days, 31 DAYS. She had a fight with her Mom, flipped out and put duct tape on Kaylee's face, put her in a tote from the house, sneaked her into the trunk, then parked her car to let her child rot a while & tossed her in a swamp. She said nothing, lied, went out and partied. The evidence deteriorated. May her dreams be haunted !

    July 14, 2011 at 5:03 pm |
  95. Ralph Spyer

    Every knows th criminal justice is broken, in Illinois we had so many innocent men on death row the state had to stop giving DNA test. The Chicago police would just put a air tight bag over your head and wait till you confess.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:03 pm |
  96. calaurore9

    Crazy family, tragic all around. But, the jury did what it was asked to do. The prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt according to twelve citizens. That's our system. It doesn't always come out the way we'd like. There are still a lot of confusing questions.

    So, no.

    Carol in Northampton, Ma

    July 14, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
  97. Nancy, Tennessee

    I don't know if a murderer walked free without the chance of being brought to trial for the same crime ever again. According to all the information that was put on the internet and broadcast into our homes, I thought she was guilty of at least manslaughter. I know justice is blind, but I didn't know we picked jurors that were deaf, dumb, and blind.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
  98. Susan from Idaho

    Jack, both sides picked jurors and presented cases they thought would bring justice. One side missed the boat.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:08 pm |
  99. Jeff In Minnesota

    Just because you lie doesn't mean you are necessarily guilty of a crime. People lie every day to protect their jobs and avoid admitting they are not doing a procedure correctly or following through on an issue. Now, was the verdict correct based on the fact that the facts just do not seem to add up based on all of the stories that got told in the courtroom? I think that is why the jury came back like they did. There was just too much doubt to go around to pin everything on Casey. Beyond reasonable doubt Jack. That is what the law says. Right, wrong or otherwise, in this case, there was too much doubt to rule otherwise.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:10 pm |
  100. Ron, Prescott AZ

    No, the jury did exactly what they were supposed to do. They set aside any pre-trial predijuces, which had to be very hard to do, and went with the evidance presented. There was plenty of physical evidance, the problem was it all had been moved, altered, or tainted. The evidance did not prove who or how Caylee died. They charged her for what what was proven beyond any reasonable doubt, which was lying to law enforcement. They could not Assume from her behavior that she commited a crime of murder. Media assination does not prove guilt.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:12 pm |
  101. Jack - Lancaster, Ohio

    Mr. Cafferty:

    Not really. The prosecutors and their lawyer assistants (aides?) and their forensic genius, forensic state-of-the-art equipment, performed exactly as expected, like congress, the senate etc., I guess just like the air traffic controllers asleep on the job, they need more training, more assistants.....more tax money for a better system. Thank goodness for the jury paying attention to idiots' evidence and conclusions. Soon they will conclude that jury members are a liability to .....justice !

    July 14, 2011 at 5:12 pm |
  102. Dillon

    No. I already had major doubts.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:14 pm |
  103. Chikambel

    Are you kidding Jack? Ofcourse it did alter my opinion,just like many other obvious cases in America.
    In the court of public opinion,we the public find Casey Anthony a thousand times guilty. However,its not what we all know nor what our emotions banter to,but what can and should have been proved in court by those prosecutors.
    Finally,I find solace in the fact that United States Justice system is equally fallible.

    Chikambel.
    South Africa.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:14 pm |
  104. abby, texas

    yes, it's clear that common sense is not a requirement for jury duty. but stupidity? that's mandatory!

    July 14, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
  105. John

    No, but it did alter my respect for the media. You (the media) turned the trial into a media circus. Why are you so surprised that she now has celebrity status.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
  106. Kevin in Atlanta

    Her trial strengthened my belief that the system does work. Casey was acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove its case. The jury did NOT find her innocent of the crime, but the ruled on the evidence given to them. And that evidence was not enough to convict her.

    The system works.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
  107. Robert Read

    Jack, Absolutely Not as our Criminal Justice System as well as the legal and judicial system is absolutely corrupt. Where are the Feds.

    Thank You

    July 14, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
  108. Noah M

    Absolutely – in a positive way. The jury was able to ignore the noise from the public and the pundits. They looked at the facts provided and they upheld the legitimacy of our system.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
  109. Jake from Ontario

    Jack what is Justice. Casey Anthoney was set free. Oj Simpson was set free. If you ask me I don`t think there is justice in this world anymore.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
  110. D Ledford

    Yes, justice isn't served any longer here in the United States. If you're an accomplished and convincing liar then you can get away with murder. There is no justice for little Caylee. There's only the opportunity of Casey now to make a million dollars or more to tell her story on how she pulled a "fast one" on the US judicial system.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
  111. Justin

    No it didn't change my view of the justice system, it just proved to me that it was broken since 2004

    July 14, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
  112. Ruth M., (Samson, AL)

    This whole thing just proves that if you lie long and hard enough you can get by with murder. I just have to believe that she will answer to a higher power that will judge her more marshly that our justice system could.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
  113. Tom, New Jersey

    No, Jack, it didn't alter my view of the criminal justice system. I'm a law student and I figured she would be found not guilty because the prosecution did not marshal enough evidence to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Did she do it?? I don't know... only she knows for sure. But even if she did I'm still happy with the outcome. The opposite sentiment – if the prosecution had the same amount of evidence, that she didn't do it and was found guilty – is even worse than if she did actually do it.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
  114. Tom Martens

    No; my view of the criminal justice system was not altered because, in my opinion, the prosecution failed to carry their burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony was the individual that committed the crime. I'm not saying that whe is or is not guilty; I am saying the prosecution failed their obligation to prove the case against her.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
  115. Connor

    No, the media is to blame. They made Casey Anthony a celebrity which made it harder to find her guilty and because of the media she will be very wealthy for killing her daughter. If this trials says anything it's that you can kill your child, spend a few years in prison, and be a millionaire.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
  116. Michael Heller

    The Casey Anthony trial didn;t alter my perspective of the American Justice System one bit. It only reafirmed my suspicion that It's just as screwed up as I fthought.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
  117. Peggy

    As a former high school government teacher, I think this jury needs to go back to school and retake government! They obviously had no idea what REASONABLE doubt meant. I can "sorta kinda" see her not getting convicted on the first two counts, but that third one was a no-brainer.

    Maybe that was the problem...........there were no brains there

    July 14, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
  118. Howard Kiefer

    no, guilty until proven innocent is alive and well..... did you ever get stopped by a cop for speeding or ..... yes we all lie to cops. and they lie to us......

    July 14, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
  119. Bryan

    I have faith that our justice system works just the way we've designed it. I'm now worried about amature lawyers relying on emotion, and not giving everything they have to a case. Who rushes into a condemnation without enough evidence? I think the trial was properly run, and the jurors did what they had to do. I respect them for not relying on emotion, hearsay or "gut feelings."

    Bryan
    Albuquerque, NM

    July 14, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
  120. Michael

    It did not alter my view of the Justice system but it helps confirm my belief that the IQ of the US population is declining.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
  121. D.Mims

    Did it alter it, no not at all ! In fact it confirmed it... Let's face it, our criminal justice system is a joke !!

