EPTCasey Anthony not guilty - Page 14
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Zooper31
United States5713 Posts
| ||
|
yawnoC
United States3704 Posts
Some good tweets I saw though today: @HeyYolanda Ms. Yolanda Smith Moms who will do anything to protect their children are certainly feeling some type of way right now. @XtinaNoel Xtina Noel Now Casey will write a book, make a lifetime movie about it and be stalked by paparazzi like a celebrity. Its a fucked up world we live in + Show Spoiler [Tweets from Vince Carter] + @mrvincecarter15 Vince Carter Casey might want to move out of Florida like ASAP!! @mrvincecarter15 Vince Carter All I can say is wow! @mrvincecarter15 Vince Carter I just don't think a juror would come out & talk about this even though I know we all wanna know Wth they were thinking!! Also Alec Sulkin (@thesulk),who is a writer for family guy, has been posting some funny tweets about the whole situation but there are to many to quote but one example is thesulk Alec Sulkin Thanks, Florida. First Bush, now this bush. | ||
Mordoc
United States162 Posts
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. Yes, it's a damning set of situations, and to most humans would clearly indicate murder. But it's all circumstantial evidence. Our court system always errs on the side of innocence, that is to say that they would rather let a murderer be free than execute an innocent person (don't quote me on that). | ||
|
dacthehork
United States2000 Posts
On July 06 2011 05:27 SpaceJam wrote: 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. I think you are mistaken in your reasoning. Yes there are people starving to death, murdered, dying of various things, injustices, sexual abuse, etc. The fact people are upset about one out of the plethora of cases is not in any way weird or wrong. The fact is people in general understand this does happen a lot, and all over the world. It's just a lone case and being upset that a 3 year old girl died and there will never be any true justice (no one will ever go to jail for her murder and shallow burial in a swamp) is just another reminder to people of that fact. Looking at a statistic will never psychologically effect you as much as seeing pictures of holocaust victims or reading individual stories. It doesn't mean the people upset over a single Holocaust victim's story are ignoring the rest, but rather can relate to it on a deeper level. saying thousands are killed/cannibalized every day in Liberia is not as impactful psychologically as reading a story or seeing a documentary with a man visiting said country. Yes there are far worse injustices (cambodian killing fields etc etc etc etc). It's not a bad or unusual thing if this story interests or causes people to become emotional. Most everyone saying "who cares blah blah" are just too jaded or simply think this happens 100000 times a year why get mad over a single case. It's completely understandable to agree in part with both sides. The true problem is a lack of empathy (psychopaths) or of just decent human beings in general, both are upset at about the same thing and there really is no solution but having this be news or liberia be news is far better than the normal news cycle of which politician cheated or celebrity overdosed. | ||
|
scorch-
United States816 Posts
On July 06 2011 05:28 dacthehork wrote: 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 But saying she is guilty is not valid once the court has said she's not guilty. There's this legal process that determines whether someone is guilty or not guilty. There's this burden of proof thing. The court used those things and declared her not guilty of these crimes. Whether you like it or not, as a member of society you must live by that decree. | ||
|
isM
United States735 Posts
On July 06 2011 05:31 Froadac wrote: I think she probably did it, but I knew that this verdict was a possibility based on evidence. I couldn't agree with you more. This prosecution on this trial seemed to really haphazardly put their case together. I am sure she committed the crime however I am not a member of the jury so that doesn't really matter, the fact remains that they could not be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt. This is also not OJ part 2. OJ had all the evidence in the world against him including DNA evidence, motive and the white bronco chase is pretty close to an admission of guilt as well. However inexplicably the jury found him innocent. Casey Anthony had no solid evidence against her other than her really strange behavior. | ||
|
Ponyo
United States1231 Posts
| ||
|
OKScottish
United States217 Posts
| ||
|
SoLaR[i.C]
United States2969 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Caylee_Anthony | ||
|
VPCursed
1044 Posts
Someone did it. Intentionally. Either it was A. The flying spaghetti monster or B. The woman who partied for 30 days and got a tattoo saying life was great during the entire time her daughter was claimed "missing" Now im no specialist. and i sure as hell dont have the education of a lawyer. But i for one believe it was A. The flying spaghetti monster and im glad my peers and there infinite wisdom could reach this verdict. | ||
