Did anyone else notice that Casey said her daughter "was" a lucky girl, then quickly corrected herself to saying "is" a lucky girl to have grandparents that were great. This was when her parents visited her at the prison. To me that's indicative of her guilt because she knew that her daughter was dead. Casey is vile.

I noticed that too. She said that Kaley "has been" lucky to have good grandparents as if Kaley will no longer have them in her life or something. The she repeats herself but changes it to Kaley "is" lucky to have good grandparents.

@then perish I heard "Caylee's been so lucky"

What I don't get, and no one is talking about, is the horrible accusation by CA's lawyer, that her father was RAPPING her when she was young... while her father and mother are QUIETLY sitting in the courtroom and listening to this! ACCEPTING basically to be dragged in the mud??? I just don't get it. Obviously it's a disgusting lie from the lawyer to gain sympathy for CA and to explain why she lies all the time... but HOW can her parents, after everything they have done for her, support her, helping her with Caley (that's what CA tell them while in jail)... how can they COMPLY with that defense?? And not come forward and say it's total BS! It's the only time CA can't even hold crying, while her lawyer is stating that horrible accusation, because she's so ashamed TO TARNISH HER DAD IN FRONT OF THE WORLD... but it's necessary to HER defense. It makes no sense, because her mother wouldn't be sitting next to her father if it was true, and shouldn't support CA if it's not. They even comply with the drowning theory and that they all covered it???? I don't get all that... they should have been KEY WITNESSES for Caley.

@S Lynch a judge administers a punishment within the parameters of legal precedence for a crime that a jury finds a defendant guilty of

This is criminal case NOT a civil case in which a judge gives an arbitrary ruling

At any rate…. A ruling CAN be challenged in a court of appeals/superior court

Not that any of this matters, because I never talked about policing a judge and again…. The jury finds you guilty, the judge reads the verdict and sentences to what they find you guilty

There is a min and max based on precedence and yes, if they go outside the max it can be challenged as this is protected by the constitution

@NikNak let’s say, for arguments sake that she didn’t kill her daughter and that Caylee died on her own and she freaked out and disposed of the body

The remains had duct tape over her mouth and nose
In what circumstance would you put duct tape over the mouth and nose of someone who’s already died “accidentally”?

@SentientPlant I don’t understand how there was no arrest of her Dad, George. The defence said he moved the body. And no charge for Casey on covering up what her Dad supposedly did?

@then perish that word doesn't imply that the kid doesn't exist anymore. It implies the grandparents were good grandparents when they had the opportunity.

@Sebastien Aguila yeah, definitely, it happens. a murder charge without very robust evidence is allllllways a risk though, which prosecutors know, and it sucks that this is how it turned out. Another example is George Zimmerman & Trayvon martin. Imo charging George with murder was a mistake because ofc they weren’t able to prove “hatred, will, or spite” as required for 2nd degree murder. You can prove beyond a reasonable doubt who caused the death physically but with murder their intentions are also vitally important too. Heard is an interesting example though of course it’s a civil case, not criminal. Defamation was probably depp’s only option, but he’s already lost a defamation suit because the specific events she has claimed most likely occurred. In context, it doesn’t make her actions right or ok, because as you said the whole relationship is more than just a few days where maybe Depp was horrible. But the UK court found that the specific abuse by him most likely occurred. The trial still benefits him though tbh — because even if the context he is presenting doesn’t help legally, it helps in the court of public opinion a lot.

@SentientPlant I think it's an honest mistake unfortunately. when you prepare your prosecution against such a case, it's hard to imagine how the defence could manage to pull her out of the deep hole she dug for herself...

just take a look at the Depp/Heard trial that's happening right now, it looks more and more like Depp actually doesn't really have any ground to stand on, even though it is obvious to anyone, that he was abused just as much, if not more...
But his accusations of defamation just can't be proven... she WAS an ambassador for victims of abuse, and JD WAS under investigation for domestic abuse... she manipulated, she tricked, she played the victim... but she didn't lie on those particular statements that are the object of the current trial.
this is probably gonna leave a similar bitter taste in a lot of people's mouth.
thankfully, in this instance, no one lost their life... but still, she's being accused of something that no one can prove she's done.

She mentioned how great grandparents they were but never how great of a mother she was. I kinda picked up in that and think that it is guilt or shame

@Sebastien Aguila I feel like the outcome might’ve been better if they didn’t go for a murder charge/only the murder charge :-( murder legally speaking is a lot harder to prove, compared to something like manslaughter/involuntary manslaughter) especially in a situation like this… with the claim that the child died in the swimming pool, with the fact that the autopsy was inconclusive as to her physical cause of death, etc…. It is understandable that the jury reached the verdict they did, even tho I believe Casey did it. The frustrating thing is that even if what she claimed is true (swimming pool story) a crime WAS committed — failure to report a death, tampering with a body/evidence, maybe neglect or involuntary manslaughter. Look at Robert durst — they couldn’t prove he killed his neighbor, but did manage to convict him of evidence tampering & other stuff related to the disposal of the body. But now she can’t be tried again in connection w/ this , so even the crimes she did self admittedly commit will just be unpunished.