    July 14, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
  122. Chris

    Not really. Getting "away" with this and found not guilty is rare. And in a way it levels the justice system, but hardly because there are many people in jail who are innocent, while what happened to Casey Anthony is actually rare.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
  123. rob

    No, my belief in our justice system died with O.J.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  124. Rachel Ditmer

    The acquittal of Casey Anthony only solidifies what many have known for quite some time: we live in a morally corrupt and justice-starved society, even in a country which swears "liberty and justice" to every citizen. It would seem that little Caley Anthony has been severely deprived. America chose to turn the death of a small child into a media circus, converting the trial into a source of entertainment rather than allowing officials to concentrate wholly on the deliverance of justice for the sweet baby girl. Corrupt, vile and perverse: this is the outcome of Casey's release, and it only mirrors the country we now live in and it's governmental system.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  125. James Hall

    Jack, my view of the American justice system remains the same. The judge did his job, the defense attorney did his job, but the prosecutor snickered away the trial and forgot that if you want to convict someone of murder, you need to present enough convincing evidence to persuade a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  126. Ken in NC

    No Jack. Congress has done that. Casey Anthony has simply confirmed the opinions given me by members of Congress.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  127. Sandi Hoha

    Absolutely! The justice system is a joke and so where the lazy ignorant jurors. 11 hours and not one person has the intelligence enough to ask the judge to define the word evidence? Not one juror is smart enough to understand that not every case is csi or ncis. I think they all wanted to go home and make some money

    July 14, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  128. Tom (Flagstaff, AZ)

    While this case did not alter my view of our flawed but fair judicial system, it did make me realize that a mother can get away with gross negligence. No matter how Caylee passed, how can Casey not be charged with gross parental negligence? If that charge doesn't exist, it should.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  129. Tom Miller

    Yes. The jury should have considered two items: 1) why would she stay in jail for almost 3 years if it was accident as the jury evidently believes what the defense team suggested; 2) you don't throw a dead body away in a swamp if the death was an accident – you do it to hide the crime.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  130. Hd

    It did change my view. It showed that a person can actually be tried on the evidence with no prejudice i didn't think that was possible in america. Like the result or not, the system worked for once.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  131. Ashley

    I don't think that jury systems work. Group think is too powerful. All it takes is for one weak minded individual to be persuaded out of their decision by someone who intimidates them. How do you go from a vote of 6/6 on aggravated child abuse to an acquittal? More than one person was persuaded out of their original decision. There was enough to convict this monster and the justice system failed Caylee. Rest in Peace baby girl, justice will find you!

    July 14, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  132. Steve

    It didn't alter my view any more than the O.J. trial did.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  133. Allison

    OJ Simpson's case altered my view of the criminal justice system, Casey Anthony's case confirmed that altered view. Also concerning your comment about Casey becoming rich, Zanaida Gonzalez's civil lawsuit against her should put a damper on that.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  134. Kristi P.

    We the public, find the Casey Anthony jurors GUILTY of obstruction of justice. I can't believe that no one and nothing can be done at this point to rectify this travesty. I feel our justice system has failed one little girl and a country that grew to love her.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  135. Joe

    This case did not alter my views of Americn jusice....I hated this case and the way it turned out but justice was carried out. She was able to have a fair trial in a free country, and she was found not guilty by a jury of her own peers. Just because the verdict was not what people wanted does not mean there is something wrong with the system. if it was a middle eastern country she would "dissapear" and that would be the end of it. That shows how humaine and devloped our system is!

    July 14, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  136. Scott Stodden

    Jack The O.J. Simpson Trial Altered My View Of The Criminal Justice System Because We All Know He Killed Nicole Brown Simpson Just Like We All Know Casey Anthony Killed Her Daughter. If Casey Is Innocent Though Why Would She Have To Hide, Change Her Identity, Etc.... My View Is If You Truly Feel That Your Not Guilty Then Why Hide? I Know Why Because She Knows Just Like We All Know That She Is Nothing But A Murderer And She Got Away With Murder. Casey And O.J. Get Away With Murder But My Boyfriend Goes To Prison For 14 Yrs For Robbing A Gas Station-Really Are You Serious? The Justice System Is Flawed Jack In More Ways Then We Think!

    Scott Stodden (Freeport, Illinois)

    July 14, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  137. Robert

    The judicial system is by no means perfect. For better or worse, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. If they cannot build a solid enough case to get a guilty verdict, then either they have proven to be incompetent or the defendant may actually be innocent. That is for the jury of 12 (plus alternates) to determine. While it does seem illogical that Casey Anthony was found not guilty, some of the comments to date from jurors suggest that this case may not have been as cut and dry as it appeared. None of this will bring little Cayle back nor will it allow justice to be served to whomever is deserving. But for better or worse, this is how our system functions.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
  138. jessy koshy

    Of course jack the system is broken and this case proves it and of course please ship casey anthony to saudi arabia so she doesn't have to alter her name or appearance she can get married to many and party throughout her life at least this country will be free from her

    July 14, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
  139. Rick

    The U.S. criminal justice system is predicated upon the belief that it is better to let a guilty person go free rather than an innocent person be jailed. While the view of it being flawed or not is subjective, the objective truth is this: The burden of proof rests with the prosecution. According to the jurors who heard the facts of the case, the prosecution failed to meet their burden of proof, which is 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'

    July 14, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
  140. Kim

    Yes it has altered my view. Something has to be done, What the people should do is anyone who writes a book, the people should stand up and tell the publishing company they will not purchase their books anymore, hit their pocketbook and make them think twice as well as any other form of media. It is sick that a murderer can make money and become famous while the hard working individual who volunteers,law abiding, and does the right thing never gets recogized. All the good people are not getting recognized just the murderers.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
  141. ShiningStar

    All of the jurors who said it was right to let her go because there was "reasonable doubt" need to check their conscience. I'm sure it'll be keeping them up at night....
    It appears there is no room in our justice system for common sense.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
  142. jimmy

    Jack i dont think the prosecution rushed to judgment....just rushed to trial...they should of took their time and gathered more evedence...casey wasnt going anywhere...

    July 14, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
  143. Edward, University of Florida

    What an irony, on July 4th we were all celebrating what makes this country great, including its legal system, yet the very next day people were cursing it and calling it broken. The American legal system may not be perfect, but it's the closest thing to perfect that we have got. We must respect it.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  144. Flyingwolf, Manchester NH

    No, the Casey Anthony case didn't alter my opinion of the criminal justice system–the OJ Simpson and Robert Blake cases did–I wonder if they are among the supporters who sent her donations.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  145. Ann Walton

    The Casey Anthony trial updated my education on our stable system of law that needs tweeking or is vulnerable to tweeking, depending on how you view our ridiculous Supreme court decision that is allowing foreign countries to affect national elections! Casey Anthony is the least of our problems, poor family. TV coverage is good; for some Americans it's the only analytical skills education they will ever receive. Sigh.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  146. rudy

    of course not every state has different bearings on how the justice system works. besides she was found not guilty.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  147. Suzanne Pirog

    I believe the jury was given too much unsubstantiated information. This was done to confuse them. A professional jury should have been selected. This case was made to appear more involved when it was a quite simple case. A professional jury would have been able to sift through all the misinformation that was presented by the defense. I believe that the prosecutor did a fine job. I still believe in the criminal justice system.

    Suzanne Pirog

    July 14, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  148. roger from phoenix

    Are you kidding Jack the justice system is nothing but a big business and a joke set up for trial attorney's and judges to get rich and retire with nice cushy pentions. One thing about America the bigger the scum bag you are the better off you are. Ones that beat the system win big time write books charge big bucks for interviews make a movie, etc in return become millionairs overnight , what a great country

    July 14, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  149. Rich Hoffmann

    Not Really Jack:

    The jury decided that little Caylee died by accidental drowning as proposed by the defense. If Caylee would have been an obedient child/grandchild and not pushed open the sliding doorwall and climbed up the ladder into the pool without putting on her life-jacket, the Anthony family would not have to be going thru all this agony. Justice prevails, just ask OJ.

