EPTits also upsetting how this terrible person has a good chance to be set for life.
Casey Anthony not guilty - Page 24
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
mewbert
United States291 Posts
its also upsetting how this terrible person has a good chance to be set for life. | ||
|
Spell_Crafted
United States192 Posts
I mean, it's completely possible she did it, but that's the job of the state to wait until they have enough evidence to move forward and prove their case. It's not like they have a statute of limitations in the case of murder. | ||
|
Eknoid4
United States902 Posts
| ||
|
TOloseGT
United States1145 Posts
| ||
|
TheResidentEvil
United States991 Posts
On July 07 2011 04:09 Eknoid4 wrote: 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. maybe you should read the next line after what you bolded where i said, NOT IN THIS CASE. Thanks crusader | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On July 07 2011 04:21 teamsolid wrote: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? Everyone has a fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. It's the job of law enforcement and the prosecution to somehow get the truth out of her anyway, but they've clearly failed here. | ||
|
Shamrock_
South Africa276 Posts
I'm sorry but just being a month late in reporting that your child is missing should count for something. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On July 07 2011 04:54 Shamrock_ wrote:I'm sorry but just being a month late in reporting that your child is missing should count for something. Sure, but that would be gross parental negligence, which is not the crime being prosecuted for here. | ||
|
Mr Showtime
United States1353 Posts
On July 07 2011 04:56 sunprince wrote: Sure, but that would be gross parental negligence, which is not the crime being prosecuted for here. It will be the crime soon enough. They are gonna try to pin her on everything possible now that murder has been eliminated from the list of opportunities. And rightfully so. | ||
|
RajaF
Canada530 Posts
On July 07 2011 00:27 Sm3agol wrote: 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. What movie are you talking about? In 12 angry men there is no private investigation going on. It's the jury looking at the evidence one more time and reaching the right verdict. And fyi, private investigation is not illegal. Either that or someone forgot to tell this to all the private investigators that are doing business in your country. 12 angry men should definitely be a movie to watch if you're going to be in a jury. | ||
|
Mordiford
4448 Posts
On July 07 2011 05:08 RajaF wrote: What movie are you talking about? In 12 angry men there is no private investigation going on. It's the jury looking at the evidence one more time and reaching the right verdict. And fyi, private investigation is not illegal. Either that or someone forgot to tell this to all the private investigators that are doing business in your country. 12 angry men should definitely be a movie to watch if you're going to be in a jury. I don't know about the truth to his statement, but I don't think he meant private investigation overall, he was talking about privately investigating into a case for which you are a juror. Also, that did happen in the movie, the part where the guy pulls out his own rendition of the pocket knife that the boy was accused of using to kill his father, he then affirms that he went and bought it after conducting some investigation into the commonality of such a knife, that consists a private investigation. Also, I don't think 12 Angry Men is the greatest film to watch if you're going to in a jury. | ||
|
-Switch-
Canada506 Posts
| ||
|
3clipse
Canada2555 Posts
On July 07 2011 04:22 mewby wrote: after reading most of the responses I changed my mind since making this thread. I think our justice system is good and that public opinion should not be the deciding factor in a case, I think the verdict was correct and although when we think about it something is definitely up there is nothing you can really do about it. I think the biggest thing we can learn from this is how manipulating the media can be, people just blindly watch it and believe she should be guilty. they dont know how the justice system works but just because the whole situation is whacky they think she should be thrown in jail. its also upsetting how this terrible person has a good chance to be set for life. Set for life? Financially, maybe. I look at it like this; anywhere she goes in North America, most people are going to recognize and instinctively hate her. I don't think she's going to have it too easy, tbh. | ||
|
-Switch-
Canada506 Posts
On July 07 2011 05:17 3clipse wrote: Set for life? Financially, maybe. I look at it like this; anywhere she goes in North America, most people are going to recognize and instinctively hate her. I don't think she's going to have it too easy, tbh. A lot easier than being in prison for the rest of her life. | ||
|
3clipse
Canada2555 Posts
On July 07 2011 05:19 -Switch- wrote: A lot easier than being in prison for the rest of her life. True, unless someone decides to extract vigilante justice and kill her. That's easier on the outside. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On July 07 2011 05:02 Mr Showtime wrote: It will be the crime soon enough. They are gonna try to pin her on everything possible now that murder has been eliminated from the list of opportunities. And rightfully so. It looks like they already pursued the other charges that they thought they could get a conviction for, given that she was found guilty of lying to the police. | ||
|
lolsixtynine
United States600 Posts
No, apparently there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict her. | ||
|
MetalLobster
Canada532 Posts
Also the evidence are so stacked against Casey, I can't believe she walked away with only 4 charges of what is equivalent to a misdemeanor. I expected she be charged with murder, if not then negligent manslaughter. | ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
On July 07 2011 06:09 MetalLobster wrote: I'm confused, If Casey was proven guilty of lying to investigators, wouldn't that be evidence that she was trying to cover up the death of her daughter? The death, maybe. The murder? Need more evidence. | ||
|
Mr Showtime
United States1353 Posts
On July 07 2011 06:09 MetalLobster wrote: I'm confused, If Casey was proven guilty of lying to investigators, wouldn't that be evidence that she was trying to cover up the death of her daughter? Also the evidence are so stacked against Casey, I can't believe she walked away with only 4 charges of what is equivalent to a misdemeanor. I expected she be charged with murder, if not then negligent manslaughter. Correct on the first point. Show was covering up the death. But that still doesn't mean she murdered her with regard to that particular bit of evidence. | ||
| ||
