|
On July 06 2011 03:47 mewby wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 03:43 RoosterSamurai wrote:
I'd like to hear your guys' theories as to what happened to the baby, if you think Casey Anthony didn't kill her? I didn't follow the trial, but my parents did, so I ended up hearing a lot about it.
I mean....Whether she did it or not, the baby died somehow. Our justice system is so fucked up it doesnt matter. All that matters is there was no physical evidence despite all the lying and bullshit. Anyone who has followed this with common sense would say she killed her daughter.
The problem with common sence is that it tends to change with times. If this had happen in the 20s if there was black guy within 10 miles common sence would have said he did it. Thankfully our justice system requires evidence. Its not perfect but its better than the alternatives.
|
This doesnt mean she wins, now that our justice system has made a mistake it is up to the rest of the country to put her to justice, do not let live a normal life, shun her from society for the rest of her life!
|
On July 06 2011 23:53 Cold-Blood wrote:
This doesnt mean she wins, now that our justice system has made a mistake it is up to the rest of the country to put her to justice, do not let live a normal life, shun her from society for the rest of her life!
The justice system is fine, you need evidence to convict someone, not popular opinion. and ROFL on ruining her life, just wait till she releases the book and movie deal worth millions. If you want to blame someone, blame the shitty police investigation or the lackluster prosecution that relied on character assassination rather than actual forensics
|
There was no evidence of murder 1, but she is so guilty it's not even funny.
I honestly found myself wishing she'd get murdered too. Not just for killing a child, but how she behaved afterwards. It was so blatantly obvious that she did it, despite a lack of concrete evidence, but that she was extremely happy about it and pleased with herself for it - going out of her way to party every night.
I followed a good amount of the live feeds, however, and it's safe to say the prosecution was absolutely awful at getting their job done. I suppose neither the system nor a child murderer can be blamed for that.
Edit: Although, I'd like for any American to give me one reason why a jury "of your peers" is in any way a good idea. Wouldn't you want the people who find you guilty or innocent to be far more intelligent than the average person/yourself, especially on the subject in question(i.e. a judge on laws). Why on earth would anyone decide this is a better system than having the judge decide on a verdict?
|
On July 06 2011 14:12 Microchaton wrote:
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.
The fark?
NO. That is about the worst possible movie anyone that is going to be a juror should watch. Conducting your own private investigation (illegal) and biasing a jury based on said private investigation (illegal) is definitely not what we need to have going on in our courtrooms.
|
Would you rather set a guilty citizen free, or condemn an innocent?
|
On July 07 2011 01:18 beachbeachy wrote:
Would you rather set a guilty citizen free, or condemn an innocent?
That's why the justice system is based on the statement "Innocent until proven guilty." The answer to you question exactly.
|
On July 06 2011 23:53 Cold-Blood wrote:
This doesnt mean she wins, now that our justice system has made a mistake it is up to the rest of the country to put her to justice, do not let live a normal life, shun her from society for the rest of her life!
I believe you are referring to the mistake as declaring her to be not guilty, but that's not true. However there was one mistake, and that was taking this to trial before enough hard and incriminating evidence was found. The "evidence" brought up made Anthony look guilty as shit, but it wasn't anything that meant she must have committed the murder. So again, the mistake was taking it to trial before acquiring better evidence. The laws of Double Jeopardy will now see it that she never goes to jail on this charge of murder. Very unfortunate, and now we can only hope the murderer was someone else, and is still out there.
|
On July 07 2011 00:27 HoldenR wrote:
Edit: Although, I'd like for any American to give me one reason why a jury "of your peers" is in any way a good idea. Wouldn't you want the people who find you guilty or innocent to be far more intelligent than the average person/yourself, especially on the subject in question(i.e. a judge on laws). Why on earth would anyone decide this is a better system than having the judge decide on a verdict?
Juries don't make decisions based on laws. Why are you asking Americans to justify it? Why don't you ask your northern neighbors across the sea who came up with the idea
|
On July 07 2011 00:27 HoldenR wrote:
There was no evidence of murder 1, but she is so guilty it's not even funny.
I honestly found myself wishing she'd get murdered too. Not just for killing a child, but how she behaved afterwards. It was so blatantly obvious that she did it, despite a lack of concrete evidence, but that she was extremely happy about it and pleased with herself for it - going out of her way to party every night.
I followed a good amount of the live feeds, however, and it's safe to say the prosecution was absolutely awful at getting their job done. I suppose neither the system nor a child murderer can be blamed for that.