    Rich-Florida

    July 14, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  150. Jerry, Mund, Appleton, WI

    No Jack. The old adage still applies: It is better that 100 guilty people go free than to have one innocent person found guilty. You just have to choke it down and go on.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  151. joel

    The prosecution could not prove the charges that were brought about. So the system worked and the prosecution failed to prove that she actually murdered her child. This was a victory for the constitution and how the legal system works. Now saying that, something did happen. What exactly we will never know.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  152. Henry in Atlanta

    No. However, the trial did expand my respect for jurors and the work they do in delving through the facts and the non-facts of the case..

    July 14, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  153. Scott

    I feel Casey Anthony was guilty. I believe that the large majority of Americans feel the same way. In this case, Casey Anthony was not held to justice for the murder of her innocent daughter. This happened though because of 12 jurors that failed to hold Anthony to justice. Its very sad and disturbing it failed here. The American system still works most of the time. It angers me that it failed here though

    July 14, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  154. Terry

    This case has made the "U.S. Justice System", become the "U.S. Mis-Justice System"..... Almost Compares to the bickering in Washington D.C right now over the debit issue.... No body has a good verdict on what is really right. Do we follow the law or do we just don't do anything and look the other way and let Washington get away with it just like Casey Anthony did!!!!...... Sad days In America.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  155. Steve D

    Yes it did. I always thought it was rigged against the defendant and now I think they can get a fair trial. All the DA did was make one insinuation after another without ever connecting the dots. There was no definitive evidence that the child had been murdered. (she could have died of natural causes). There was no evidence of Ms Anthony's motif other than being portrayed as a party girl on tabloid television. There were believable witnesses to the opposite. ie. she was a caring loving mother that didn't party all that much. I've never bought into the validity of DNA evidence but junk science like smell experts do not prove anything. If I'm ever accused of a murder that I didn't do I sure would hope my jury will think it out as well as this jury has.

    Steve D
    New Windsor Maryland

    July 14, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  156. Ethan

    The Casey Anthony verdict absolutely altered my opinion of the criminal justice system. Our law provides so much protection for those convicted of such terrible crimes, and fails to distinguish the inncocent from the guilty. Someone accused of murder is presumed innocent while every day people are stopped at checkpoints and are presumed guilty until proven innocent. Inconsistencies in the treatment of the public.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  157. Mike in TX

    Not at all Jack,We may all emotionally feel she is guilty but the prosecution and some of the media said that their case was a hypothesis that only needed to be proved. The world is full of "hypothesis" that have never been proved. According to the jury members who have chosen to talk the prosecution did not give them the evidence they needed to be able to, without doubt, convict her. As much as most don't like the outcome, the system worked exactly as it should. Those that are yelling at the jurors, and sadly threatening them should be looking to the prosecution for the failure.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  158. Corey (NJ)

    She was officially found innocent in a court of law. Yes, most likely due to weak evidence provided by the prosecution. With all things being equal, can an innocent person, even Casey Anthony, be able to sue the state for wrongful incarceration? I think so. Its scary to think that someone can point the finger at another person and lose 3 years of their life, even without any physical evidence. Especially with a murder charge and death penalty implications. They had no proof of when, why, where or how the vicitm died. This case has changed my view of our judicial system. It works.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  159. Beau Ewan

    While I think it's sad and disgusting that Casey Anthony likely got away with murder, the case also made me realize that I'm happy to live in a country where the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, not on the accused. If it were the other way around, the consequences would be far worse. The Casey Anthonys and O.J. Simpsons of this system are thankfully few and far between. The system may not be perfect, but its the best one there is.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  160. Jim from NE PA

    Yes Jack, it altered my view of the justice system, in that it made me realize that there isn't one. Maybe we need professional jurors who understand the ever more complicated laws better than your average schmoes off the street. Maybe we should add the third type of verdict that the British have, called "not proven", which would at least imply guilt. Other than that, we the people need to make clear to any media outlets that any attempt to enrich this woman will be met with boycotts of them, and any sponsors who get involved.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  161. Nick D. Neighbour

    The Criminal Justice System WORKS Jack!
    You may not always like the result, but it WORKS
    The Prosecution in the Casey Anthony Trial FAILED to persuade the Jury of Anthony's Guilt.
    That's what they are SUPPOSED to do! They DIDN'T! End of Story!!

    July 14, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  162. Cee, La

    No... the OJ Simpson trial did that......I am not surprised anymore.......I will not read, buy, or watch, anything that will in any way support this woman. I would ask that the rest of America do the same.....for Kaylee.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  163. Bill

    I know you as well as all the other "Experts" believe they know what happened, we you don't, the state can't even show how she died, another example of the work some government employees provide. The DA's office went for the brass ring due to public pressure without the "Minimum" about of information needed to convict. As one who provides expert testimony, most people would not believe how sad the system is, remember almost half of those convicted and put on death row are later, if given the chance, found non-guilt by direct evidence. You get what you pay for. Bill

    July 14, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  164. yokolee

    100 % yes indeed!

    July 14, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  165. Ryshine

    Not really. For the longest time the criminal justice system has been horribly backwards in carrying out justice. Whenever there is "concrete" evidence in a very public trial, the accused seems to get acquitted.
    Anthony (with a list of others who were wrongly acquitted) is just another winner in the losing ways of a broken justice system.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  166. Nina

    Yes. For me, the prosecution made mistakes from the beginning: not a broad enough investigation (looking more closely at George Anthony and Kronk, for example); and the accusations did not match the evidence they had (where was the search for how to make chlorophorm? where was the "earth" evidence linking Casey to the place where Caylee's remains were found?); they also lacked a more "current" approach that the defense took: e.g. keeping their defense "flexible," looking to social media from the public for ques;, and how they altered their defense based on oh how the trial and testimonies unfolded. On the other hand, it seemed the prosecution was inflexible–stuck with the same circumstantial "story," even as the evidence shifted the jury's view.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  167. David P Vernon

    Tucson, AZ. No. The prosecution lost the case because the Medical Examiner could not establish the means of death. Conviction for homicide requires opportunity, motive, and means. All the evidence admits the explanation of accidental death followed by a cover-up. It is not sufficient to believe or be convinced that Casey killed Caylee – one must convince a jury of 12 beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence fails to do that. Casey is a liar. One cannot prove she is a murderer. Lying does not prove homicide, or even child neglect and abuse. Had the ME not ruled the manner of death homicide, there would have been no trial at all. I am sick and tired of this case, everything about his case, and media fascination with this case. Enough already!

    July 14, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  168. Ms Marty D

    I'm in Houston.... The OJ trial caused me some discomfort but this one has completely destroyed any respect I had for the system. I'm almost 75 so I probably won't be needing the judicial system. This is the most awful example to set before our children. I still think the defense team is guilty of jury tampering .... I want to know what is to be done about the lies that were told about George and Lee. What is to be done about all the lives that were destroyed by these so called lawyers?

    July 14, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  169. Tim

    Everyone should have confidence in our justice system.
    However, the same cannot be said for our fellow citizens/jurors.
    Americans are getting dumber and more apathetic by the day;so why does the Anthony verdict surprise anyone?

    July 14, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  170. Carol

    Yes this trial has definately changed the way I look at our legal system. This jury just sent word to our young people , if you lie enough you can get by with anything., It tells young girls you can get pregant and if you do not like it..just kill the baby, go party and have a great time just drive around with a dead body in your car till decomposition forces you to thow it out llike trash..just continue to lie well and you will get off. just dont report it for 31 days and make sure it is decomposed to the point that no dna shows up...do all that and you will be fine...Also if Cindy Anthony gets off from purjury charges then anyone who purjures themselves should get off..Being sorry for cindy is not enough reason to let her off..it is like saying in Florida if your last name is Anthony you can lie and get off with anything.. it is so wrong that that baby did not get justice

    July 14, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  171. Vick, Orange Park , FL

    Jack,

    I have sat on a jury but now I wonder did I see all the evidence! The TV audience saw more than the jury was allowed to see, the judge kept sending them out. That may account for the verdict! I just don't know how you could not come up with aggravated child abuse!

