July 5th, 2012
07:30 AM ET

A look back: Casey Anthony found not guilty of killing daughter one year ago

One year ago Thursday, Casey Anthony entered a courtroom in a pink ruffled shirt, her hair pulled back in a ponytail. She waited to learn whether a jury had found her guilty in the death of her daughter, Caylee.

The tension was palpable. The case had gripped the entire country, and emotions were flaring outside the courthouse. Inside, Anthony was biting her nails and her lower lip and taking deep breaths at the defense table.

Then came the words that would divide many: not guilty. Her trial was one that had gripped the nation. It was a summer obsession for many, who stayed glued to the TV from the moment Caylee went missing to the moment that verdict was read.

Casey Anthony's trial was a summer obsession  | Casey Anthony's trial is one hot ticket 

Anthony had been found not guilty of first-degree murder in the 2008 death of her 2-year-old daughter and of aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter. The woman whose face was known around the world, who had been dubbed "tot mom," had her day in court.

HLN: The Casey Anthony Effect | Nancy Grace: Story 'didn't make sense' from start

 She wiped tears from her eyes, clutched her attorneys' hands and hugged them.

One year later, Anthony remains in hiding, fearful for her safety and her life. She says she's received numerous threats because people still believe she is guilty of the crime. But she continues to fight to convince them that she is not guilty, exactly the finding a jury decided 12 months ago. Anthony said the world may have one view of her, but she knows who she truly is.

"There’s obviously several misconceptions," Anthony told CNN's Piers Morgan in June. "Obviously, I didn’t kill my daughter."

Anthony told Morgan that she cherished her daughter and did not want to get rid of her, as many people had suggested during and after her trial.

"If anything there’s nothing in this world I’ve ever been more proud of, and there’s no one I loved more than my daughter," Anthony said. "She’s my greatest accomplishment."

As the anniversary nears, here is a look back at evidence and testimony, the verdict as it happened, analysis of the "historic decision" by the jury and some key video from the trial.

Defense: 'Caylee drowned'

The defense argues the Casey Anthony case is not a murder case but a tragic coverup that "snowballed out of control."

Casey: 'All I want is my kid back'

In a conversation taped in jail, Casey Anthony lashes out at the media over coverage of Caylee's disappearance.

Cindy Anthony: 'I lost it'

In court, Casey's mother, Cindy Anthony, describes her journey to finally see Casey and realizing Caylee was missing.

Lee Anthony: 'I was really hurt'

Brother Lee Anthony breaks down in court when asked about Casey's pregnancy.

soundoff (255 Responses)
  1. d

    I love these prosecutors who say the CSI affect makes their job harder. You mean the public wanting you to prove, 150% beyond reasonable doubt before they send someone to prison for life or to death is unreasonable??? Maybe people have heard too much about the 8% of inmates that didn't commit the crime but got found guilty anyway has swayed public opinion. Or maybe things like wikileaks, WMD's in Iraq and the Fast and Furious details have made us lose faith in our government. If you will lie to 360 million Americans to get your way cause you think we are idiots, you will certainly lie to 12 jurors to get your conviction and promotion.

    July 5, 2012 at 11:29 am | Report abuse |
    • Andrei Govorov, Esq.

      "D", I would strongly suggest that you first learn about the issue, such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt, before you make your ignorant comments and make a fool of yourself. Just for your information, it is not 150% or even 100%. The proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not require the State to prove the defendant guilty beyond all doubt or to a mathematical certainty. Finally, in the law, the emphasis is on the word "Reasonable", not on the word "Doubt." Also, before you accuse the prosecutors of lying to get "conviction and promotion", just think about that innocent little girl, dead, with the tape over her face, thrown in the swamp like trash. Justice for Caylee? Obviously, unlike the prosecutors in the case, you could not care less.

      July 5, 2012 at 12:49 pm | Report abuse |
  2. James

    The ho got away with murder.

    July 5, 2012 at 11:31 am | Report abuse |
    • ESHELEETA

      She got away with murder PLUS it looks like we'll all eventually end up supporting her since the judicial system thinks its too dangrous for her to work.

