Casey Anthony not guilty - Page 17

On July 06 2011 06:58 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
No, I said he was stupid because he incorrectly used semantics. I think that I am correctly using them, because Black's Law dictionary defines Not guilty as "The form of the verdict in criminal cases where the jury acquit the prisoner." And acquit means "To release, absolve, or discharge one from an obligation or liability, or to legally certify the innocence of one charged with crime."

So, if Not Guilty = Acquitted, and Acquitted = Legally certified as innocent," how does not guilty != Innocent? Again, this is from Black's Law dictionary, which is one of the (maybe the) most widely used law dictionaries in the USA. By the definitions, I'm 100% correct, however, there is apparently some nuance in the language (undefined) that makes that not so. My point is that he's stupid because he's wrong, because (by definition) they mean the same thing. So far, no one has shown me that what I have said is false; they have, however, made unsubstantiated claims. I can't refute the claims very well, because he claims he's a lawyer (which could be true), and comes from a position of authority.

On July 06 2011 07:09 manawah wrote:
This just shows that we still need a reliable method of detecting the truth.

On July 06 2011 07:09 dacthehork wrote:


Exactly legally innocent, no one is arguing she isn't legally innocent. She is legally innocent, but that does not mean she did not do it. zzzz

On July 06 2011 07:16 StorkHwaiting wrote:


Truth is relative.

On July 06 2011 06:32 staplestf2 wrote:
am i the only one that is glad this is over? now when i turn on the news i might be able to watch real news that might effect more then a handful of people. sorry if i sound bitter but when i turn on news i want to see what is happening in the world NOT some trial that has zero meaning to 99.99% of people. this crap was like the royal wedding 2.0. i'm in the states why should i care about the wedding of a symbolic prince that holds less power then richard branson. The best part is i know i will be hearing about casey anthony for the rest of the week.

On July 06 2011 07:28 malady wrote:



trust me everyone in orlando wants this over with already

On July 06 2011 07:22 scorch- wrote:


You are presupposing the existence of an absolute truth which is unknown by anyone posting in this thread, but capable of discovery. The point is that you are part of a society which has decided that people will be presumed innocent unless proven guilty, yet now you want to say that you believe she is guilty although it could not be proven. You don't see what's wrong with this? There is a fundamental hypocrisy inherent to your statement.

No one can know for sure whether she did or did not do anything. Our society designed a system to determine whether she did or did not, and when that system spits out an answer we agree to go along with it because THAT'S THE BEST WE COULD DO. If there's a better system, get it put in place.

On July 06 2011 06:47 Saicam wrote:
she will get hers soon

"we agree to go along with it" is false. there is no law or agreement saying we must believe someone is innocent if proven not guilty in a court of law. We can agree obviously she has been declared not guilty in a court of law. This does not mean that she is innocent or we as individuals must believe she is innocent.

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 07:32 dacthehork wrote:


Yes I do believe she is guilty. There is no hypocrisy in my statement. In a legal case she was not declared guilty without a shadow of a doubt, again my opinions do not have to be the same as a courts. It's an opinion, it can be anything. There is no hypocrisy,

"Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have"

Again I believe our court system is not perfect, and again I believe she is guilty. There is no hypocrisy in this statement. When you say "part of a society" again you do realize not everyone in said society ever decided anything about the legal system, in fact it was in place a long time before I was even born.

"we agree to go along with it" is false. there is no law or agreement saying we must believe someone is innocent if proven not guilty in a court of law. We can agree obviously she has been declared not guilty in a court of law. This does not mean that she is innocent or we as individuals must believe she was in fact innocent.

On July 06 2011 07:46 PolSC2 wrote:
The woman is a psychopath. She feels no emotion over her dead daughter, only for herself for getting out of jail free. May the Devil have fun with her in hell.

On July 06 2011 07:46 PolSC2 wrote:
The woman is a psychopath. She feels no emotion over her dead daughter, only for herself for getting out of jail free. May the Devil have fun with her in hell.

On July 06 2011 07:48 OooLong wrote:


There's no evidence at that hell exists, how can you assume that it is?

On July 06 2011 07:50 tekushikume wrote:


This case is another reason that I really hope that it does exist

On July 06 2011 07:48 InvalidID wrote:


She is clearly severely mentally ill, and/or suffering from some sort of severe post traumatic stress. Does that make her guilty of murder?

On July 06 2011 07:43 Tewks44 wrote:
She is almost certainly guilty.

-She abandoned her car which reeked of human decomposition
-She did computer searches for many suspicious terms, the most suspicious including "neck breaking" "house hold weapons" "internal bleeding" and "how to make chloroform"
-Traces of chloroform were found in the trunk of her car
-She told her parents she was out of town in the month following the alleged accident that killed her daughter
-parts of flies attracted to decomposition were found in her trunk
-One of Caylee's hairs was found in her trunk, and the hair had traits that are only seen when the body is dead
-She intentionally misled investigators after her daughter went missing, claiming her daughter had been kidnapped (she was convicted on this accusation)
-She pulled her car backwards into the garage and borrowed a neighbor's shovel shortly after the alleged accident occurred
-The body was found with duct tape on the mouth and nose. Duct tape that Casey had access to
-The body was put in a laundry basket that Casey had access to.

The defense did a good job at convincing the jury the whole trial was a media circus that only existed to provide entertainment for people. He attacked the credibility of the Anthony Family and suggested that Casey had been framed. He planted the idea that the murder charges were unfounded and the only reason the death was ruled as a murder in the first place was to please the media and create hype for the story. Say what you want, at the end of the day it was an effective defense, and a very interesting case.

Of course not, but if you look at the concrete evidence of this case it appears she killed her child and stored the child in her trunk before dumping it in the swamp. Just because she has emotional problems doesn't instantly acquit her.