    July 14, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  172. Anita

    I cant believe the jury doesn't want to open their eyes and face the fact that she killed her daughter. I'm not surprised at this though, it's not the first time that jurors are being blinded.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  173. COLLEEN

    The results of this case makes the judicial system and those associated with it look like a joke. Are there laws or are they just words that a devious sneaky lawyer can get around. I am ashamed by what happened. They can come up with all the excuses in the world but what they did was wrong, a baby is dead.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  174. Peter

    Jack, not at all instead it has made me have more faith in the US criminal justice system. What i have learnt however is that many americans do not understand the US constiution, the fifth amendments, its unfortunate that you see so many people these days reffering to the US consitution as an absolute and that our politicians should adhere to it, but but they do not really understand what the constitution means. In this case of Casey Anthony it worked "No man shall be denied liberty of live or property unless haven been tried by a representation of his peers". Innnocent until proven guilty, unfortunately most americans dont know that, especially Nancy Grace, its a shame.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  175. Bob

    Jack: Justice in America can accurately be described as follows – "You can get away with murder but must pay your taxes". For proof : which one of the following felons went to prison for their crime ? –

    Casey Anthony – murder
    O.J. Simpson – murder
    "Scooter" Libby – obstructing justice & lying to federal officials
    Leona Helmsley – tax evasion

    I rest my case.
    Bob
    Florida

    July 14, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  176. Laurie

    There was no justice for Caylee. Actually if she makes millions now, I feel other children may be at risk. I personally will not contibute to her wealth by reading or watching any interview she or her family give.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  177. Tim

    The verdict actually reinforced my belief in our great justice system. A system where we are all innocent until PROVEN guilty The key word PROVEN. Was she a bad mom, maybe, was she a liar, sure, but it was not proven that she killed anyone. Those of you who KNOW she killed her daughter please tell me the evidence you have. Not what you think was in evidence or that you just don't understand why she lied. That does not tell me she did anything other than she acted childish and is a liar, not a killer. Leave her alone. This is AMERICA not IRAQ!!!

    July 14, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  178. Renee Peoria,Ill

    Not really. It's not like this hasn't happened before. Our criminal justice system is aptly named, justice for criminals. Fortunately, there's an ultimate justice she has yet to face after her death. None of us can lie our way out of that one.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  179. matthew

    yes it did change my way of thinking of the criminal justice system it is just one big joke. ever who has the most money wins one big broken mess that sides with the crooked and twisted

    July 14, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  180. Tom Holderness

    No. This never should have been a capital (death penalty) case, with only circumstantial evidence. To prove premeditation would have required mind reading. Felony child neglect (not abuse) would have been more supportable.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  181. Ashley

    P.s. the prosecution did not fail to prove their case whatsoever is that some kind of sick joke? what do you want a freaking video and confession? all signs point to murder. The prosecution did wonderfully and I can tell you if I was on that jury this acquittal would never have happened.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  182. jnmancini

    This case has not changed my view our justis system at all. However, I wantg to know why there is no public anger over the lousy job the prosicutors did on the case. While watching the trial it was clear to me that they were not giving the jury enough to show resonable doubt! I was not surprised by Casey's aquittal.

    Joe
    Dallas

    July 14, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  183. ray florida

    From what I say on t.v. they had no proof that she killed her daughter.Only circumstanical evidence no dna or prints.People who are calling for the justice system to change are nuts,what about all the inoccent people in jail weres the cry for them.End this story and lets move on already.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  184. Sharon

    Yes, I believe little Caylee received NO justice from our system. Even though mommy will receive millions for her story in the end she will face her maker and THEN and only THEN will justice be served.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  185. Joel P

    No it did not! They did not provide substanial evidence for a guilty verdict. I think if the prosecution would have tried a lesser involuntary manslaughter instead of first degree murder that they could have provided enough evidence for a guilty verdict.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  186. Zenaida

    Thse veredict did not alter my idea of the American justice system. It actually impressed me that they could be so thorough, in view of the normal gut reaction towards crimes against children. The reason I say this is, I seem to remember that there was the suggestion that she was sexually abused by her father and her brother. If this was truly the case, then her behavior makes a lot of sense–sexually abused children, particularly girls, learn to lie because they are usually threatened with death, or worse–if they tell anyone the truth. Thus, their lives become a dichotomy. In order to survive, they have to separate reality from truth, which is a form of schizophrenia. We read about multiple personalities and this may well be at the root of such disorders.
    She was probably 19 when she became pregnant with Caylee. I wonder if, per chance, Casey's father was the father of Caylee as well. I found their conversations, and the parents reaction when she was absolved, unusual or bizarre. This would also explain why she has not been willing to disclose what really happened to Caylee.
    If I am correct in my assumptions, then the father, and probably the mother as well, should be the ones on trial and, needless to say, deserving of the death penalty.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  187. Jarvis

    No, not really ... However, I am totally disgusted by the fact that this lady is going free, when everyone knows she is guilty. I disagree that there was not enough evidence presented by the prosecution for the jury to convict... there are plenty of people in prison right now, convicted of crimes based on far less evidence than the prosecution presented. This jury simply got it wrong, and should be ashamed.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  188. Michael

    Dear Jack,

    Although our Criminal Justice system is not perfect, it worked in this case. Casey Anthony was found Not Guilty of 1st Degree murder with the Death Sentence! If the prosecution wanted a different result, they should have had better evidence and not gone after the Death Penalty!

    It's far better to let one criminal go, than to sentence someone to death who may be innocent.

    Michael,
    Colorado

    July 14, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  189. Mit K,

    The Judge and the Jury have done a great job. Despite too much of media hype and public out cry to the contrary – they have delivered the justice. Even though many people believe Casey to be guilty, prosecution failed to provide any eye witness, murder weapon or even a motive.
    If she has really committed the crime, then only prosecution can be blamed for failure to fully investigate the case and get the proof.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  190. Pranav

    Yes. It shows that there are still holes in the criminal justice system. Whether a murder was committed or not, this trial shows there need to be laws that hold parents accountable for their children and measures taken so that people cannot profit from the publicity a trial receives. I don't think a woman who thinks about having manicures and cocktails on the beach after her child is dead deserves to benefit.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  191. Joe

    Jack, It has strengthened my view. The system cannot be 100% accurate. If this is the result of an imperfect system, I'll take it 7days a week and twice on Sunday. Rather than have all the innocent people
    I've seen released after spending decades in prison
    for something they didn't do. Only because of DNA evidence, Not because of a perfect system.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  192. BeantownBug

    Yes, but perhaps not in the way you expect. My opinion (before the jury made it's decision) was a vehement "Guilty – throw the book at her". I stand by that, but also support and respect the jury's verdict because, as before, I still respect the American justice system. The facet of the justice system that has surprised me is the fact that we don't have something like "Calee's Law" already. Besides that, I propose we introduce a stringent licensing to administer the right to bear a child!

    July 14, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  193. Cindy

    Dear Potential Juror:

    If you really need to see Laurence Fishburne holding up a petri dish then you may want to reconsider your definition of circumstantial evidence and to rethink your position on said jury.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  194. tony d.