|
fishjie
United States1519 Posts
| ||
|
scorch-
United States816 Posts
On July 06 2011 05:39 isM wrote: I couldn't agree with you more. This prosecution on this trial seemed to really haphazardly put their case together. I am sure she committed the crime however I am not a member of the jury so that doesn't really matter, the fact remains that they could not be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt. This is also not OJ part 2. OJ had all the evidence in the world against him including DNA evidence, motive and the white bronco chase is pretty close to an admission of guilt as well. However inexplicably the jury found him innocent. Casey Anthony had no solid evidence against her other than her really strange behavior. The OJ case wasn't inexplicable, it was caused by gigantic investigative fuck-ups by the police that disqualified a bunch of evidence. | ||
|
dacthehork
United States2000 Posts
On July 06 2011 05:38 scorch- wrote: But saying she is guilty is not valid once the court has said she's not guilty. There's this legal process that determines whether someone is guilty or not guilty. There's this burden of proof thing. The court used those things and declared her not guilty of these crimes. Whether you like it or not, as a member of society you must live by that decree. no its perfectly reasonable to say I think she killed her daughter even if a court found her innocent. I also think OJ simpson was guilty even though a court found him not guilty. There are also legal processes that throw out cases due to very small mistakes by police, even if its very obvious without a doubt the murderer did it. The fact is the legal process is very often incorrect, bureaucratic and has many safeguards and in some cases silly rules that let people get off. It's designed to protect the innocent as much as possible and in many cases this also protects the guilty. It's a trade off in the system. | ||
|
MozzarellaL
United States822 Posts
On July 06 2011 05:28 dacthehork wrote: 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 No it isn't. Your opinion isn't based on anything, except for gut feelings and what you hear from the media. The jury's decision is based on everything presented at trial, and nothing else. Their determination is better than yours, and if we accept that your opinion is valid, their determination is MORE valid than yours. | ||
|
Harrow
United States245 Posts
On July 06 2011 05:42 fishjie wrote: Just another example of sexism. If this had been a man, he would have been found guilty and screwed over. But the courts always favor women, they think they are innocent creatures that can do no wrong. I can't believe she got off so easy. This is a pretty strong claim. I imagine you must have some pretty strong statistical evidence to back it up. | ||
|
VPCursed
1044 Posts
On July 06 2011 05:44 Harrow wrote: This is a pretty strong claim. I imagine you must have some pretty strong statistical evidence to back it up. ye. Woman are never treated differently. Evidence ploz ! | ||
|
Dustbunny
47 Posts
On July 06 2011 05:26 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: 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. Lawyer here. The terms are synonymous in the english language yes, but as to criminal trials they are not the same. A verdict of "NOT GUILTY" is not the same as a verdict of "INNOCENT". "NOT GUILTY" does not mean you did not do the crime, it means that the prosecution could not make the case to a jury of her piers, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did the deed. "INNOCENT" means you did not do the crime, period. The nuance is slight, I'll grant you and they effectively lead to the same result (i.e. she will never be held accountable for the crime), but the nuance still exists. I think the defense did a fantastic job of injecting doubt into the trial, which is effectively the main way he could have gotten her off. I still think she did it, but I could see how there was sufficient doubt that a jury could have found her unanimously not-guilty. | ||
|
IzieBoy
United States865 Posts
| ||
|
Noro
Canada991 Posts
| ||
|
dacthehork
United States2000 Posts
On July 06 2011 05:44 MozzarellaL wrote: No it isn't. Your opinion isn't based on anything, except for gut feelings and what you hear from the media. The jury's decision is based on everything presented at trial, and nothing else. Their determination is better than yours, and if we accept that your opinion is valid, their determination is MORE valid than yours. Please prove without a reasonable doubt that they have more valid determinations than mine and they know more about the case than I do, and that they are much better able to determine if she was guilty than me. I mean without a single doubt. In my defense I will allege I watched the entire court case and never listened or read anything about the case besides what was shown in court. Hence my determination was also only based on what was presented in court. So please prove their opinion was better than mine without a reasonable doubt otherwise I'm right. | ||
| ||