@Sebastien Aguila the jury was not willing to convict a woman who looked like her

Ifso/facto

whilst yes, she betrayed an information that was unknown at the time this conversation happened, it was then revealed and admitted by the mother that the girl was already dead, and that the mother knew about it at that point. so yes, interesting thing to note (I did notice it myself, and was surprised it wasn't underlined), but it's not indicative of her guilt in any way...
don't get me wrong, I think she obviously did it, but this doesn't prove it... only that she knew...

and whilst the defence attorney is right in his closing statement (what a masterful speech btw), I'm still absolutely baffled she managed to walk free...

@then perish she said “has been” which technically could be used for both past and present (I.e., it generally refers to the time leading up to the present without necessarily indicating a cessation), however the fact that she appeared to correct herself to “is” is still pretty telling.

Yes but it makes no difference to the case because they admitted in court she knew her daughter was dead.

@Lelem2 no their job is to make sure that the prosecutor can not falsify evidence and that the judge follows protocol

Their job is not to present false narrative or to aid or further the machinations of a client

A defense team can pardon themselves from a client under circumstances in which they feel a client is forcing them to present false evidence or narrative

Well the defense says the girl drowned so that’s still lines up with her story

I really can't beleive that those two men are supporting her as though she's innocent while that poor baby who deserved to live an amazing life is dead

@NikNak doesn’t mean she didn’t.   That pathetic angle by the defense team created ‘reasonable doubt’.   Enter the jury ( would love to meet these morons) Face it.  The truth wasn’t established, that c just had a better lawyer.

@NikNak doesn’t mean she didn’t.   That pathetic angle by the defense team created ‘reasonable doubt’.   Enter the jury.  Face it.  The truth wasn’t established, that c just had a better lawyer.

@itsjonathansomething from 29:43, she repeats the same mistake twice

Did you watch the video? Just because she knew she was dead, doesn’t mean she was guilty of murdering her. Obviously she knew she was dead, that was her defense’s whole argument.

@itsjonathansomething she says 'had' so she still used past tense.

when does she say that? That conversation happens at the 29:29 mark but I don't hear her say "was"

Yeah, yeah, I caught that too. She corrected herself, and I was thinking “wow, she just said that”.

I agree that the video quality was poor. I don't know how to put the exact spot in the video when she said it but it did make me think@Sparrow

For sure, that was so obvious.<br>I think her mom might have caught that too, but the video is too low quality.. (maybe her too but he has a poker face)

For sure, that was so obvious.
I think her mom might have caught that too, but the video is too low quality.. (maybe her too but he has a poker face)


one of the most baffling injustices in american history. how this woman has managed to walk free for years without someone beating the living shit out of her is (almost) equally baffling

@Jarthen Greenmeadow says who? You? Some dork in some YouTube comments?

@Gary Mikels please tell me that's sarcasm. There is so much evidence proving she did it. Everyone says it's circumstantial but I don't think they know what that means.

@Circus Brains a súper hot?? Come on I have seen womens more Beauty going straight to jail

@J. Lucas de Castro Araújo the phrase is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Everyone ignores the reasonable part and just hear beyond a doubt. A reasonable person can look at the evidence and say she did not act like a mother who lost her child, she acted like a mother who killed her child. A reasonable person can follow the evidence given and draw a pretty solid conclusion. If it was simply beyond a doubt, no one would ever go to jail, even if you saw them do it, it could have been their evil twin!

People jumping straight to vigilantism and mob justice never gets old. Its just as psychotic lol

@Jeebly W. Bush she is very mid. In the 2000’s though? She would be considered hot af and hot people are innocent.

There are many variables to why someone may be found not guilty. Sometimes is the lack of evidence - see Heard vs Depp - while others may be how the evidence is being perceive, sometimes the criminal is being prosecuted with the wrong crime, others are the judge's fault - see Broke Turner etc. When someone is found not guild because of lack of evidence, I don't consider it to be injustice. You need to meet the burden of proof to a reasonable degree. Now, in the case of Casey, it was completely injustice.

@Weekend Nomad i thought she lived in west palm?

@Circus Brains 🤮 she's far from hot and attractive

She’s literally in my city but my city is big.. it’s easy to blend in here (Houston,tx) and I’m surprised to because stuff is always happening here

Absolutely no one wants to go to jail for this pathological liar

I don’t understand any of this. She’s on the streets out there somewhere, free and still living?

@Dann she was never really in. She was held on remand while awaiting trial but was not convicted. Unbelievable.