      SHE SHOULD BE FORCED TO WORK AN 'AT-HOME' JOB!!!!!!!!!!!She could be a cust.servc rep, bill collector or any number of jobs that can be done from HOME!

      t she

      July 5, 2012 at 1:21 pm | Report abuse |
  3. hingedlwnb

    The only good part of this was Nancy Grace's head exploding.

    July 5, 2012 at 11:31 am | Report abuse |
    • R. Myers

      Too bad it didn't STAY exploded.... she's back damnit. And everyone who thinks the PR about the anniversary is keeping Cindy Anthony famous, uh uh... this is all about keeping Nancy Grace's tabloid moment of fame going.

      July 5, 2012 at 12:02 pm | Report abuse |
  4. pmn

    There was plenty evidence to convict. Too bad the juror's were not intelligent enough to see that. Come on...she knew here daughter was killed by of course she pointed the finger at the dad on killing her daughter and molesting. All lies of course. It also was very common for her to lie throughout the search for her daughter as well as through the trial. Even by showing the trial on TV so obvious all evidence lead to her guilty. I was very surprised at the juror's. Of course one of the juror's stated not guilty does not mean innocent..huh? what? not guilty in the defendant and defense eyes does tell everyone jury found her innocent. What a contradicting statement! All I have left to say is...here's your sign!

    July 5, 2012 at 11:32 am | Report abuse |
    • Nancy Disgrace

      "There was plenty evidence to convict."

      No there wasn't The prosecution charged her with first degree murder, then proceeded to make a second-degree murder case against her (chl orofo rming your child, when taking his/her life isn't the intent - knocking her out for a couple of hours so you can go to a party is - isn't first degree premeditated murder. it's second degree incidental murder) Blame the prosecution for being incompetent.

      July 5, 2012 at 12:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jaime

      Here's your sign? Seriously? Who says that anymore? I guess it makes perfect sense that a redneck would fail to grasp our legal system though. You say there was enough evidence to convict. Could you please tell us all what that evidence was? And saying a conviction of not guilty does not mean she is innocent makes me perfect sense. In the United States, you are innocent until PROVEN guilty, beyond a shadow of a doubt. He is saying he was unable to find her guilty because there was not enough evidence to convict her, but he feels in his gut or whatever that she did it. Fortunately, our legal system doesn't work on people's gut instinct, or we'd be in huge trouble.

      July 5, 2012 at 12:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • Katie

      It has nothing to do with how much evidence was presented, and how intelligent the jurors were; it had everything to do with the fact that no one could place Casey with Caylee during the moments of her death. This thing called reasonable doubt is how the not guilty verdict came back. Does not mean Casey did not do it; just shows you how the justice system works for and against you at all times.

      July 5, 2012 at 12:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • please

      are you a lawyer? were you on the jury? did you review all of the evidence in legal terms as is required by our justice system? no, you watched biased nancy grace and drew conclusions from that nuthouse....who are you to judge what happened to that kid. she definitely looked guilty from the way the media covered it and the way the trial played out on the cnn live feed...but how can you sit there and say they had more than enough evidence to convict when you didn't review or see a shred of it?

      July 5, 2012 at 1:02 pm | Report abuse |
  5. Dee

    She will pay in time for what she did and her parents also.

    July 5, 2012 at 11:32 am | Report abuse |
  6. Kaylee

    MURDERER!!

    July 5, 2012 at 11:33 am | Report abuse |
  7. jim

    Feel the same way about OJ

    July 5, 2012 at 11:43 am | Report abuse |
  8. Conrad

    just go look the US statistic to how many kids die in the pool every year
    and you have your answer to this particolar case

    July 5, 2012 at 11:46 am | Report abuse |
    • ESHELEETA

      Yes, children drown all lthe time, but how many parents do you know who go and dump their child in a garbage bag, throw them out in the woods like trash and then pretend to have NO idea where their child is....? As defiant as she was from the beginning of this, cursing out the police and her parents and then playing the abused 'victim' in court! !!

      All she had to do was dial 911 and all of this never would have happened, and she wouldn't be hideing and hopeing nobody kills her sorry ass!