    Yes! my view of the justice system has always been altered, and this case just made it even worse, i just like to know the the hell the jury was listening to, this woman lied to everybody, and yet she still gets off, i never did and never will trust our justice system especially after this, i hope she suffers a massive stroke the minute she gets out of jail on sunday, she doesn't deserve to live another minute,, god have mercy on her soul.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  195. Joe

    Jack, the prosecution presented an excellent case, so Ican't say my view of the criminal justice system has changed. Do I now believe prospective jurors should be required to take an "idiot test" before serving? Or better yet, a "hearing test"? Absolutely. I'm convinced a murderer walked free, you have to wonder what evidence the jury heard. It certainly wasn't what I and millions of others heard. Any movie made about this sad, sad story should be "12 Angry Morons".

    Joe R
    Syracuse NY

    July 14, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  196. Juan Cervantes

    Honor your system; these 12 jurors did a perfect job! honor your assigned jury's decision, was an excellent call. They understand guilty or innocent clearly; Media should stop putting doubts in general public. I think the word "innocent" is clear (what part of this anybody don't understand?)

    Thanks

    July 14, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  197. Ed

    I've never had failth in the criminal justice system. The games that many defense attorneys play to get their client off completely negates any concept of justice being served. Defendants clean up nicely and they are coached on how to appear in front of the jury. Look at how that differently that trollop acted and looked during the trial and when she appeared for sentencing. No, I do not trust the jurty system and I speak from experience as a former police officer.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  198. Judy

    Everytime somebody says, "the system worked" makes me want to throw up. IT DID NOT WORK!!!!!!!!

    If the systm worked, CASEY ANTHONY WOULD BE SITTING ON DEATH ROW....

    The prosecutors and the police and everyone involved HAS to say the system worked but for interested citizens such as myself felt that we were let down. That a murderer was set free.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  199. David

    No Jack, since the OJ trial my opinion has pretty much stayed the same. Isn't the fact that she never reported her child missing for over 30 days considered child neglect to the extreme and her stealing her friends checkbook and writing bad checks, doesn't constitute fraud. Why are these offensive not being pursued. I know it's not much, but come on, lying to the police! That's the best they could come up with.
    Dave from peterborough, NH.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  200. Della from Amesbury, MA

    No, I understand the principle that in our judicial system, an accused is innocent until proven guilty. Although I'm disappointed, I understand that the State did not adequately prove its case to the jury, who then had no choice but to pronounce Ms. Anthony 'not guilty'. I think she had better make her money now, because I'll bet her future is going to be very difficult.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  201. Dan-Eustis,Florida

    We have a criminal justice system ? Could have fooled me. I think what we have is a pack of money grubbing lawyers that will do anything to
    fatten their wallets.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  202. russ johnson

    as long as defense attorneys are able to get one or two of the dimmest of dimwits in the jury pool, onto the jury, we will continue not have these miscarriages of justice.

    russ johnson
    emigrant, montana

    July 14, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  203. Yvette

    The criminal justice system with all of its flaws proves still the best that we can hope to achieve. The criminal justice system has continued to evolve even from unjust acquittals in many southern states in the sixties. When you provide a jury clear and concise parameters of guilt and innocence as in the Casey trial according to the charges, this is result you can what you expect in a circumstantial case. Casey will change her appearance and location but she will never escape the haunting of her daughter's death.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  204. Rocky in LA

    Yeah, Jack, I guess it has. I used to think that only people with wealth could get away with murder.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  205. Wyndell

    No, this was an opportunity to learn from their mistakes. It also says to me that investigators and prosecutors have to do a better job in gathering and presenting evidence. Jurors should not be left to make decisions on their own without being prepped with evidence and clear illustrations that support the prosecution's case...

    July 14, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  206. Carole Steele

    I feel we have had a flawed jury system ever since the OJ trial debacle. It's a wonder how any human being can toss common sense out the window and not be able to reach a sensible verdict. In the Anthony case, I believe the jury did not understand the jury instructions given to them by Judge Perry. They felt the prosecution was obligated to prove motive and manner of death, which is NOT the case. How could 3/4 of the country be wrong and 12 people be right?! Maybe France has the right approach...guilty til proven innocent. I believe we should change to "trial by judge" not trial by jury.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  207. Axe Wielding Maniac

    No Jack I still think that the best justice system in the world SUCKS on the day Anthony was sentenced another mother was sentenced to about 4 years because her toddler opened a patio door and drowned in a pool every summer parents all over the country or prosecuted for the death of their children in pools and cars. I say he who has never left a cup of coffee, brief case, or bag of groceries on top of their car please throw the first stone.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  208. Garrick, MN

    Not really. It's more of a reminder that no matter convincing the circumstances may be against someone, an even slightly possible non-guilty scenario might have played will make them innocent.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  209. dspell

    The Casey Anthony case does not alter my view of the criminal justice system. Accused people MUST be given the benefit of doubt and must be assumed innocent until PROVEN guilty by a jury of peers. What this case does is highlight the incompetence of the prosecutor. The DA should have realized the weakness of their case and proceeded with other charges that she was obviously guilty of and could have resulted in a guilty verdict that would insure she would be incarcerated.

    The case is an indictment of the DA, not the justice system.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  210. George

    No more so than the O J Simpson trial. We knew the cause of death there. To bad the State could not establish that in her case because it seems that issue was the key to not guilty.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  211. Anonymous for my own protection :)

    Jack my faith in the system has actually been reinvigorated. Don’t get me wrong, I think he’s guilty as hell, but I do not feel the prosecution made their case, and I don’t think this was ever a death penalty case. They were just taking to big a bit at the apple.
    But most redeeming was the fact that Nancy Gracie & friends … as much as she would like to be; do not dictate America’s jurisprudence.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  212. brien oliver

    Is it justice or just-us? Innocent until proven broke!!!

    July 14, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  213. roger from phoenix

    Jack come on justice not a chances humans are involved and scummy ones at that best liar wins.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  214. Rodney Kennard

    I honestly think that the verdict in the Casey Anthony trial shows that our system of justice works. I only wish there was an objective jury present 25 years ago when my brother was convicted on far less evidence, namely a subjectively coerced witness. The system didn't work in his trial, and it eventually cost him his life. I knew my brother was innocent, and so did the authorities. Casey Anthony, I believe, is guilty, but the burden of proof was not met by the prosecution. Therefore you must find her not guilty. That's just the way our system of justice works.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  215. WGS in PA

    Jack,
    No the U. S. legal system is designed to let some guilty go free rather than risk convicting an innocent person which happens too often.
    The public addiction to extreme media has made and will make millions for those associated with the case. Anthony will be paid well too.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  216. Tom in Columbus

    The result of the trial gave me confidence in the system. Its important in our society that the goverment isn't able to convict a citizen of a crime unless they can prove the person is quilty. She may be a whack-job, but the Goverment didn't prove thier case. Someone got away with something; that's clear.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  217. m. oliver

    No.The burnden is on the prosecutor to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, this jury simply was not convencethey paid attention and follow thier order, end of story blam on the procecution.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  218. Andre C.