@Dann she's been out for like 16 years lol

yea the jurors got it wrong... They have to live with it. So stupid they couldn't see through it. Then making up all the stuff about her dad. Her mom just let her get away with all of it.

@bovine joni i know. i watched the video. lmao

i believe she at least did 2 years in jail awaiting trial. but after trial she walked

if it helps she got like. some water splashed on her once

@Circus Brains huh!! She’s a 6 but thinks she’s a 9… the worse type!!

I hope there’s a place in hell for Casey’s lawyer too.

@Circus Brains she's not ugly but to call her "super hot and attractive" Is a bit ridiculous. She's a 5 or a 6 at best. Unless you just got out of jail or are in a situation where you don't see women very often, in that case I could understand you thinking that way.

@Circus Brains <br>No. People aren't that shallow or simple. Especially when it comes to someone killing their own child. No amount of good locks is going to save you.

@Circus Brains
No. People aren't that shallow or simple. Especially when it comes to someone killing their own child. No amount of good locks is going to save you.

I mean, me and my girlfriend haven’t ran into her yet lol

@Circus Brains dawg she's mid at the VERY best

it might have a lot to do with her being so super hot and attractive.

her lawyer being an emotionally manipulative smarm factory probably helped

she's not even convincing, she sounds like my 8 year old sister when she lies

@then perish If I was on your jury after you "didn't do it,", I would find you as guilty as they found her.

@69SalterStreet i'd love to go to jail for killing casey anthony

Life is unfair and unjust. You have completely innocent people who have gotten caught in mass shootings but this woman walks unharmed.

Be the change you want to see in the world


I actually now regret watching this documentary. It simply proves the fact that justice cannot be served. I understand that it is his job to win the case, but how could you sleep knowing you just fabricated evidence to let a murderer walk away like that.. This is so deeply disturbing and I am heartbroken for the little girl. She did NOT deserve this!

@Shrey Jain Does that job include writing shitty books after the fact?

@Shrey Jain I’m not American, actually. And I understand that in some ways the American legal system works. In my country, it’s very very VERY rare for sexual harassers or abusers to face consequences. In America it’s still rare, but less rare than where I life, and in that sense it’s improving, which I do somewhat appreciate. However, I am still very passionate against the legal system there because I still see glaring, huge issues.

And no, socialism wasn’t proven as a failed system. Countries that implemented socialist regulations were far better off than they were under capitalism, but so far there is no example of a true socialist country/government because capitalism is far more profitable for the rich, who will do anything and everything to prevent countries from becoming socialist, or god forbid communist.

To be honest, I’m getting really tired talking about this topic. If you decide to respond again, I’ll hear you out, but I’m about ready to call it quits. We can just agree to disagree.

@The Sleepy Dot I'm not saying it can't be better. Of course there need to be more regulations so that the system improves. But the approach you have mentioned is a proved failed system. It doesn't work. I've seen people in USA talk about making USA a socialist country because there is more so called equality. You have no idea how much harm it would do. USA is a superpower for a reason. Things have worked for you. Think about that at least. This morality and passionate approach is bogus. Just look how Biden has made a joke of USA. You're about to go in recession. Things are way better and just in USA. You should be happy to be there.

@Shrey Jain “better” isn’t the same as “good”. the current system is also heavily based on emotions, which is why lawyers can get away with defaming people (accusing them of being addicts and such) to convince a jury/judge they are criminals and abusers, why black people and other minorities are disproportionately being sent to serve time/given the death penalty in comparison to non-minorities, and why Casey walks free. we can’t <i>settle</i> for this legal system just because in other places it’s worse…

@Shrey Jain “better” isn’t the same as “good”. the current system is also heavily based on emotions, which is why lawyers can get away with defaming people (accusing them of being addicts and such) to convince a jury/judge they are criminals and abusers, why black people and other minorities are disproportionately being sent to serve time/given the death penalty in comparison to non-minorities, and why Casey walks free. we can’t _settle_ for this legal system just because in other places it’s worse…

@The Sleepy Dot I'm not delusional not am I ignorant. I live in India and trust me the system you have is far better than what we have here. People use emotions and so called morality here and it's being misused heavily. The only thing we're better at is gun control. You may think it's a good idea to change it all but you don't look at other countries as example. You'll be far worse if this morality thing you talk about come in.

@The Sleepy Dot the system is just lol. This is how it should work. The jury is there for decide. It's no one but jury's fault if the offender is saved. Lawyer's job is that what it is now and it shouldn't change. If you change that there will be a ton s..t of problem coming along with it.

@Shrey Jain i used the word "should" in the beginning for a reason. "living in [my] fairyland", as you put it, was literally the point. The current legal system NEEDS to change, because currently it's broken and it's pretending to me way more moral and just than it is. I was moreso discussing what the legal system SHOULD be like, or what it wrongly pretends to be.