      July 5, 2012 at 1:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • oscarsfilms

      How many parents coverup the accident?? . . . How many parents go partying after the death of their child??

      July 5, 2012 at 3:51 pm | Report abuse |
  9. smartaz

    I'm not so shocked about everyone thinking she might be innocent. I'm just shocked over the people thinking she is actually attractive.

    July 5, 2012 at 11:48 am | Report abuse |
    • Jaime

      I've never heard anyone say she might be innocent. I've only ever heard people say the jurors did the right thing by finding her not guilty to to insufficient evidence.

      July 5, 2012 at 12:12 pm | Report abuse |
  10. Nancy Disgrace

    Hey Jim - if you hate the American justice system so much then move to Russia. The only thing YOU know is what Nancy Grace told you. I somehow think that professional prosecutors know more about proving guilt than you do, and they were unable to prove her guilt, so what does that tell you?

    July 5, 2012 at 11:51 am | Report abuse |
    • anon

      Move to Russia? Okay, I have to respond to this even though it wasn't directed at me. Just because something is better, that does NOT make it GOOD. Our justice system is very messed up, and in more need of an overhaul then even our healthcare. The prosecutors don't really care so much about guilt or innocence. What they care about is whether or not they can get a conviction. In this case, they SHOULD have gotten a conviction. They proved her guilt enough, it's just that the ultimate say rested with a nutcase, and basically stupid jury. Juries have ALOT of power in the courtroom.

      July 5, 2012 at 1:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • GreenMan

      Juries have that power so the public lynch mob doesn't determine guilt or innocence. It is precisely for cases like this, where there is not enough evidence but the public has made up its mind. Juries are supposed to have that much power, it is the way it was freaking designed. And the fact that anyone needs that explained to them is disturbing.

      July 5, 2012 at 1:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • Al

      I understand you need solid evidence to convict someone of anything. But her indifference after her daughter's disappearance (almost celebratory behavior), smugness and air of insincerity whenever she spoke makes it hard for anyone to think she is not guilty.

      July 5, 2012 at 5:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • InterestedAttorney

      While I do agree with you that there are much needed reforms which need to be implemented within our justice system, I'd like to know where you get your obvious and vast legal knowledge that "they proved her guilt enough." Clearly you must have been given an inside look at every piece of the prosecution's evidence. And it could only be based on that depth of knowledge, along with your own stellar legal career, that you came to the conclusion that the "ultimate say rested with a nutcase, and basically stupid jury." Please, take this from someone with actual legal training, educate yourself. The jury in cases such as these are, as I mentioned in an earlier comment, sequestered from the flood of media coverage for the duration of the trial. They were present in courtroom for the 33 days of the prosecution's presentation of their case and the defense's presentation of their case. They heard the testimony. They viewed the evidence as provided by each party. And they ruled not guilty. Please, stick to what you know....(that doesn't include the legal field in case you're confused.)

      July 6, 2012 at 10:36 am | Report abuse |
    • Inpursuit

      You are exactly right. The press decided that she was guilty and, as they are won't to do, built the case in the minds of the American people's minds theat she was guilty. Fortunately the jury is shielded from the press in a case like this and only sees and hears the evidence. Based upon the facts in the case they made their decision. The unfortunate thing in the case is Casey is guilty in the eyes of the public which was inundated with the bias of the press. In the end the press got its wish.

      July 10, 2012 at 9:13 am | Report abuse |
    • nickmyluts

      The flaw in your argument, counselor is when you said, "They viewed the evidence." A jury, as all good attorneys know, are supposed to deliberate the evidence, not just "view the evidence." One of the "jurors" admitted that they only "started to go over the evidence;" that's not deliberating. She also stated that if the death penalty was not a possible punishment, they would have "deliberated" differently. Moreover, they bought into a theory of the child's death that there was absolutely no evidence for; they didn't even "view" any such evidence for that theory.

      July 10, 2012 at 1:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Robert

      The flaw in your argument, counselor is when you said, "They viewed the evidence." A jury, as all good attorneys know, are supposed to deliberate the evidence, not just "view the evidence." One of the "jurors" admitted that they only "started to go over the evidence;" that's not deliberating. She also stated that if the death penalty was not a possible punishment, they would have "deliberated" differently. Moreover, they bought into a theory of the child's death that there was absolutely no evidence for; they didn't even "view" any such evidence for that theory.