    Did this trial alter my view of the justice system? absolutely! 12 morons who couldn't see the plain evidence and her actions after her child was "missing". She is now going to get what she wanted all along, a "Vitta Bella" with no child to burden her, and now with the prospects of being a rich, young woman who can party all she wants. The justice system failed a helpless child who was denied a full life, just because she was born to this monster. She will in the end get what she deserves, just ask O.J. The Universe has a way of ultimately making people pay for their actions.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  219. jessie platt

    NO. It did not change my view of the criminal system. Although some things do need to be amended... I DO believe that the jury was made of basically nice, honest, upstanding people who are NOT familiar or able to see a person like Casey Anthony capable of committing the crime of the death of Caylee. The circumstantial evidence was some of the strongest that I've seen from a case that had to revolve mainly around circumstantial evidence. There were some crucial video tapes presented and also testimony that the jury either overlooked or dismissed, or just plain forgot, with all the other information that they had to absorb, that was outright obvious to show that there was a crime committed and that Casey Anthony did have the knowledge and take part in it. Again, I don't believe that this jury has experienced people who are like, or similar, to Casey Anthony and they have not seen what these type of people are capable of or how far they are willing to go to do or get what they want.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  220. Joe DiMase

    Yes I t clearly has altered my view. Casey Anthony is guilty however the joury took 11 hours to declare her not guilty without asking a single question of the judge. In Europe jurors are professional individuals. Perhaps we need to alter or system of jury selection.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  221. JB-Texas

    Hell yes!! I blieve that a great injustice have been done and the only one they will suffer is the judicial system. Now, let's add this up...
    1. She kills her daughter
    2. She parties for 30 days
    3. She lies to policemen
    4. The smell of human remains are found in her car
    5. Chloroform is found in her vechicle (found ingested in child)
    6. Chloroform is searched on her computer
    7. She beats her murder rap.
    8. Now she stands to make millions

    Hell, why not kill!!!

    July 14, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
  222. kiro

    oh , you mean the affirmative action infraction judge who let the 3 ring circus get out of hand,and the mexican who sided with the devil , and the evil woman who extends the wicked permission of abortion all the way up to a 3 year old, yes, the guilty walk some times and the innocent always get messed with.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
  223. Julie Hatt

    No It returned my faith in the Justice System. There was not enough evidence .Praise God her young life was not ruined by what happend .After all It is better that a thousand guilty people go free than one innocent person be wrongly convicted.....P.S. She does not look like a murder or act like one I would have never convicted her. Why don't the news focus on something else like who blew up the Twin Towers...............

    July 14, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
  224. fuad ahmed

    normally with less evidence we go to war with another country..i dont understand what PROOF they were looking for? video taping while she was killing this baby... i dont believe in justice system no more..

    Fuad Ahmed

    July 14, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
  225. Kay

    This trial and the jury's verdict opened my eyes to some major structural kinks in this country's justice system that have apparently not been resolved over the years. There is something wrong when obvious evidence is available for a heinous crime and a murderer goes free. The jurors decided the innocence of Casey Anthony, probably because there was no cold hard evidence beyond the shadow of a doubt and the pressures of America's unforgiving eyes and unwritten socially acceptable values prevented someone from standing up for the truth and saying, "No more, this is bullshit." However, the story wouldn't make sense given that Casey was innocent. The pieces just don't fit in any rational way. Explain the duct tape, the smell, the inappropriate silence, the fact that conveniently, no one seemed to know anything or even speculate anything unnerving. Somebody is guilty and it's Casey. It was either neglect or murder, and they're equal when resulting in a child's violent death. Any persecution coming her way is to be expected. I have profound disappointment in this jury.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
  226. Chris Burchstead, Ashland, MA

    No. Although the death of the daughter was a tragedy, and we may never know what really happened, "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit". Americans expend tremendous energy trying to avoid jury duty, but those who do perform their civic duty do not deserve being second-guessed by a lynch mob mentality.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
  227. greg Parks

    Dear Jack, I belive my view of the Criminal Justice system remains the same. It's a crap shoot? I think the main thing in her trial that worked in her favor was her lying to the Police and Prosecutors. By doing this valuable time expired. Thus when Kayle's remains were found forensics could not determine a time of death or cause of death. This allowed the Reasonable doubt defense. Also I am convinced that her mother's testimony about looking up clorifill, also added to reasonable doubt. I believe the jurors were left with no where to turn, because the prosecution could not prove it's case beyond reasonable doubt.
    I do believ that Casey and her family clearly know what happened to Kayle, and consoired to cover up the facts. Hopefully Kyle died as a result of an accidental drowning. However being found with duct table over her mouth and nose, make me wonder.If it wasn't drowning, than clearly someone in the family killed her, probably Casey. Another case like the OJ Simpson trial, where a guilty person got away with it. Even if it was accidental drowning, clearly involuntary manslaughter charges, or negligent hoicide, would have won the day. Tragic that Casey will make millions and no one pays for Kayle's death!
    I am from PhilADELPHIA sUBURBS, pA.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
  228. Nick

    No, but I am disheartened at the public reaction to the verdict. What ever happend to " innocent until proven guilty?" There was a lot of circumstantial evidence, albeit suspicious, surrounding this case, but no evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony killed or caused the death of Caylee. The jury did their job. It's what we would have wanted them to do in the case of a completely innocent person, wrongfully accused of a charge, despite some circumstantial evidence. Can any of us really say with absolute certainty that Casey is guilty of murder? Can any of us really say that she deserved to be put to death, or stay in prison for the rest of her life for a crime she may not have committed? Perhaps it is that people want to fill a void; the invariable feeling of emptiness arising from the lack of justice for Caylee's death. However, our justice system puts the burden of proof on the accuser for one simple reason, to protect the innocent. I for one, would not want it to go the other way (i.e. put an innocent person in jail, or worse).

    July 14, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
  229. pammyp

    Well Jack, as you said,

    1. a child missing and unreported for 31 days

    2. a lying mother

    3. a lying mother with a car that reeks of death

    4. the child remains are found in a swamp with duct tape on her little face.

    Do the math..... seems that the jurors missed that class.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
  230. Pat in Georgia

    No. I believe that if the death sentence had been taken off the table, Casey Anthony would have been convicted and given life.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
  231. Jim Rousch

    This trial confirms only strengthens my point that we need professional jurors in this country.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
  232. cs in florida

    No, Jack. They don't call it criminal "justice" for nothing; as the criminals are the ones who get justice while their victims are forgotten.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
  233. Sandra Rose - Chico CA.

    I was shocked that a Jury let her go free! Yes I am totally disillusioned with the Justice system. The Jury was made up of idiots. OJ's getting off free for committing murder just proved if you have money and are a Black person with a Black Jury you get off.
    Casey's proved our Jury System is flawed and we need more professional people to sit on Jurys.
    The older I get the more I realize I know nothing and "believe" in no Justice in anything.
    I do still like you Jack and your show!!

    July 14, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
  234. Judy

    At the least, jurors should be "schooled" on how to look at everything presented to them.
    Do they understand that most murders don't have an audience or taping of the event and that you have to at the very least, come to a conclusion based on, in this case, the actions of the defendant.
    31 days missing
    partying like the world was going to come to an end
    lying
    etc. etc.
    Do I think the system in the Anthony case worked? No I do not. Further, this can't be compared to the Simpson trial. In OJ's case, there WERE a lot of questions. I totally agreed with that jury. There was tons of reasonable doubt right down to maybe Mark Furman could have done it as a jealous lover. Just saying......

    July 14, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
  235. Carrie

    No, it sucked before and it still sucks.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
  236. Frank in Kentucky

    No, because it has been proven time and again that if you have enough money you can buy your way out of a murder charge, and in Florida you can even buy the Presidency!

    July 14, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
  237. Cornelius Rish

    Jack,

    The Casey Anthony case did not alter my view of the Justice System because I already know how much our system of "Justice" is "Unjust". Its a system where one does not have to prove "innocense". If a person is rich, they can hire smart immoral lawyers who will poke enough holes in the Prosecutions' case to cause "Reasonable Doubt". Let me get this straight...the Prosecution has to "PROVE" innocence, but the Defense does not have to prove "INNOCENCE". Where is the "Justice" in that? The Rodney King verdict (where white police officers was found not guilty after the brutally beating of Rodney King was caught on tape), the original OJ Simpson trial (no additional comment is necessary here); and the many cases in California where hundreds of people who have been wrongly convicted was exonerated by DNA proves that our Justice System is instead a system of "Injustice".