@Shrey Jain a lawyer's job shouldn't be to defend their client at all costs. it should be to give them a fair chance. in other words, when the defendant is guilty, the defense attorney should be the devil's advocate.

BUT that still means being honest, and using valid, relevant arguments. fabricating a backstory for Casey, or (if you believe Casey was the one to tell that story), use past abuse inflicted on Casey to justify and "humanize" her as to make her character seem innocent is so wrong on so many levels... morally speaking, those attorneys have failed.

@Novkorova I never said that jury made right or wrong decision. Yes lawyers have a choice but even so it's their f'ing job to try save the client no matter what. They are only the official voice for their client and it doesn't matter whether the client is innocent or guilty.

The jury are tools, they got absolutely played by the attorney.

1 hour 7 minutes en 54 seconds.. at the end.. WASTE OF TIME!

@Shrey Jain judges don’t decide right or wrong. The jury do.

@aetherisc I agree entirely. It's the system itself and the jury who let this girl down. I genuinely do not understand how anyone let alone a panel of 12 people that are right in the thick of it could find this disgusting skank not guilty. Sometimes I wish I was able to be on a jury to make sure that the correct verdict is rendered.. i seriously can't get over the fact that they let her go.

Imo it’s on the jury. Why did that baby have duct tape wrapped around her head, and why wasn’t what Casey journaled about and her actions during the disappearance say what her true feelings were? Onus is on the jury

Lawyers are not judge. Period. To decide what is right or wrong is judge's decision. A lawyer's work is to provide a voice for the defendant so that the dependent has a say to matters. Lawyers are not judges and they do not decide anything by themselves.

@Danielle Minerva to be fair i doubt it's the lawyer who made that up it's likely during discussion with Casey she made it up and told that to her lawyer who just used it cause he has to it's his job to try his utmost to defend his client

Isn’t it insane??!!!!!! This is narcissism so much worse than anything I’ve ever seen ever!


How did they explain away the duct tape on Kaylee’s body, and the fact that Casey was at the store with just her boyfriend the same day that Kaylee disappeared???  And the fact that there never was a babysitter?  And that everything she told the police (and everyone else) was a lie?????  What an effing travesty of justice….

@Syl D i mean if they spoke up they mightve caught a contempt of court charge, and thats their daughter. being a parent makes you act stupid. im sure in their hearts when they go to bed they hope/believe she didnt do anything, but i think they know. they just want to preserve whatever family image they had.

What I don't get, and no one is talking about, is the horrible accusation by CA's lawyer, that her father was RAPPING her when she was young... while her father and mother are QUIETLY sitting in the courtroom and listening to this! ACCEPTING basically to be dragged in the mud??? I just don't get it. Obviously it's a disgusting lie from the lawyer to gain sympathy for CA and to explain why she lies all the time... but HOW can her parents, after everything they have done for her, support her, helping her with Caley (that's what CA tell them while in jail)... how can they COMPLY with that defense?? And not come forward and say it's total BS! It's the only time CA can't even hold crying, while her lawyer is stating that horrible accusation, because she's so ashamed TO TARNISH HER DAD IN FRONT OF THE WORLD... but it's necessary to HER defense. It makes no sense, because her mother wouldn't be sitting next to her father if it was true, and shouldn't support CA if it's not. They even comply with the drowning theory and that they all covered it???? I don't get all that... they should have been KEY WITNESSES for Caley.

He wasn’t a genius. He was protecting his lover. 🤷🏾♀

as far as the duct tape— there was conflict about whether it was on her face or over her mouth as well as possible contamination when it was found and when it was collected. they even accused the worker who found caylee of doing something wrong.

@Danielle Minerva I read that as Freddie Mercury at first and was very confused

Her Lawyer was a genius and made it so that all the compulsive lying looked better than any truth she could’ve given

Actually, the jury said Casey was a good mother and she had no motive to kill her daughter.. and they also said the duct tape and the chloroform were not convincing enough ..lol

She was overcharged. (Not morally but legally)<br>The prosecutors should have only charged based on what they could prove.

She was overcharged. (Not morally but legally)
The prosecutors should have only charged based on what they could prove.

Incompetent, arrogant and complaicent prosecution

It’s insanity!!!!! Freken Mercury must have been in damn retrograde or something!!!!!!!!!

@bostonwhofan She was found guilty on counts 4--7, all of which were about lying to law enforcement. She was found guilty for what they could prove. But, she spent a few years in jail leading up to the trial, so she had paid her time in regards to lying to law enforcement, so she had to do no extra (or very little, like 5 days) time for it.

Obviously Caylee didn't drown but even if she had, isn't it a crime to remove a dead body from a scene and dispose of her illegally?  Isn't it a crime to obstruct justice by lying to the police time after time?