| Forum Index > Closed |
|
isM
United States735 Posts
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. True, its been a long time since I looked at anything regarding the OJ case. | ||
|
Crossed9
50 Posts
| ||
|
Sworn
Canada920 Posts
| ||
|
FictionSC
United States17 Posts
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. | ||
|
scorch-
United States816 Posts
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. If you live in the US, the system is yours. It's your best system. If you don't think it does a good job, then get a better one in place. Until then, a person goes through the system and if they come out not guilty... guess what, they're not guilty. Thinking that you know better than the people deciding her guilt isn't reasonable. | ||
|
MozzarellaL
United States822 Posts
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. I'll humor you. Feel free to poke holes in holes in this argument: 1. 12 minds are better than 1 when it comes to analyzing the same set of facts and being forced to all arrive to the same conclusion. Therefore, the jury is more likely to reach a reasonable finding when 12 people, all of who have differing thoughts on the case, come together and unanimously make a decision. You will have only one point of view (maybe two), and will never be forced to listen to another give his viewpoint to try to convince you, nor will you be forced to try to convince another. This makes your conclusion suspect, no matter what it is. 2. You don't even know what Florida law is concerning homicide. Because of your complete and total ignorance to the law, you have no possible way to determine whether or not the law was broken. The jury doesn't either, however, they were given instructions by a Florida Judge instructing them how to apply the law in view of the facts, instructions which were agreed upon by both the prosecutors and the defense counsel--so in essence you had three people with law degrees coming together and deciding how to present the law to 12 laymen who don't know anything about the law. Meanwhile, we have you, who doesn't know anything about the law, applying facts, which we will assume you have the whole, full, correct view as to what happened, to a law you know nothing about. 3. In light of these circumstances, there can be no doubt that the 12 members of the jury are in a better position to arrive at a determination of guilt than you could ever make. | ||
|
isM
United States735 Posts
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. Yes, for the most part this thread is pretty reasonable which is refreshing from Facebook which is completely fed off of emotionally invested news reports. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
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. 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 it was because of what 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. | ||
|
Dustbunny
47 Posts
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. Except if you're advancing the idea that your opinion is the correct one and that the jury got in wrong, then the burden is on you to prove that fact. We don't have to prove that the jury's opinion was better than yours, just like you never have to prove a negative. If I told you that I was of the opinion that the world was floating on the back of a giant unicorn, in rebuttal you would argue that there's tons of evidence to the contrary. I can't then say that you have to prove to me that that evidence is more "valid" that my opinion. It's up to me to prove the theory I'm advancing, not the other way around. | ||
|
Baarn
United States2702 Posts
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. Their opinion is better than yours because they are the ones that decided if she was guilty or not. So legally in the united states she was guilty of lying to investigators. Sorry you weren't part of the jury. Maybe one day you can decide a court case and your determination will be something more than just an opinion on a starcraft forum. I'm really curious as to why it took 2 days to convince juror(s) to change their stance? What was said and discussed to sway the opposition and come to this verdict? It's obvious your view was shared in that jury. | ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
Looking through Wikipedia, that's a huge mountain of circumstantial evidence. Too bad they couldn't find a smoking gun. | ||
|
mewbert
United States291 Posts
On July 06 2011 06:00 Roe wrote: How come she's always crying so much when I see her on TV? 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. | ||
|
Dustbunny
47 Posts
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. Not to split hairs, but isn't that exactly what the defense is supposed to convey to the jury? Pointing out exactly what the prosecution did not do? I doubt a jury could on its own point what was missing in a skilled prosecutor's case if a good defense attorney did not harp on it to no end. On a side note, from post-trial jury interviews that I've heard, I almost never hear "the defense did a good job showing X", its always, "the prosecution failed to show X" because that's what good defense attorneys do, they emphasize that the burden is on the state and that the burden has not been met because they failed to show X. | ||
|
holy_war
United States3590 Posts
| ||
|
Telcontar
United Kingdom16710 Posts
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. Let's hope some of those tears were for her dead daughter. I still have hope in humanity. | ||
|
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
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. 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. | ||
|
SpiffD
Denmark1264 Posts
Remember that the high standards that are put towards the credibility of evidence, is to make sure that justice is brought to the right person. Despite the tragedy of this case, it comforts me that the court remains objective despite the heavy media pressure and public opinion. | ||
|
Cloud9157
United States2968 Posts
She had the audacity to accuse her (I believe) her father of sexually assaulting her and her daughter. Too bad they showed a recorded meeting of her parents+herself where she stated that he has been a great father. | ||
|
RoosterSamurai
Japan2108 Posts
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. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/acquitted | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
Escore
INu's Battles
Classic vs ByuN
SHIN vs ByuN
OSC
Big Brain Bouts
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Classic vs GgMaChine
Rogue vs Maru
WardiTV Invitational
IPSL
Ret vs Art_Of_Turtle
Radley vs TBD
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