    July 14, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
  238. Mike

    No need to change the criminal justice system. What needs to be changed is the way our society handles jury verdicts it does not like. It's too bad for all of you that we don't live in a time where you could storm the jail and drag Casey out and lynch her. It's also important to remember that all of the hatred and anger directed at that woman doesn't reflect poorly on her, it reflects poorly on people like you that are so wrapped up in hate that you can't think straight. Anyone who brings harm to her is GUILTY of a hate crime. Anyone who would even contemplate bringing harm to her is sick. My suggestion for everyone is to 'GET OVER IT'. The trial is over. You may not like the verdict, you may not agree with the verdict but you do have to accept the verdict. Unless, of course, you have a serious mental disorder.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
  239. Carl

    It's the same as it's always been: some innocent people go to jail, some guilty people walk free and some people end up with the verdict they deserve. It's not the perfect system, but it's the best we can have and if you don't like it, you can always move to China, North Korea, Iran or Syria, where everyone the government doesn't like is immediately found guilty and sent to jail.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:34 pm |
  240. pammyp Atlantic Beach, FL

    No, that happened years ago with the OJ Simpson debacle. Poor little Caylee.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:34 pm |
  241. Bert

    Casey's verdict did not change my openion of our judical system. It is still the best the world has to offer. It shows the world that we try very hard to render a judgement that is baised on evidence not gut feelings. I feel that Casey is guilty but thats not enough. Thank God others feel the same way.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:34 pm |
  242. Carl Wyatt

    If anything, it reaffirmed my belief in the common american to do the right thing! Burden of proof rests solely on the accuser. The prosecution and investigative teams failed horribly in their task to do so!

    July 14, 2011 at 5:34 pm |
  243. Raghda

    Yes! How can the jury not take into consideration her behavior during those 31 days? There's major guilt right there. Did anyone check to see if those jurors spoke English? She's getting out because of good behavior. Are you kidding me?! She was in solitary the whole time, how much trouble can you get into?! Caylee will get justice, karma works everytime!!!

    Raghda
    Pleasant Valley, NY

    July 14, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
  244. Kate

    Jack, did it ALTER my opinion of our justice system?? No–merely confirmed my opinion. Our justice system is farsical; (O.J. anyone?) But in all seriousness, the non-existence of accountability in our society guarantees that crime will get worse, personal safety is nearly impossible and that "crime pays." Sometime, somewhere, it became evident that you can "get away with anything" and there are no consequences for one's actions. And even worse...in many cases (like this one) criminal behavior leads to celebrity. It's disgusting.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
  245. patrick in westminster md

    Jack – the Justice System in this Country is corrupt and favors the rich and powerful or the soon to be rich and powerful. Its all about who you know, in this case which Lawyers know the Judge, and how much you want to spend to get the best deal. If you dont think thats true than you dont understand the American Court Systems. The Casey Anthony trial is no different than the OJ Simpson trial. There was no justice in either case and it illustrates how biased leaning juries can set a murderer free. There appears to be no oversight to the American Justice System. It is as bad, if not worse, than Congress and we all know how pathetic that is.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
  246. veronica whitaker, virginia

    yes it has alter my view of the justice system. they did not do enough investigation on the case.and did any body realize that casey Anthony dad was a former homicide detective? maybe he help cover up the murder.either way, the justice system failed us again.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
  247. Stephanie

    The Justice system ia alive & well Jack
    Facts in the Casey Anderson case were not facts from the evidence.
    The jury followed the judges orders & found her not guilty of murder.
    What else could the jury do?
    I am able to live with the decision.
    I am glad I am not Casey Anderson.
    She has a quite a lot to look forward to in her future.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
  248. Margaret in DE

    Yes it urned out as both sides seemingly playing to and by by social media bias as opposed by judicial process as neither side presented convincing enough concrete evidence. It thus created through media an angry mob mentality. Children and teenagers and adults are abused and neglected everyday. This was a judicial murder mystery that was an injustice to the Constitution . Constantly portraying Caylee's remains and the details of her remains at the site was a gross violation of justice. At least the jury did not buy into the sensationalism regardless of what they thought. Keep these trials off tv.
    Margaret
    DE

    July 14, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
  249. Rob

    Yes it did. I didn't have much faith in our justice system before, I honestly thought it a joke. While a single case should never be the catalyst that damns or glorifies our justice system, I can now admit that I believe it is working properly. Personally, the integrity of our laws and justice system is more important than a favorable verdict.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:39 pm |
  250. Dennis Tobin

    Reinforces the notion judges and lawyers manipulate the system to their advantage. This jury was obviously flummoxed with legalese to the point where common sense left the room. Not uncommon when cases take years to get to trial. Innocent victims, taxpayers and society in general are cheated because of gross inadequacies perpetuated by those of the legal profession. Whatever happened to if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck must be a DUCK?

    July 14, 2011 at 5:39 pm |
  251. Marsha Harris

    The justice system should be call the "Injustice System" but not just because of Casey Anthony. The prosecutors over-charged her, perhaps for their own glorification. They got it entirely wrong. The jury acquited her of the charges made against her because the prosecution didn't prove their case. Period. My opinion of the entire system was already corroded. Lawyers, judges, investigators, everyone involved (with the exception of the actual police) are corrupt and work for themselves, not the client or the public. It's all about $$, just like everything else in our country. I applaud Jose Baez. He convinced me, just like he convinced the jury.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
  252. George

    It just re-affirmed that the system is broken!!

    July 14, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
  253. lynnej in nc

    My view of the justice system has already been altered due to as how many people, particularly those of color, that are incarcerated for crimes that they're exonerated of years later.

    The only thing about the Casey Anthony trial that bugs me and it started with the Simpson trial is that we've turn court cases into entertainment for the public. It is nothing more than a reality soap opera.

    Justice isn't entertainment. It is serious business. It is about the guilt or innocence of the accused. Cameras and talking head lawyers on tv shows giving play by play were the last thing that justice needed.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
  254. Joe Ft Walton Bch Fl

    No. There nothing wrong with the Justice system. Casey Anthony wasn't guilty of murder, I don't believe she was that smart to get away with it. If she was smart she would have taken that bag that contained Caley's body and dump it at sea or somewhere else where it couldn't be found, not few hundred feet from her house.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
  255. Jerod In Austin

    The Casey Anthony trial enhanced my recognition that our criminal justice system is a thing of beauty. I, like so many others, assumed that Casey Anthony was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I, like so many others, was extremely angry when Casey was judged Not Guilty. But after receiving unbiased information (much from the excellent reporting of CNN), I completely understand and agree with the jury's conclusion. Though our better sense leads us to the conclusion that Casey Anthony is guilty of wrongdoing in the untimely death of her daughter, the Better Angels of Our Nature dictate the prosecution overplayed the hand they were given. Let the future for Casey Anthony be that of receiving justice, BUT well within the rule of law.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
  256. Faye from Nevada

    I have a feeling that the jury wasn't instructed properly or something. To not find her guilty of murder one is understandable, at least maybe that wasn't proven, but she is just as guilty as can be. I feel other children are at risk and our system shows real flaws with this. The OJ trial showed flaws too, but not as severely as this. We all know a body was found and she was the last one with the body and she lied and partied afterward. It is really sad and I'm sorry that it happened in our country. We must fix this.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:47 pm |
  257. Gary

    No, It was the jurys decision. The system is not perfect but it's better than most in other countries. Her fate lies with God now and in the end she'll pay.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
  258. Penny

    Yes! When a jury in a criminal trial comes back with a "not guilty" verdict on a defendant that's clearly guilty as sin (you forgot to mention the baby's body was dumped two blocks from her house), there should be a provision similar to the one for "guilty" capital murder cases, where the judge can overrule the jury.

