|
On July 06 2011 05:10 dacthehork wrote:
Holy crap you don't understand, It's my personal opinion NOTHING MORE. I'm allowed to have that opinion, I do not think they will change the laws on murders because of my opinions. What it is defined as legally in America does not effect my opinion.
You're allowed to have opinions. You aren't allowed to be free from criticism for having a stupid opinion.
|
On July 06 2011 05:11 Olinim wrote:
So people aren't allowed to think she's guilty, and state that opinion? When did courts become infallible arbiters of truth?
When 12 people had to sit in court and listen to 8 hrs of evidence every day for 3 weeks. Your opinion on her guilt is worthless. Do you ask Sarah Palin about US-Russian foreign policy just because she can see Russia from her house? When did people working in federal government who studied foreign policy for decades become authoritative judges on foreign policy decisions?
Oh, wait.
|
On July 06 2011 05:12 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 05:10 dacthehork wrote:
Holy crap you don't understand, It's my personal opinion NOTHING MORE. I'm allowed to have that opinion, I do not think they will change the laws on murders because of my opinions. What it is defined as legally in America does not effect my opinion. You're allowed to have opinions. You aren't allowed to be free from criticism for having a stupid opinion.
My bad it's clear the mother who never reported her daughter missing after even 31 days, who partied that whole time, who had search forms for chloroform (used on the little girl) and broken neck is innocent. Whoops my daughter vanished sometime, I have no idea where she is, better go party and lie to my family that she is at an imaginary babysitter who kidnapped her's house.
Yes thinking that isn't about the most damning set of situations is stupid.
|
On July 06 2011 05:11 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 05:07 SilverJohnny wrote:
lol at all the people in this thread screaming she's guilty. Based on the evidence a jury found that there was reasonable doubt that she committed the crime. There were no eyewitnesses, and all evidence was circumstantial at best. They made the right decision, imo.
On a related note, its things like this that make me wish trials weren't televised like some sporting event. Now the whole country will be up in arms and Casey Anthony, who is not guilty of murder, will still be treated like a murderer. Trials being made into these spectacles by the media biases people to the point of blindness to the facts of the matter, and leads to the verdict being cheapened. She's innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around, and yet now that her non-guilt is confirmed she'll probably be treated even worse for something a jury of her peers said she did not do. So people aren't allowed to think she's guilty, and state that opinion? When did courts become infallible arbiters of truth?
It's perfectly acceptable to believe she did killed her, infact I do or at least I believe she knows a significant amount of info about what happened.
However to not conceed that there are grounds for reasonable doubt to the murder 1 charge is just blind hatred without considering the evidence presented and observering that it's mostly circumstancial, strong but still circumstancial.
|
On July 06 2011 05:15 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 05:11 Olinim wrote:
So people aren't allowed to think she's guilty, and state that opinion? When did courts become infallible arbiters of truth? When 12 people had to sit in court and listen to 8 hrs of evidence every day for 3 weeks. Your opinion on her guilt is worthless. Do you ask Sarah Palin about US-Russian foreign policy just because she can see Russia from her house? When did people working in federal government who studied foreign policy for decades become authoritative judges on foreign policy decisions? Oh, wait.
What's your point? It's not like they are fucking polling the public on their opinion to have an impact on the case. If you didn't want to hear people's OPINIONS on the matter why did you open the fucking thread? No one is elevating their opinion on the matter.
|
I don't agree with the media like Nancy grace etc. But I think the fault is with the prosecution. They put sooooo much on the fact she deliberately killed her daughter so she could go back to the glory days. When you try to get every charge under the rainbow, it diluties your case, doesn't look like you know what you want. See Michael Jackson trial.
Either way, however you want to think this poor girl died. It doesn't change that her mom wrapped her in a garbage bag, duck taped whatever she duck taped, threw the body in the car for days and days, didn't report her little girl missing for 1 month, and never took the stand to have the chance to truly explain everything. And with good behavior who knows when Casey Anthony might get out.
