|
On July 06 2011 12:58 happyness wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 12:48 ghrur wrote:On July 06 2011 12:34 Golgotha wrote:On July 06 2011 12:22 Sideburn wrote:On July 06 2011 12:20 Golgotha wrote:On July 06 2011 11:49 Am0n3r wrote: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... 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. 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. 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.
Hard to define. Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt where all other possibilities are capricious and whimsical.
Reasonable doubt for your "concrete evidence:" Suppose she acts crazily after her daughter drowned. Is it reasonable to say people act crazily after a loved one dies? As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, yes.
Also, did she specifically admit that during testimony? I thought she never testified.
|
On July 06 2011 12:58 happyness wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 12:48 ghrur wrote:On July 06 2011 12:34 Golgotha wrote:On July 06 2011 12:22 Sideburn wrote:On July 06 2011 12:20 Golgotha wrote:On July 06 2011 11:49 Am0n3r wrote: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... 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. 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. 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.
I'm surprised the prosecution isn't going to bring her up on child negligence charges or something. It'll get her some jail time, not as much, but it's something.
|
I'd rather a million evil bitches go free than a single innocent woman go to jail. When someone is found not guilty by reasonable doubt and that person is obviously guilty, there's 5 that really are innocent that get acquitted as well somewhere else.
|
On July 06 2011 13:04 Ryuu314 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 12:58 happyness wrote:On July 06 2011 12:48 ghrur wrote:On July 06 2011 12:34 Golgotha wrote:On July 06 2011 12:22 Sideburn wrote:On July 06 2011 12:20 Golgotha wrote:On July 06 2011 11:49 Am0n3r wrote: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... 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. 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. 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. I'm surprised the prosecution isn't going to bring her up on child negligence charges or something. It'll get her some jail time, not as much, but it's something.
You can't just bring new charges mid trial and it's not the prosecution's job to enforce anything that might be pulled forward after the trial. You're surprised because you have no clue how the justice system works, but you would bet your life that you do.
|
Just as a distraction, would you please direct me to the american websites with the more crazy comments about that story ? :D
Glad someone mentionned 12 Angry men, every jury member should be forced to watch that movie.
|
Casey's parents looking unhappy for some reason. Shouldn't they be celebrating their kid's life?
Casey's gonna be earning some cash from the book and movie deals. How much do you think she'll get? up to $ 300k?
Also, I wonder if Caylee is going to haunt Casey. Hopefully Casey was truly innocent. I'm beginning to have some doubts because of the media hysteria. How can a normal person murder a baby? Hmm is she as cold-blooded as the media says? That would mean she'll kill again? oh shit.
EDIT: I also don't get why so many people are only focusing on Casey. The victim here is Caylee. The jury basically decided that Caylee was not murdered and died on accident. Probably true, but I kinda want to read the logic behind the jury's choice.
EDIT 2: It's sad how easily I get influenced sometimes by the mob. I started out thinking Casey is for sure innocent, as she had been a consistent good mother. Caylee had no scars or bruises or any evidence of mistreatment by Casey before the pool incident. Casey had no motive to kill Caylee: Caylee was her daughter and she always had the option to give her up for adoption.
|
On July 06 2011 16:28 IzieBoy wrote:
EDIT: I also don't get why so many people are only focusing on Casey. The victim here is Caylee. The jury basically decided that Caylee was not murdered and died on accident. Probably true, but I kinda want to read the logic behind the jury's choice.
The jury did not decide that. They decided that there is insufficient evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee was murdered by Casey.
|
On July 06 2011 16:52 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 16:28 IzieBoy wrote:
EDIT: I also don't get why so many people are only focusing on Casey. The victim here is Caylee. The jury basically decided that Caylee was not murdered and died on accident. Probably true, but I kinda want to read the logic behind the jury's choice. The jury did not decide that. They decided that there is insufficient evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee was murdered by Casey.
So what besides their verdict, what does the jury actually believe? Could it be that they gave her a not guilty verdict but think there's a high likelihood still that she murdered her daughter?
So the "not guilty verdict" means "not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt"
Anyways I think she's innocent. She probably should go live in a non-English speaking country now though.
|
On July 06 2011 17:00 IzieBoy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 16:52 Nightfall.589 wrote:On July 06 2011 16:28 IzieBoy wrote:
EDIT: I also don't get why so many people are only focusing on Casey. The victim here is Caylee. The jury basically decided that Caylee was not murdered and died on accident. Probably true, but I kinda want to read the logic behind the jury's choice. The jury did not decide that. They decided that there is insufficient evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee was murdered by Casey. So what besides their verdict, what does the jury actually believe? Could it be that they gave her a not guilty verdict but think there's a high likelihood still that she murdered her daughter?
Yes that is most likely the case I think, but ultimately there just wasn't enough evidence to completely prove it and that's all they are supposed to make the judgement on.
|
On July 06 2011 17:00 IzieBoy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 16:52 Nightfall.589 wrote:On July 06 2011 16:28 IzieBoy wrote:
EDIT: I also don't get why so many people are only focusing on Casey. The victim here is Caylee. The jury basically decided that Caylee was not murdered and died on accident. Probably true, but I kinda want to read the logic behind the jury's choice. The jury did not decide that. They decided that there is insufficient evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee was murdered by Casey. So what besides their verdict, what does the jury actually believe? Could it be that they gave her a not guilty verdict but think there's a high likelihood still that she murdered her daughter?
Yes, as they can only convict if the state has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that she did. Circumstantial evidence, mountains of it or not, is just that - circumstantial.