      July 10, 2012 at 1:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rob

      The flaw in your argument, counselor is when you said, "They viewed the evidence." A jury, as all good attorneys know, are supposed to deliberate the evidence, not just "view the evidence." One of the "jurors" admitted that they only "started to go over the evidence;" that's not deliberating. She also stated that if the death penalty was not a possible punishment, they would have "deliberated" differently. Moreover, they bought into a theory of the child's death that there was absolutely no evidence for; they didn't even "view" any such evidence for that theory.

      July 10, 2012 at 1:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • ladylillie62

      Thank you

      July 5, 2012 at 1:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • rednex

      Clearly you have no argument to say! have ever been to Russia even!! poor zimmerman

      July 5, 2012 at 2:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • Al

      That tells me that the jury is full of morons.

      July 5, 2012 at 2:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • Selfish IsADisease

      Even your lawyers agree that your justice system is crap. And they'd know better than you, wouldn't they? Maybe you watch Nancy Grace, I certainly don't!
      What I do know is that the jurors were upset because THEY wanted to find her guilty but weren't given advice or support.

      July 5, 2012 at 5:41 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Justice Is a Charade

    Only Women can get away with murder!....it's true!.
    Imagine if this were a Guy accused of killing a little girl. You all know what the verdict would be...without any doubt at all!.

    July 5, 2012 at 12:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • maybe

      I realize that one is just as bad as the other, but you have to consider how much more repulsive it is when a guy does it because the guy won't just murder the child, but wil r@pe and torture first, and then bury it. In some cases, even bury the child alive. Or cut it up into tiny pieces, eat its body, or some other next level thing that a male killer tends to do.

      July 5, 2012 at 1:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • maybe

      I realize that one is just as bad as the other, but you have to consider how much more repulsive it is when a guy does it because the guy won't just murder the child, but wil r@pe and torture first, and then bury it. In some cases, even bury the child alive. Or cut it up into tiny pieces, eat its body, or some other next level thing that only a male killer tends to do.

      July 5, 2012 at 1:43 pm | Report abuse |
  12. Arturo Mahfouz

    Happy Casey Anthony Day!!!

    July 5, 2012 at 12:14 pm | Report abuse |
  13. rob

    The prosecutors showed every piece of evidence except for a videotape showing Casey Anthony in the act of murdering her daughter. I guess that still wasn't enough for those idiot jurors. Hopefully those jurors and Casey Anthony will get what's coming to them soon. Casey Anthony is going to hell.

    July 5, 2012 at 12:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • ladylillie62

      Wow! You're in charge of where she goes when she dies??

      July 5, 2012 at 3:07 pm | Report abuse |
  14. Arnold

    You are all sewer level hypocrites who've turned a real life crime into a team sport. Anyone who does not speak of all child victims and only caylee is simply after attention for their own opinion. Ot has become a hollow and meaningless contest of who can be the most outraged. Lets gather all the town people to the courthouse to show off who is more angry. Rah!!!!! That will do a lot to prevent other children from being killed. You show em. Gdamned fools.

    July 5, 2012 at 12:20 pm | Report abuse |
  15. Jill G

    I believe the biggest down fall to our justice system is "the right to a quick and speedy trial." Unfortunately in cases like this, it takes time for evidence to pan out, for lies to become slip ups and for a guilty offender to make a mistake and admit their crime. A trial involving something less serious should be a quick trial, how ever you cannot rush a trial involving the death of another person. I believe that the prosecutors were not given enough time to fully develop their case, and to investigate further. Did she kill her child? Probably. Did she commit crime after crime regardless? For sure. Could you prove any of this? No. Prosecutors knew what they wanted to get her for, and went for it hoping someone else in the jury knew the truth, but they weren't given enough time to develop the evidence against Casey, and there for a quick and speedy trial removed possibility of beyond unreasonable doubt.

    July 5, 2012 at 12:22 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12