But.....the real focus should be on this little girl and not her mom.
|
On July 06 2011 05:05 dacthehork wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 05:01 Kokujin wrote:
mob mentality is hilarious. it's like you all, without any detailed facts, want her to be guilty so you can group together with pitchforks and chant burn the witch. it goes beyond not having trust in the legal system. all is fine until you are on the other side of the hypocrisy
I don't think it is that at all. It's just a small example of how shitty humanity is and the lack of justice in it. The fact a 3-4 year old girl is dead, buried in a shallow grave, and her mother partied that night and the other 31 days without ever reporting her missing and will not face any real justice is what people are upset about. Because people with empathy understand that if your little daughter goes missing 31 days you dont party the whole time unless you are severely psychopathic and guilty. Including making up a story that her babysitter abducted her. Most people can use logical deduction to figure out what happened.
Well, thank God we have you, Mr. Ace Psychologist, for letting us into the mind of this woman! I mean, I watched the trial, and I know they presented evidence, and facts, and research that they did for literally years, but I find your forum warrior opinions to be much more convincing. I agree, going out partying obviously must make her a horrible human and a psychopath who murdered her daughter, there is no other explanation! it couldn't be that anything else happened to her daughter, and Casey, distraught, afraid, and unable to cope with it, shut down and tried to drown her sorrows in drugs, alcohol, and partying. No, that would never even be a possibility, would it? And even if she didn't do anything wrong, at all, other than go out and party, we should definitely hold her responsible for something entirely different right? I mean, I remember a time when I accidentally hit someone with a ball while playing catch, and two weeks later they died, and I was more than happy to be found guilty of murder because, well, circumstances showed that I had been violent towards that person and then partied for two weeks!
On July 06 2011 05:12 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 05:10 dacthehork wrote:
Holy crap you don't understand, It's my personal opinion NOTHING MORE. I'm allowed to have that opinion, I do not think they will change the laws on murders because of my opinions. What it is defined as legally in America does not effect my opinion. You're allowed to have opinions. You aren't allowed to be free from criticism for having a stupid opinion.
I liked yours better.
|
On July 06 2011 05:12 dacthehork wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 05:08 Phenny wrote:On July 06 2011 05:05 dacthehork wrote:On July 06 2011 05:01 Kokujin wrote:
mob mentality is hilarious. it's like you all, without any detailed facts, want her to be guilty so you can group together with pitchforks and chant burn the witch. it goes beyond not having trust in the legal system. all is fine until you are on the other side of the hypocrisy
I don't think it is that at all. It's just a small example of how shitty humanity is and the lack of justice in it. The fact a 3-4 year old girl is dead, buried in a shallow grave, and her mother partied that night and the other 31 days without ever reporting her missing and will not face any real justice is what people are upset about. Because people with empathy understand that if your little daughter goes missing 31 days you dont party the whole time unless you are severely psychopathic and guilty. Including making up a story that her babysitter abducted her. Most people can use logical deduction to figure out what happened. No, you cannot speculate, especially not when you are potentially holding someones life in the balance. You can only go by the facts and evidence provided. Yes I can speculate, jesus christ, what are you talking about? No ones life is in the balance if I have that opinion. Are they going to execute her because I think it would be just? No. I am going by the facts and evidence I have seen in forming my opinion. I don't think you have any idea what I am saying. I'm just saying its perfectly reasonable for people to be upset and think justice was not served despite an "official ruling", people are entitled to their opinions and to speculate.
My bad. I thought you were speaking from a jurors perspective, reread what you quoted, your speculation is completely fine.
|
On July 06 2011 05:15 dacthehork wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 05:12 MozzarellaL wrote:On July 06 2011 05:10 dacthehork wrote:
Holy crap you don't understand, It's my personal opinion NOTHING MORE. I'm allowed to have that opinion, I do not think they will change the laws on murders because of my opinions. What it is defined as legally in America does not effect my opinion. You're allowed to have opinions. You aren't allowed to be free from criticism for having a stupid opinion. My bad it's clear the mother who never reported her daughter missing after even 31 days, who partied that whole time, who had search forms for chloroform (used on the little girl) and broken neck is innocent. Whoops my daughter vanished sometime, I have no idea where she is, better go party and lie to my family that she is at an imaginary babysitter who kidnapped her's house. Yes thinking that isn't about the most damning set of situations is stupid.