So the "not guilty verdict" means "not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt"
Yep. It does not mean that jury believe her to be "Innocent."
|
On July 06 2011 07:53 OooLong wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 07:50 tekushikume wrote:On July 06 2011 07:48 OooLong wrote: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. There's no evidence at that hell exists, how can you assume that it is? This case is another reason that I really hope that it does exist Hell for a punishment is pretty harsh, I would just put her in a mental institution or a rehab correctional facility or something. Everyone deserve a second chance.
I just wanted to quote this as it made me laugh.
Let's suppose that Casey is guilty. You say that everyone deserves a second chance. Where is the daughter's second chance? Nope. No second chance for murder in my opinion.
|
I don't get why everyone is so shocked that she was found not guilty. There was zero evidence that she murdered her daughter. There was only suspicion. The prosecution never proved without reasonable doubt that she committed the crime.
- no witnesses
- no murder weapon
- no case
They didn't know how or what was used to kill the girl. They lacked major evidence and their case was based on her actions of Casey after the death/dissapearence.
That's how it goes. Get over it.
Everyone complaining, needs to realize the justice system worked as intended in this case. I only followed this because nothing is on tv in the morning when I get home from work.
Do I think she killed her daughter? Probably, but there isnt actual evidence proving it. The jury did what they should have done and it's a shame that people are bad mouthing the jurors. They upheld the womans constitutional rights. If anyone is mad over the case. They should be mad at the prosecutors and no one else.
|
On July 06 2011 18:17 icemanzdoinwork wrote:
I don't get why everyone is so shocked that she was found not guilty. There was zero evidence that she murdered her daughter. There was only suspicion. The prosecution never proved without reasonable doubt that she committed the crime.
- no witnesses
- no murder weapon
- no case
They didn't know how or what was used to kill the girl. They lacked major evidence and their case was based on her actions of Casey after the death/dissapearence.
That's how it goes. Get over it.
Everyone complaining, needs to realize the justice system worked as intended in this case. I only followed this because nothing is on tv in the morning when I get home from work.
Do I think she killed her daughter? Probably, but there isnt actual evidence proving it. The jury did what they should have done and it's a shame that people are bad mouthing the jurors. They upheld the womans constitutional rights. If anyone is mad over the case. They should be mad at the prosecutors and no one else.
Agreed completely.
"I think she did it" isn't sufficient in a court of law. The prosecution needed to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, and they failed to do so because their evidence (or lack thereof) was embarrassingly shoddy,
|
On July 06 2011 10:41 j4ckd4v13z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 10:26 kpzd wrote:
TIL people think feeling should dictate verdicts instead of facts. Holy shit. -.- I'm not suggesting they should change the law system, but it's annoying how this woman can get away with so blatantly murdering her own daughter - there is no hard evidence but at the same time no feasable alternative.
If it was so blatant why didn't the jury find proof beyond all reasonable doubt?
The defense did put up a feasible alternative, that Caylee drowned in a pool and Casey's father covered up the accident.
While it wasn't proven that this was indeed what happened, it's not the function of the defense to prove their theory, but rather the job of the prosecution to prove guilt, and they couldn't do that because they didn't have the evidence.
|
On July 06 2011 12:25 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Prosecutors' fault.
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.
Imo that's exactly why legal system is kinda fucked up. It's about what prosecution attempts to 'try' the defendant for, not about the facts what defendant did. In the end if prosecution sets the bar "too high", defendant can get away unscratched completely..
Just depressing.
|
It's kind of funny.
Cold blooded murderers can dispose of evidence quite easily.
The lesson to be learned here is this - if you kill someone or just had a fatal accident at home just calmly cover it up and you'll walk.
Report to the authorities (aka "doing the right thing") will lead to actual jail time.
And I'm not talking about this specific case.
|
On July 06 2011 11:52 bigjenk wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Exactly. And more or less what I was trying to say. The "evidence" was in her favor. I'm not sure where the prosecutor got off believing that it was enough to convict a murderer. For example, google searches for "chloroform" make someone look very suspicious/guilty, but it means nothing in convicting a murderer, and therefore not really evidence. So yes, what there was for hard evidence was indeed in her favor.
|
I was living in Fla very near where this happened at the time. The amount of evidence that she was involved was overwhelming. I find myself both shocked and unsurprised at the verdict.
Shocked? The woman was involved in the killing of her child. There is zero reasonable doubt about that.
Unsurprised? There is no proof that she did it and as such the prosecution utterly and completely failed. They provided a winnable scenario for the defense and the jury did the "Right" thing and found her not guilty of the things there was no undeniable proof of. The real failure here is the investigators and the prosecution. They could have nailed her for involuntary manslaughter easily, but they decided to try and ride the "hype" wave and go for a murder conviction so they could open the death penalty door. This tactic ended up blowing up in their face and now the bitch walks free. How long that will last though is hard to say, there are A LOT of extremely angry people in Fla and she doesn't have the celebrity hiding power of OJ.
The reality is like it or not. The Jury did their job correctly. The prosecution completely dropped the ball and failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt because they got greedy.
|
I couldn't even follow the trial at all. I have 2 children myself and it was so heartbreaking that watching anything related to that case put me on RL tilt. I do know one thing though, not reporting your child missing after 30 days is suspect enough for me to say she was guilty of being an awful parent and should be punished beyond imagination.
|
On July 06 2011 23:23 RaFeStaR wrote:
I couldn't even follow the trial at all. I have 2 children myself and it was so heartbreaking that watching anything related to that case put me on RL tilt. I do know one thing though, not reporting your child missing after 30 days is suspect enough for me to say she was guilty of being an awful parent and should be punished beyond imagination.
Plenty of awful parents around; they aren't put on trial for their lives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