Edit: Although, I'd like for any American to give me one reason why a jury "of your peers" is in any way a good idea. Wouldn't you want the people who find you guilty or innocent to be far more intelligent than the average person/yourself, especially on the subject in question(i.e. a judge on laws). Why on earth would anyone decide this is a better system than having the judge decide on a verdict?
I think that's a little unfair. That this particular group was able to look past their personal feelings and come to a not-guilty verdict in light of only circumstantial evidence says a lot about how effective this jury was. You can't blame the jury for this verdict. Blame the prosecution.
|
On July 07 2011 01:59 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 00:27 HoldenR wrote:
There was no evidence of murder 1, but she is so guilty it's not even funny.
I honestly found myself wishing she'd get murdered too. Not just for killing a child, but how she behaved afterwards. It was so blatantly obvious that she did it, despite a lack of concrete evidence, but that she was extremely happy about it and pleased with herself for it - going out of her way to party every night.
I followed a good amount of the live feeds, however, and it's safe to say the prosecution was absolutely awful at getting their job done. I suppose neither the system nor a child murderer can be blamed for that.
Edit: Although, I'd like for any American to give me one reason why a jury "of your peers" is in any way a good idea. Wouldn't you want the people who find you guilty or innocent to be far more intelligent than the average person/yourself, especially on the subject in question(i.e. a judge on laws). Why on earth would anyone decide this is a better system than having the judge decide on a verdict? I think that's a little unfair. That this particular group was able to look past their personal feelings and come to a not-guilty verdict in light of only circumstantial evidence says a lot about how effective this jury was. You can't blame the jury for this verdict. Blame the prosecution.
Pretty much this. I'm rather proud of the fact that the jury didn't let feelings get in the way of cold hard facts. Is she guilty? Probably. But there just wasn't enough evidence to prove it. Innocent until proven guilty.
|
On July 07 2011 00:27 HoldenR wrote:
There was no evidence of murder 1, but she is so guilty it's not even funny.
I honestly found myself wishing she'd get murdered too. Not just for killing a child, but how she behaved afterwards. It was so blatantly obvious that she did it, despite a lack of concrete evidence, but that she was extremely happy about it and pleased with herself for it - going out of her way to party every night.
I followed a good amount of the live feeds, however, and it's safe to say the prosecution was absolutely awful at getting their job done. I suppose neither the system nor a child murderer can be blamed for that.
Edit: Although, I'd like for any American to give me one reason why a jury "of your peers" is in any way a good idea. Wouldn't you want the people who find you guilty or innocent to be far more intelligent than the average person/yourself, especially on the subject in question(i.e. a judge on laws). Why on earth would anyone decide this is a better system than having the judge decide on a verdict?
They don't exactly let anyone get on the jury for a trial like this. There is a long process where the lawyers can nearly pick and choose which make it on and which don't.
|
On July 07 2011 02:02 Sm3agol wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 01:59 Bibdy wrote:On July 07 2011 00:27 HoldenR wrote:
There was no evidence of murder 1, but she is so guilty it's not even funny.
I honestly found myself wishing she'd get murdered too. Not just for killing a child, but how she behaved afterwards. It was so blatantly obvious that she did it, despite a lack of concrete evidence, but that she was extremely happy about it and pleased with herself for it - going out of her way to party every night.
I followed a good amount of the live feeds, however, and it's safe to say the prosecution was absolutely awful at getting their job done. I suppose neither the system nor a child murderer can be blamed for that.
Edit: Although, I'd like for any American to give me one reason why a jury "of your peers" is in any way a good idea. Wouldn't you want the people who find you guilty or innocent to be far more intelligent than the average person/yourself, especially on the subject in question(i.e. a judge on laws). Why on earth would anyone decide this is a better system than having the judge decide on a verdict? I think that's a little unfair. That this particular group was able to look past their personal feelings and come to a not-guilty verdict in light of only circumstantial evidence says a lot about how effective this jury was. You can't blame the jury for this verdict. Blame the prosecution. Pretty much this. I'm rather proud of the fact that the jury didn't let feelings get in the way of cold hard facts. Is she guilty? Probably. But there just wasn't enough evidence to prove it. Innocent until proven guilty.
Agreed. This verdict is a victory of logic and reason over irrational emotions. Juries can convict based on circumstantial evidence. However, circumstantial evidence is weaker and can be interpreted different ways.
|
On July 06 2011 23:43 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Yeah, not reporting your child missing after 30 days isn't the most suspect thing I've ever heard in my life.