Having the opinion that a drunk driver should be considered the same as a man who plans to kill his wife for insurance money and carries the act through is a stupid opinion. Thinking that an irresponsible mother who accidentally killed her child should be treated the same as a gang member who robs a house and kills the inhabitants is also a stupid opinion.
|
On July 06 2011 05:15 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 05:11 Olinim wrote:
So people aren't allowed to think she's guilty, and state that opinion? When did courts become infallible arbiters of truth? When 12 people had to sit in court and listen to 8 hrs of evidence every day for 3 weeks. Your opinion on her guilt is worthless. Do you ask Sarah Palin about US-Russian foreign policy just because she can see Russia from her house? When did people working in federal government who studied foreign policy for decades become authoritative judges on foreign policy decisions? Oh, wait.
you do realize OJ simpson was found not guilty and later admitted to doing the murders, even writing a book "I did it", and there have been countless other cases. Probably the most frequent example is numerous convicted rapists and murderers who where later found innocent 10-20 years later when DNA testing started.
|
On July 06 2011 05:02 Phenny wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 04:59 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On July 06 2011 04:19 Phenny wrote:
From the liveblog on wftv.com
Comment From Kevin in Fairfax, VA Kevin in Fairfax, VA: ]
They didn't say she is innocent. They said she is not guilty as charged.
This is an extremely important point to take note of. Kevin is a moron trying to show how intelligent he is by playing semantics. in·no·cent/ˈinəsənt/ Noun: An innocent person, in particular. Adjective: Not guilty of a crime or offense What he's saying is that she isn't innocent of killing Cayley necessarily, but she is not guilty of 1st degree murder as she was charged (for the fact she cannot be clearly and directly implicated and that there is definite grounds for reasonable doubt).
She was found not guilty on the manslaughter charge as well, which was the lowest (burden of proof) charge of homicide the prosecution brought in this case. If the prosecution couldn't prove her guilty of manslaughter, the state is saying that as far as it's concerned she didn't kill her child.
Innocent until proven guilty.
|
On July 06 2011 05:18 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 05:15 dacthehork wrote:On July 06 2011 05:12 MozzarellaL wrote:On July 06 2011 05:10 dacthehork wrote:
Holy crap you don't understand, It's my personal opinion NOTHING MORE. I'm allowed to have that opinion, I do not think they will change the laws on murders because of my opinions. What it is defined as legally in America does not effect my opinion. You're allowed to have opinions. You aren't allowed to be free from criticism for having a stupid opinion. My bad it's clear the mother who never reported her daughter missing after even 31 days, who partied that whole time, who had search forms for chloroform (used on the little girl) and broken neck is innocent. Whoops my daughter vanished sometime, I have no idea where she is, better go party and lie to my family that she is at an imaginary babysitter who kidnapped her's house. Yes thinking that isn't about the most damning set of situations is stupid. Having the opinion that a drunk driver should be considered the same as a man who plans to kill his wife for insurance money and carries the act through is a stupid opinion. Thinking that an irresponsible mother who accidentally killed her child should be treated the same as a gang member who robs a house and kills the inhabitants is also a stupid opinion.
Not really, in my world view when you risk someone elses life (say drunk driving) and do in fact kill them you are guilty of murder. As the intent to kill someone is there, just a smaller percent. Same reason I think attempted murder should be the same as murder. In the case of a parent letting a child drown to death due to poor parenting or leaving them in a locked car in the sun, it's the parents express responsibility to keep them alive, by failing to do so they basically did murder them in my eyes.
It's more the fact someone died due to the actions of someone else. Not whether it was shooting them in the head or driving into the side of their car randomly at 80 mph.
|
On July 06 2011 04:27 ranshaked wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 04:22 Sporadic44 wrote:
i dont understand how the jury came to this. the chlorophorm(sp?) searches on the internet, and traces of it in the trunk seemed like solid enough evidence to me. no one searches for that out of the blue.
and the fact that she dissapeared herself while caylee was missing says alot. idk i'm a bit dissapointed honestly. i thought she would get manslaughter and aggravated child abuse at the least. The grandmother claimed the google searches. The duct tape didn't fit right. None of the evidence was strong enough.
