O.K. Id love to get some spin on this. The question I have is: If it were a male who had custody of his daughter and the whole scenario played out as it did. Would he have been acquitted? Or is there some deep seeded feeling that no mother could ever do that to her her child whereas a father could? It's a tough question but I see that in our legal system where we proclaim that you are innocent until proven guilty, that dictum seemes to disappear when a women accuses a man of rape or child abuse. Then it becomes the man's responsibilty to prove he's innocent. The LA Times recently detailed a case where the only saving features for the accused man were security video tapes that proved he couldn't have been where he was accused of having been. Yet he was still incarcerated until all of this evidence finally came out and the lead dectectives began to have doubts. In the Casey Anthony trial I'm not arguing from a legal point the failure of the prosecution to prove its case. (God, do you remember the of the prosecution's incompetence in the OJ Simpson trial?), I'm only suggesting that there may be a prejudice against men when such cases show up. Any comments? Bottom line: I'ts so sad that a two year old is gone and there seems to be no explanation of what happened or who is responsible. Makes me sick! Cenzo

I agree, if it's a guy, he'd probably be convicted (and convicted fast). It's another phenomenon in life about which there's nothing one can do. In fact I think changing this kind of societal subconscious bias will be harder than what the Civil Rights movement tried to do because there's no clearly defined prejudice and victim here.

More graves are dug with the tongue than with shovels.

Remember to always STFU when confronted by LE.

(still not a lawyer)

Don't get me wrong - I'm quite sure that Casey Anthony just got away with murder.  But I also think that the jury upheld the Constitution in deciding that the prosecution did not prove the case 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'  Much of what "we" know through media coverage, the jury was not able to consider.  It sucks, but it's the way the legal system is supposed to work.

I can only hope that if I am ever in a bad legal situation, the jury and/or judge is as good at following the law.

I do agree the jury heard all the evidence...   I believe the evidence did not connect the dots.  

Interesting implications of giving false statements to LE...

And there are idiots out there making threats against the jurors.

And will someone please shut that bitch Nancy Grace up!

This is not a male/female issue.  There have not been many defendants who have been as universally hated as Casey Anthony.  She was not convicted of murder because the prosecution did not have the evidence to support a murder verdict.  There is a bottom line that the prosecution had very little evidence to support their claim, that Casey drugged, and suffocated her daughter.  The prosecution had no evidence of Casey's state of mind, when her daughter died.   Had the jury been given an opportunity to find Casey guilty of evidence tampering, and negligent homicide, it very likely the Casey would have been found guilty of those charges, and be facing another 10-15 years in prison.

long before the jury went out that she could be defended successfully, the prosecutor was impressive as a speaker but failed to try her additionally on lesser charges which was an error, it is too much of a leap of faith to ask the jury to believe his cock and bull scenario without any real evidence. The moral is keep your mouth shut and you too can get away with murder.

I would agree with beagle, and also would have gone after the lesser charge to get something to stick.

It's the whole "beyond a reasonable doubt", and the defense did do a good job planting that seed. I also think the prosecution relied too much on expert testimony and questionable forensics that made their case weak.

You also have the issue of "jury retaliation" when a trial gets too long...

JMHO

that did it, not her gender. Bottom line is there was more than enough reasonable doubt, the prosecution knew it going in. It wouldn't have mattered who it was, male or female. They made the right call, especially considering it was a death penalty case. No tangible evidence linking her to the crime scene or the body. Only real issue was her lying, which shows she's extremely stupid or extremely smart, either way it proved nothing.