Awful parent =/= Bad parent
I think it's safe to say if she wasn't so awful her beautiful would be 5 year old would still be here. k?
|
Meh, I personally think she did it, and she probably did. But if I was on that jury I still would've voted not guildy, theres a difference in believing someone is guilty, and knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty, enough so to put them in jail for life.
|
On July 07 2011 02:52 RaFeStaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 23:43 Nightfall.589 wrote: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. Yeah, not reporting your child missing after 30 days isn't the most suspect thing I've ever heard in my life. Awful parent =/= Bad parent I think it's safe to say if she wasn't so awful her beautiful would be 5 year old would still be here. k?
Being an awful parent isn't enough grounds for the death penalty or life imprisonment. Murder one isn't the type of charge people should be tossing lightly around just based on gut instincts and suspicions. There's a reason our justice system sets a very high bar for murder one and provides numerous lesser charges that prosecutors can use.
|
On July 07 2011 00:27 HoldenR wrote:Although, I'd like for any American to give me one reason why a jury "of your peers" is in any way a good idea. Wouldn't you want the people who find you guilty or innocent to be far more intelligent than the average person/yourself, especially on the subject in question(i.e. a judge on laws). Why on earth would anyone decide this is a better system than having the judge decide on a verdict?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#Pros_and_cons
TL;DR: jury trials are a check against state power. If decisions were made purely by judges, the potential for abuse ramps up drastically.
|
This case is upsetting all around. The police were told about the remains in august and they dont ever go. The guy who found them had already called 3 times and checked again 4 months later and they were still there. The state says not finding the body for so long really hurt their case and they let it sit there for 4 months!
The girl is so guilty is not even funny but there isn't hard evidence there. It is all circumstantial but her actions are so ridiculous you know she did it. The only way I get any kind of solace out of this is to really hope that she drowned accidentally and was not murdered. The chloroform searches and the body shown in the trunk of the car really dilute that though.
I will not read her book, i will not watch her show ever and I hope you people do the same. We should not make criminals into celebrities. So many lies. How could they not even get her on child abuse?
I have no sympathy for people. I wish we had stricter laws like in China. I honestly believe murderers should just be murdered. Not in this case but if its so obvious someone committed murder and no way to say they didn't, they should just be killed and be done with.
|
On July 07 2011 03:12 TheResidentEvil wrote:
This case is upsetting all around. The police were told about the remains in august and they dont ever go. The guy who found them had already called 3 times and checked again 4 months later and they were still there. The state says not finding the body for so long really hurt their case and they let it sit there for 4 months!
The girl is so guilty is not even funny but there isn't hard evidence there. It is all circumstantial but her actions are so ridiculous you know she did it. The only way I get any kind of solace out of this is to really hope that she drowned accidentally and was not murdered. The chloroform searches and the body shown in the trunk of the car really dilute that though.
I will not read her book, i will not watch her show ever and I hope you people do the same. We should not make criminals into celebrities. So many lies. How could they not even get her on child abuse?
I have no sympathy for people. I wish we had stricter laws like in China. I honestly believe murderers should just be murdered. Not in this case but if its so obvious someone committed murder and no way to say they didn't, they should just be killed and be done with.
Go have fun being the only country in the world more obnoxiously patriotic and abusive than America then. If you really don't understand how she wasn't convicted, you really have no right to claim that anyone should or shouldn't do anything about this case. it is blatantly obvious and directly stated why she was not convicted. if the state could just murder anyone who "everybody knows is a murderer anyway" without enough evidence They could just falsify a lot of circumstancial evidence against literally everyone and anyone and convict them of anything.
but i guess you DO want to go live in china, so maybe you would enjoy that.
|
I agree that there was not enough evidence to specifically reach the guilty verdict for murder.
However, my problem with the trial is this:
We all know that Casey was lying to law enforcement, to her parents, to the legal system. But once it's found out that your testimony is a lie, and you're being accused of murder shouldn't you be FORCED to come out with a new testimony that isn't a "lie"? Why the fuck is the accused just allowed to lie about everything, but not actually have to present their version of the "truth"? I mean eventually, if you dug deep enough and she was the murderer, all of her "stories" would've fell apart.
This is just mind-boggling to me. Why wasn't she forced to explain to detectives during earlier investigations exactly how Caylee went missing once it was clear that her stories were complete bullshit? If she doesn't even need a reasonable story to be deemed not guilty of murder, what the fuck is wrong with this legal system?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
