| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Shaok
297 Posts
On July 06 2011 11:31 kpzd wrote: This case goes has been going on since 2008, including a seven week trial, and you can convict on like 3 minutes of audio? Holy shit man, I hope you never get called to juror duty. Not to mention the music to set the mood... lmao... fail | ||
|
Am0n3r
United States254 Posts
On July 06 2011 11:39 Golgotha wrote: lol at all the people who say there was doubt and so you must acquit. Yes, I know that they didn't catch the murderer on tape and in the act, but if you guys truly followed the case and collected all the known facts, you would be surprised as fuk that she got off... this is why most of America is speechless as hell because a baby killer was found not guilty of murder. There is a reason why Jury is not allowed to watch tv, listen to radio, read newspapers. Media loves crap like this! Little girl found dead (+), mysterious events (+), crap! mom might be a suspect(++++), omg she lied!(+++) it all ads up into one huge media event, they play on your sympathy, emotions and other crap, forming your opinion on facts they want you to see... | ||
|
Shaok
297 Posts
On July 06 2011 11:49 Am0n3r wrote: There is a reason why Jury is not allowed to watch tv, listen to radio, read newspapers. Media loves crap like this! Little girl found dead (+), mysterious events (+), crap! mom might be a suspect(++++), omg she lied!(+++) it all ads up into one huge media event, they play on your sympathy, emotions and other crap, forming your opinion on facts they want you to see... This exactly, most people talking about the case have only watched the media's representation. Plus everyone likes to troll, IRL and on forums... and without clear evidence and rational thinking. | ||
|
bigjenk
United States1543 Posts
On July 06 2011 11:19 Mr Showtime wrote: It's just like a scene from the movie "Law Abiding Citizen". When Gerard Butler's character first gets interrogated by Jaime Foxx, he appears guilty as shit, but then he goes on to point out that there is no evidence proving him guilty. Same crap in this case. The "evidence" makes her look AWFUL. She LOOKS as guilty as guilt can look. The only problem is that none of the evidence is actually incriminating in a charge of murder. Very unfortunate. Horrible decision to take it to trial with the lack of better evidence. Double jeopardy. Really unfortunate. We can now only hope that we have yet to find the true murderer...... It's more her testimony and interrogation make her look guilty as shit. The hard evidence was highly in her favor. | ||
|
bigjenk
United States1543 Posts
On July 06 2011 11:39 Golgotha wrote: lol at all the people who say there was doubt and so you must acquit. Yes, I know that they didn't catch the murderer on tape and in the act, but if you guys truly followed the case and collected all the known facts, you would be surprised as fuk that she got off... this is why most of America is speechless as hell because a baby killer was found not guilty of murder. All circumstantial evidence tbh. That is why there is sequestering since the emotional and public opinion is that she is guilty but legal and public opinion is much different. | ||
|
Golgotha
Korea (South)8418 Posts
On July 06 2011 11:47 BloodDrunK wrote: you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that she is guilty. but she still manages to get away with it. this makes me sad. yup. The defense argues that the baby drowned in a "horrible accident". Didn't know what to do with a drowned baby and so they got "scared" and thus commenced to tape up the body up and stick it in a trunk, and then let it decompose in the woods... and then later she lies and lies and lies for 31 days acting as if nothing was wrong. But now the defense are asking everyone to shut up and let this case go because "the family just made a mistake of dumping a body in the woods instead of reporting the death to the cops". Who the fuck hides a little girl's body in the woods if it was an accident? And Baez can't even prove how the girl died (he says drowned in pool) just like the prosecutors can't prove that Caylee was murdered, so this case should not be closed but undergo further investigation. Both sides provided zero evidence rofl, and yet they want to close the case cuz the defense is so fking easy compared to prosecuting in a dry bones case. | ||
|
shavi
United States127 Posts
On July 06 2011 12:09 Golgotha wrote: yup. The defense argues that the baby drowned in a "horrible accident". Didn't know what to do with a drowned baby and so they got "scared" and thus commenced to tape up the body up and stick it in a trunk, and then let it decompose in the woods... and then later she lies and lies and lies for 31 days acting as if nothing was wrong. But now the defense are asking everyone to shut up and let this case go because "the family just made a mistake of dumping a body in the woods instead of reporting the death to the cops". Who the fuck hides a little girl's body in the woods if it was an accident? And Baez can't even prove how the girl died (he says drowned in pool) just like the prosecutors can't prove that Caylee was murdered, so this case should not be closed but undergo further investigation. Both sides provided zero evidence rofl, and yet they want to close the case cuz the defense is so fking easy compared to prosecuting in a dry bones case. Yea, no shit defense is easier. The burden should be on prosecution, not the defense. Or were you wanting a guilty-until-innocent way of due process? | ||
