EPTNo idea how she got off so easily.
Casey Anthony not guilty - Page 25
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44443 Posts
No idea how she got off so easily. | ||
|
papaz
Sweden4149 Posts
The burden of proof is on the prosecutors and once in a while there will be cases like this. There will never be a perfect justice system, but this right here is not a good case where the "system works as intended". This is one of the rare cases where the accused can't come up with one good explanation and funny part is doesn't want to or need to and the system is perfectly fine with that. And the person in question is the mother which makes it all even worse. The society will find her guilty and she will never get a normal life and like there can be cases like this once in a while I am glad society once in a while will step in and make their own judgement because this whole case just made me sick. Rest in peace Caylee. | ||
|
JamesJohansen
United States213 Posts
On July 06 2011 03:36 Sandro wrote: Must be great being born white and a woman, you can get away with anything! Heh, my inner douche bag cheers this comment on and I think you have a point but I think it had more to do with poor prosecution. | ||
|
CrimsonLotus
Colombia1123 Posts
Did she lied?, sure, were hear actions extremely suspicious?, sure, was there any real evidence that she killed her, or even that it was in fact a murder? NO. The girl was already tried and convicted in the eyes of the media and the general population, but she got a fair trial and the jury did the right thing, you can't convict someone of murder just because they lie and act weird. There seems to be a lot of people in this thread that can't seem to separete the concept of the judicial process from the "she looks guilty, let's hang her!" mob mentality. | ||
|
JamesJohansen
United States213 Posts
Is it definite? No. But I have a bias against compulsive liars who fuck with people like that though. They look out solely for number one and generally are some of the biggest pieces of shit one can meet. Dante's inferno had one of the lowest levels of hell reserved for manipulative personalities for good reason. Hopefully society ostracizes her. | ||
|
TALegion
United States1187 Posts
On July 06 2011 03:22 Phenny wrote: After watching the closing arguments there was definitely grounds for reasonable doubt imo. Yeah. Like, I believe it's more likely than not that they're guilty, but there is a minor, reasonably large amount of doubt. And we can't make exceptions. | ||
|
Lucidity
South Africa603 Posts
How could there ever be a logical reason to hide that your child is missing. | ||
|
vlaric
United States412 Posts
On July 07 2011 07:17 Lucidity wrote: I can understand that there was insufficient evidence to even prove that the child was murdered... But how was she found not guilty on the counts of aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter? Or are those just the wrong charges? There is definitely negligence shown on her part. If she didn't report/search/inform even her friends or family that the baby was missing for 31 days, how could she possibly not be held accountable for it? How could there ever be a logical reason to hide that your child is missing. a good chunk of the testimony indicated that casey had a good relationship with caylee, which probably provided reasonable doubt to the claims of aggravated child abuse and manslaughter. additionally, there was no evidence that provided a direct correlation between casey and any abuse that may have befallen her daughter. in my opinion prosecutors will be aiming to press negligence charges on her later on, but those are different from the indictment. | ||
|
Lucidity
South Africa603 Posts
I hope the negligence avenue is pursued. | ||
|
winter017
United States103 Posts
http://timscogitorium.com/tinblog/2011/07/the-anthony-verdict-in-perspective.html Keep in mind, this was not a celebrity trial. Anthony didn’t buy a dream team of lawyers, and she didn’t get off on any legal technicality. She didn’t prey on the emotions of the jury because of her stardom; she had none. Instead, she came off cold, aloof, and decidedly unsympathetic. Still, with all that against her, 12 people unanimously decided there was reasonable doubt. Please pause and give that word its due weight. Unanimously. This was not a case where one or two bleeding hearts couldn’t be persuaded. They all agreed. Furthermore, they agreed to bear the probable scorn of those who had convicted her from their living rooms. They agreed to go home and face their family and friends, and explain ad nauseum, why they did what they did. They agreed to not take the easy way out. Kind of further enforces the point that just because the media convicts you doesn't mean you're guilty. On such an international forum just looking at the responses to this, kind of makes me wonder what a thread on Amanda Knox would look like. | ||
|
furymonkey
New Zealand1587 Posts
On July 07 2011 05:22 3clipse wrote: True, unless someone decides to extract vigilante justice and kill her. That's easier on the outside. Who would do such a thing? | ||
|
Megaliskuu
United States5123 Posts
A crazy person obv | ||
|
InvalidID
United States1050 Posts