The grandmother claiming the searches was ridiculous. Why on Earth would you google if chlorophyll is bad for your dogs?
|
On July 06 2011 05:15 dacthehork wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 05:12 MozzarellaL wrote:On July 06 2011 05:10 dacthehork wrote:
Holy crap you don't understand, It's my personal opinion NOTHING MORE. I'm allowed to have that opinion, I do not think they will change the laws on murders because of my opinions. What it is defined as legally in America does not effect my opinion. You're allowed to have opinions. You aren't allowed to be free from criticism for having a stupid opinion. My bad it's clear the mother who never reported her daughter missing after even 31 days, who partied that whole time, who had search forms for chloroform (used on the little girl) and broken neck is innocent. Whoops my daughter vanished sometime, I have no idea where she is, better go party and lie to my family that she is at an imaginary babysitter who kidnapped her's house. Yes thinking that isn't about the most damning set of situations is stupid.
That doesn't prove a thing. And it doesn't prove that she deserves the punishment that murder one gives, which can include life imprisonment or the death penalty. It's funny you talk about having empathy and logic when you haven't risen above the basic human desire to just mindlessly smash things when they don't go your way.
The prosecutors tried a charge that contained premeditation to give out a greater punishment. It didn't work. Society has long distinguished between intentional, malicious and accidental for a host of good reasons. Yes, an opinion that doesn't distinguish between them is horribly misguided.
|
On July 06 2011 05:18 dacthehork wrote:
you do realize OJ simpson was found not guilty and later admitted to doing the murders, even writing a book "I did it", and there have been countless other cases. Probably the most frequent example is numerous convicted rapists and murderers who where later found innocent 10-20 years later when DNA testing started.
What does that have anything to do with making a determination based on the available evidence (what a jury does), and making a determination based off your gut (what people ITT and everywhere else do)?
|
On July 06 2011 05:02 Phenny wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 04:59 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On July 06 2011 04:19 Phenny wrote:
From the liveblog on wftv.com
Comment From Kevin in Fairfax, VA Kevin in Fairfax, VA: ]
They didn't say she is innocent. They said she is not guilty as charged.
This is an extremely important point to take note of. Kevin is a moron trying to show how intelligent he is by playing semantics. in·no·cent/ˈinəsənt/ Noun: An innocent person, in particular. Adjective: Not guilty of a crime or offense What he's saying is that she isn't innocent of killing Cayley necessarily, but she is not guilty of 1st degree murder as she was charged (for the fact she cannot be clearly and directly implicated and that there is definite grounds for reasonable doubt).
Except that, by definition, innocent means not guilty. She is innocent as charged. You're right that they didn't say "she absolutely did not kill her daughter." They said "she is innocent of murder in the first, second, and all the other charges, except lying to police." The terms are synonymous.
|
It's quite simple, Casey Anthony could not directly be linked to the death of Caylee. Their was absolutely no evidence presented that could have proven that without a shadow of a doubt. Do I think she did it? Yes. However, only finding the decomposed remains only worked into Casey's favor. There was no way to determine cause of death, and there was no indication of trauma. Casey won, not the defense council or anybody for that matter.
|
God damn, I thought that Facebook would be the only place I had to look people in the face who don't understand what actually happened throughout the entirety of the case. Guess I was wrong..
I find it nearly impossible for many of you that think she was guilty to have watched the entire trial and draw your own conclusions.
Besides, the world has a shitload more to worry about that a death of a child that happened three years ago. Three year old children die each and every day from a plethora of causes that are probably more fucked up than what you presume that Casey Anthony did to her daughter, but this single case is the one that was glorified to the public. Grow up.
|
On July 06 2011 05:24 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 05:18 dacthehork wrote:
you do realize OJ simpson was found not guilty and later admitted to doing the murders, even writing a book "I did it", and there have been countless other cases. Probably the most frequent example is numerous convicted rapists and murderers who where later found innocent 10-20 years later when DNA testing started. What does that have anything to do with making a determination based on the available evidence (what a jury does), and making a determination based off your gut (what people ITT and everywhere else do)?
It's simply an example courts are not right 100% and saying the court found her innocent so your opinion she is guilty is wrong does not work.
Aka courts are fallible
If opinion differs from court
it can still be valid
Hence it's valid to hold an opinion that differs from a criminal courts decision
|
I think she probably did it, but I knew that this verdict was a possibility based on evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