|
Phelski
United States142 Posts
On July 06 2011 03:25 sanya wrote: FINALLY white people can stop complaining about O.J good job america hahaha, ive laughed at that for a bit, really true | ||
|
Sideburn
United States442 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Golgotha
Korea (South)8418 Posts
On July 06 2011 11:49 Am0n3r wrote: There is a reason why Jury is not allowed to watch tv, listen to radio, read newspapers. Media loves crap like this! Little girl found dead (+), mysterious events (+), crap! mom might be a suspect(++++), omg she lied!(+++) it all ads up into one huge media event, they play on your sympathy, emotions and other crap, forming your opinion on facts they want you to see... lol cut the emotional and media influence crap. not all of us are brainless lemmings. You really think this was all just an accident? That Caylee drowned in the swimming pool? And then Casey freaks out and tapes up her daughter, throws her in the trunk, and then lets the body decompose in the woods? Mysterious events? These are facts except for the swimming pool part that has not been proven by Baez. Come on guys...the defense claims that Casey just made a mistake in taping up her daughter and burying her body in the woods when she supposedly drowned in the pool......can't believe they are letting someone who would do this go. | ||
|
Sideburn
United States442 Posts
On July 06 2011 12:20 Golgotha wrote: lol cut the emotional and media influence crap. not all of us are brainless lemmings. You really think this was all just an accident? That Caylee drowned in the swimming pool? And then Casey freaks out and tapes up her daughter, throws her in the trunk, and then lets the body decompose in the woods? Mysterious events? These are facts except for the swimming pool part that has not been proven by Baez. Come on guys...the defense claims that Casey just made a mistake in taping up her daughter and burying her body in the woods when she supposedly drowned in the pool......can't believe they are letting someone who would do this go. I agree. We should totally convict based upon suspicions, gut feelings, and completely disregard any sort of evidence or lack thereof. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
They had an absolute slam-dunk case for child neglect, abuse, criminally negligent homicide, tampering with a corpse, the lying to the cops, etc. That's 20, 30 years with an appropriately outraged jury. Her entire defense was "it was an accident and we got scared and hid the body, we didn't kill her." Instead, they went for first degree murder, which is so amazingly hard to prosecute based on circumstantial evidence and "she's a bitch." The judge was an absolute joke allowing her lawyer to drag her father and brother through the mud with absolutely no evidence, and then again allowing her lawyer to bring up her father's suicide attempt in 2009. That was incredibly prejudicial and had absolutely no relevancy to the trial save for the defense's insane and totally unsupported theories. Prosecutors were banking on the chain of logic "she's a bitch who doesn't care about anything but herself, she lied to the cops, she's lying about her dad, she must be guilty." Nowhere in that does evidence that she committed first-degree murder appear. Reasonable doubt. Shitty prosecutors, shitty judge, and a slimeball defense lawyer who will throw out the most outrageous things possible to secure an acquittal = not guilty. Casey Anthony will get what she deserves someday, she's too dumb to not go to jail (probably multiple times) in the future for petty offenses. Or she'll get involved in a meth ring or something, she's that dumb and conceited. | ||
|
Golgotha
Korea (South)8418 Posts
On July 06 2011 12:22 Sideburn wrote: I agree. We should totally convict based upon suspicions, gut feelings, and completely disregard any sort of evidence or lack thereof. lol wtf? read again bro. the jury is VERY correct in having a reasonable doubt due to the lack of concrete evidence of murder. but the "daughter drowns, I freak out, I bury body, I did not kill her"... how can they just let her go?! in the US you cannot be tried for the same thing twice...so now we have a woman who taped up her daughter and buried the body running around our country... no one finds this bs?! | ||
|
Eknoid4
United States902 Posts
On July 06 2011 04:53 dacthehork wrote: Im not qualified to make an opinion? Nice point, I didn't say I'm going to execute her or something I just said imo she murdered her daughter. It's not like I believe my opinion will actually change anything. your point is stupid, just because she was innocent in court doesn't mean it's wrong to still think she is a murderer. Not to mention having an freedom of opinion... honestly I don't understand how any normal person would think she isn't a murderer. Good thing that's not my point, then. Good thing I didn't say you're not qualified to have an opinion. You're not qualified to make that decision, which means you have your rights to guess but you haven't earned the right to be taken seriously. | ||