On July 07 2011 07:17 Lucidity wrote: I can understand that there was insufficient evidence to even prove that the child was murdered... But how was she found not guilty on the counts of aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter? Or are those just the wrong charges? There is definitely negligence shown on her part. If she didn't report/search/inform even her friends or family that the baby was missing for 31 days, how could she possibly not be held accountable for it? How could there ever be a logical reason to hide that your child is missing. I think the problem is that the prosecution could not show what one it was. How can you convict someone of something if you are not sure what the crime exactly was. You have to be able to prove a specific crime was committed, not one of a possible variety. Additionally, and on a somewhat unrelated note, many people seem to forget that the over-riding objective of our justice system is to rehabilitate offenders, and protect society at large from them until they can be rehabilitated, not to "punish" them. Only if it is deemed that the nature of the crimes indicate that the inmate cannot be rehabilitated is the death penalty, or life in jail without parole, called for. This woman clearly needs mental health care, and hopefully she receives it as part of her sentencing for lying to the police. | ||
|
MozzarellaL
United States822 Posts
On July 07 2011 08:08 InvalidID wrote: I think the problem is that the prosecution could not show what one it was. How can you convict someone of something if you are not sure what the crime exactly was. You have to be able to prove a specific crime was committed, not one of a possible variety. Nah, some places have consolidated theft offenses (merging all the crimes of Larceny, False Pretenses, Embezzlement, etc), into a single offense, for which the jury decides which one the defendant is guilty of, if he is guilty at all. This was put into place due to the confusion behind some of the different theft crimes, and because of double jeopardy rules which prevent the prosecution from recharging the defendant under a different offense when the Court of Appeals strikes the original conviction down because it was the wrong crime. They could do this for murder. Originally there was only one crime, murder, which encompassed all acts of killing another human (except for accidents/ 'acts of God'), but legislatures began to make new homicide offenses so not everyone who committed 'murder' would get the death penalty. Nowadays, since most places have abolished the death penalty, or reserve it for only the most heinous crimes, there really isn't a point to having all these different levels of homicide (granted, some distinctions should continue to be made, e.g. the difference between manslaughter and murder). | ||
|
Belial88
United States5217 Posts
Extremely weak and overzealous prosecution trying to make a name for itself by clamoring for the death penalty before even a verdict was read, and just making personal attacks, extremely unprofessional. It sure seems like Casey Anthony is guilty (in all seriousness, she's too pretty to do that) but there was absolutely no court case for it. Everyone clamoring about how bad the jury is have no idea how the justice system works, and I really hope never become jurors. Yes, it's sad there is no justice. But the legal system just proved it worked, that you can't just call someone a liar, that the media can't just play in the mud, that tabloids don't influence everyone, and sentence them to death with sensationalist name calling. | ||
|
overt
United States9006 Posts
Maybe the media should just stop reporting on trials until an actual verdict gets out? | ||
|
Jisunsu
Philippines47 Posts
| ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On July 07 2011 10:19 overt wrote: Why is it that the media always presumes someone is guilty in these high profile cases? Because it's what people want to hear. People like to think that the world is simple, that unsympathetic people are guilty and sympathetic people are innocent. Over in the sexsomniac thread we had a guy insist that there should have been a guilty verdict because the guy looks like a pervert. We quickly called 'troll', but unfortunately, a lot of people suffer from the same lack of logical reasoning skills. On July 07 2011 10:19 overt wrote: Maybe the media should just stop reporting on trials until an actual verdict gets out? This would make the world a better place, but there's too much money in it for the media to do otherwise. | ||
|
Bill Murray
United States9292 Posts
On July 06 2011 03:26 Mikilatov wrote: Not a very good OP, but I personally followed this trial WAYYYY closer than I should have... I watched about 80% of it, and I actually agree with the no Murder 1 verdict. I thought she'd get charged with something more though. While she obviously knows something, and may have even done it, I don't feel there was sufficient evidence to prove she actually intentionally killed her kid, despite the fact that she's a lying bish. I agree that she should have been charged with something more, considering the child was of the age that she should have been at her mother's hip, and her neglect directly resulted in her child's death. | ||
|
cfoy3
United States129 Posts
| ||
| ||
