Casey Anthony not guilty - Page 15

On July 06 2011 05:43 scorch- wrote:


The OJ case wasn't inexplicable, it was caused by gigantic investigative fuck-ups by the police that disqualified a bunch of evidence.

On July 06 2011 05:43 dacthehork wrote:

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.

On July 06 2011 05:49 dacthehork wrote:
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.

On July 06 2011 05:54 FictionSC wrote:
Thanks goodness for sense! Everyone commenting about the trial on Facebook is all up in arms about how Casey should have been convicted and put on death row. Leave it to the tl community to actually have some sense.

There is no way that Casey should have been convicted. All the prosecution was running on was Casey's behavior after Caylee went missing, and no sane person could use that information to sentence someone to death. I personally believe that she did it, but I have know way of knowing for sure beyond a reasonable doubt, and the prosecution didn't help any.

On July 06 2011 05:47 Dustbunny wrote:

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.

On July 06 2011 05:49 dacthehork wrote:


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.

On July 06 2011 05:49 dacthehork wrote:


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.

On July 06 2011 06:00 Roe wrote:
How come she's always crying so much when I see her on TV?

On July 06 2011 06:01 xDaunt wrote:


As a trial attorney, my experience with juries has been that they generally don't like the strategy of throwing shit against a wall and seeing what sticks. Juries want a logical explanation of what happened -- ie, they want a story that makes sense and has minimal holes in it. My suspicion is that the jury didn't acquit Casey Anthony because of something that the defense did so much as was the prosecution did not do: present sufficient evidence to tie Casey to her daughter's death beyond a reasonable doubt.

Note: I just heard an interview of one of the alternate jurors and he basically confirmed that the problem was the prosecution's lack of evidence.

On July 06 2011 06:07 mewby wrote:

you serious dude? she had a chance to be sentenced to life in jail as well as getting the death penalty, as well as her ruining her family there are tons of emotions.

On July 06 2011 05:47 Dustbunny wrote:


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.

On July 06 2011 06:14 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:


That's weird, Black's Law dictionary agrees with me:

Innocent: (somewhere around pg 485)
Free from guilt; acting in good faith and without knowledge of incriminatory circumstances, or of defects or objection.

Not guilty (somewhere around pg 644)
The form of the verdict in criminal cases where the jury acquit the prisoner.

Acquit (pg 18)
To release, absolve, or discharge one from an obligation or liability, or to legally certify the innocence of one charged with crime.

You guys can manually search the terms here if you'd like.