    Something must happen to wipe away the sickening residue of pain and disgust this incompetent jury has forced upon now anguished minds and broken hearts of people everywhere, who see and feel the truth of this tragedy so keenly.

    If only such a provision had been in place for this trial, the energy spent vilifying Casey Anthony (in memory of Caylee) could be put to much better use.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:49 pm |
  259. Joan

    No. I feel that if the death penalty was not in the charge, she would have been found guilty.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:50 pm |
  260. marky moore

    What is utterly incredible is that "beyond a REASONABLE doubt" became "beyond ALL doubt"...which is a travesty. The "doubt" issue is one that is reflected by stating "the preponderance of the evidence"....not beyond "all possibilitiesregardllessofhowinaneand incredible"....
    A baby is missing, the person responsible lied about the whereabouts of the child, lied about who had her....."preponderance of evidence"...the jury lacked the intellectual capacity to understand the difference. Consequently, the baby is dead, the primary caretaker is absolved of all responsibility...and a killer will walk....

    July 14, 2011 at 5:51 pm |
  261. Robert W. North Carolina

    Not at all. A justice system can be based on assuming guilt until proven innocent or on assuming innocence until proven guilty. If you assume guilt then you have a higher chance of punishing someone who is innocent. If you assume innocence then you release some guilty people. I do not like either but punishing innocent people is still much worse than letting some guilty people go free. Besides, criminals usually repeat crimes when released as horrible as that is they will be caught and not get a free pass next time. They will “hang” themselves.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:51 pm |
  262. bfenerty

    The prosecution was over zealous. Should have gone for a lesser, easier to prove charge. They just didn't have any evidence, plenty of possible theories, but no evidence. They should have gone for some jail time instead of the "whole ball of wax". You really got to have solid evidence proving your case to expect a jury of human beings to convict a person of a crime that will most likely end up with a death penalty sentence, no matter how heinous the crime. Even difficult to answer is the question of whether the death was accidental or intentional. Bad situation, no winners, everyone loses, and a child lost her life.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:52 pm |
  263. JThomas2121

    Absolutely. A recent study found that 300 death row inmates (all Black) were convicted with less evidence presented at trial. This woman was set free because she was a White female, young, and relatively attractive. I'm White and I can't fathom the depths of ignorance this country has fallen to.

    Trials aren't made up of CSI style evidence. It's about pieces of a puzzle and circumstantial evidence is a major part of that evidence. This jury acquitted an obviously guilty person because they couldn't grasp that basic tenet of justice.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:52 pm |
  264. powell, oh

    it just proves that Reasonable Doubt now includes "The Boogie Man" and ANY scenario your lawyer can fit into the evidence. Bet the Menendez Brothers want a re-trial badly NOW!

    July 14, 2011 at 5:53 pm |
  265. Rob

    It just irritates me to the core. Why do we even have a court system... we already convicted this woman before the trial even started. We should just go back to the days of burning people at the stake when we think they have done something wrong.
    I am not going to put someone on death row because I "think" she killed a child. You need to prove it to me, and just because she did not report the child missing for 30 days does not prove that she murdered that child.
    This woman would have been better off going to jail, her life is ruined and will never be the same, she will not be able to go anywhere without having a large red M on her shirt.
    Like someone said earlier this is just like the OJ trial, an innocent man is proven innocent and yet found guilty by the public so is sentenced to a life without freedom and full of prosocution. I would be willing to bet he actually has a better life in jail.

    Sad

    July 14, 2011 at 5:53 pm |
  266. Ed Sr

    No...................did not bother me.............the system is such that there MUST be definite evidence that a crime was committed.........you are innocent till proven guilty..........if she is guilty then blame it on the investigators and NOT the system...............the jury did their duty palatable to some people or not! I believe there was MORE than one person involved in the child's death. Maybe one day it will come out...........just as the OJ Simpson trial left some jaded..........again........OJ did not commit the crime by himself if he did...........there was another party involved. We ALL tend to be the jury and the prosecution and the executioner BUT those who believe she is guilty simply WERE NOT THERE. If you are not there...then you do NOT know the TRUTH!

    July 14, 2011 at 5:54 pm |
  267. Thom Richer

    "Justice" System? Please, Jack.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:54 pm |
  268. Jada, Tennessee

    Absolutely. If you are not guilty then why lie to law enforcement, family and friends, that is someone that has something to hide. She did not report her daughter missing for 31 days, She was out partying for those 31 days without a care in the world. They claim it was an accidental drowning. Even if it was was an accidental drowning she knew her daughter was dead why wasn't 911 called instead of lying and eluding the police. No, she didn't dial 911 instead she wrapped that baby up in garbage bags with duct taped over her mouth and threw that precious baby away like a piece of garbage in the swamp where she lye for 6 months with little regard to human life. I think that alone is evidence enough to convict. Caylee deserved a proper burial not laying in a cold, wet and disgusting swamp Someone needs to be the voice for that baby. Her mother took her voice away from her. Caylee will never have a second chance like her mother!

    July 14, 2011 at 5:56 pm |
  269. TiredODaCrap

    Georgia – Not really disillusioned about the Justice System, as much as I am about "the average American" and they're dependence on so called "news". The ranting and ravings of these women who no longer have Oprah to vent with about this is amazing.
    I guarnatee that the jurors felt as passionately that she did this as anyone else, they were just charged with making an intelligent and justified decision – not blowing their top for no reason.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:56 pm |
  270. Steve R.

    It confirmed my faith in a system that's not perfect but still the best. With all the pre-trial publicity created by the Nancy (dis) Graces ---the public had convicted Casey Anthony before the trial started. This jury could have taken the easy way out and convicted her but they took the evidence presented and the Judge's instructions and did their job.

    This was different than the OJ trial where there was so much incompetence on the prosecution side that "reasonable doubt" overwhelmed the evidence.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:57 pm |
  271. David M

    It did not alter my view of the justice system as a whole. It did alter my view of the jury box. Instead of trying to hand pick they jurors, why not get them via a lottery. There are X number of people to select from. Their number goes in the hat and if it's pulled out, you're on the jury. I think it's a bit of a smack in the face to think that prospective jurors cannot be fair just because they are familiar with the case. If the evidence is presented correctly, they can make a fair decision. In this case, the defense did not win. The prosecution lost.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:57 pm |
  272. June

    I will never feel confident that a jury will listen, and hear, everything they are supposed to. Did I hear the instructions say that you could only consider evidence presented by the witnesses – not what the attorney's said? The opening statement for example. No one proved George Anthony did anything but love his grandaughter and daughter. Yet the jury foreman said George acted suspicious. I would to if I knew Jose Baez was trying to pin the whole thing on me. I'd be very leary of his questions and I would be trying to figure out in my head before I answered what he was up to. Mr. Baez wanted to bamboozle the jury and he did – so much for justice. I could not believe my ears when I heard "not guilty". I can just imagine what Casey is thinking right now and I can see that big smile on her face knowing she got her way again. Do you think she learned anything about lying? It certainly worked for her and Jose'!

    July 14, 2011 at 5:59 pm |
  273. Rowena

    there was enough evidence to prove her guilt. another oj simson case. she is a baby murderer walking free.hopefully god will see fit to see she can not have more children to take their lives. but in her last days she will have to answer to god. it is sad caylee gets no justice for her life been taken at the hands of a monster her mother.

    July 14, 2011 at 5:59 pm |