|
Sideburn
United States442 Posts
On July 06 2011 12:34 Golgotha wrote: lol wtf? read again bro. the jury is VERY correct in having a reasonable doubt due to the lack of concrete evidence of murder. but the "daughter drowns, I freak out, I bury body, I did not kill her"... how can they just let her go?! in the US you cannot be tried for the same thing twice...so now we have a woman who taped up her daughter and buried the body running around our country... no one finds this bs?! What is the alternative then? You said they are right in having reasonable doubt. But they shouldn't let her go? I'm just confused at how you see the justice system working ideally. | ||
|
insetdynamic
12 Posts
On July 06 2011 12:34 Golgotha wrote: lol wtf? read again bro. the jury is VERY correct in having a reasonable doubt due to the lack of concrete evidence of murder. but the "daughter drowns, I freak out, I bury body, I did not kill her"... how can they just let her go?! in the US you cannot be tried for the same thing twice...so now we have a woman who taped up her daughter and buried the body running around our country... no one finds this bs?! Though it may be more intuitive she drowned the baby this is a plausible scenario. If you dont think finding your baby dead would cause completely irrational emotional response you are incorrect. The way she reacted may have been deplorable, but she may not have been thinking straight. Partying and going on with life as normal is a decently observed response to tramatic events. If you can pretend that it did not happen by going through all other motions of life normally( add in drinking) some do. This is the way some people deal with tramatic situations. It may not be very likely this happened but it is possible. Although I take incredible issue with the legal system (private prison, mandatory minimums, etc.). Thank goodness this can still happen. Your intuition and feelings about events should not cloud concrete evidence. edit: Also for those who have not seen this movie you should watch "12 angry men" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/ Older movie but deals with this same topic. | ||
|
malady
United States600 Posts
lol wtf? read again bro. the jury is VERY correct in having a reasonable doubt due to the lack of concrete evidence of murder. but the "daughter drowns, I freak out, I bury body, I did not kill her"... how can they just let her go?! in the US you cannot be tried for the same thing twice...so now we have a woman who taped up her daughter and buried the body running around our country... no one finds this bs?! there are a lot of crazy people in otown so will see what happens when shes integrated back in society I'm thinking shes going to move immediately | ||
|
ghrur
United States3786 Posts
On July 06 2011 12:34 Golgotha wrote: lol wtf? read again bro. the jury is VERY correct in having a reasonable doubt due to the lack of concrete evidence of murder. but the "daughter drowns, I freak out, I bury body, I did not kill her"... how can they just let her go?! in the US you cannot be tried for the same thing twice...so now we have a woman who taped up her daughter and buried the body running around our country... no one finds this bs?! Yes! Because lack of concrete evidence = reasonable doubt = let go. You said so yourself. The defense's proposition could be stupid as all hell; it doesn't matter. They don't have to prove anything. They could've said, "We have no alternative, but you have no concrete evidence," and if that were true, then it would have been an acquittal too. | ||
|
happyness
United States2400 Posts
On July 06 2011 12:48 ghrur wrote: Yes! Because lack of concrete evidence = reasonable doubt = let go. You said so yourself. The defense's proposition could be stupid as all hell; it doesn't matter. They don't have to prove anything. They could've said, "We have no alternative, but you have no concrete evidence," and if that were true, then it would have been an acquittal too. What is "concrete evidence"? Her admitting that she taped up her daughter and buried her body? That's concrete enough for me. The defense threw all these red herrings into the trial to confuse the jury like saying she was sexually abused by her father, and giving this ridiculous story that Casey had never told anyone up to that point. And look, the strategy worked. | ||
|
MozzarellaL
United States822 Posts
On July 06 2011 12:58 happyness wrote: What is "concrete evidence"? Her admitting that she taped up her daughter and buried her body? That's concrete enough for me. It's concrete evidence that she planned to kill her daughter and then did so, eh? Just because she buried the body afterwards? pro-level logical deductive reasoning there | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
PiGosaur Cup
GSL
Rogue vs Percival
Zoun vs Solar
Replay Cast
GSL
Cure vs TriGGeR
ByuN vs Bunny
KCM Race Survival
Big Gabe
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Escore
OSC
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
