|
On July 07 2011 13:20 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 13:15 iamho wrote:On July 07 2011 13:12 DeepBlu2 wrote:On July 07 2011 13:08 kellymilkies wrote:
So how is she not guilty of this crime even though it's so obvious? Like event man slaughter? Some members of the jury have publicly said they believe she is guilty but there is not enough physical evidence linking them to it. It's sick though how she is going to get paid a lot of money for interviews and treated like a celebrity. Even the jury are being paid for interviews. Because the prosecution wanted a death penalty, they also required much much more evidence then they would have otherwise needed. Ironically, Nancy Grace and the MSM who basically spent the last 3 months attacking her are the reasons why Anthony will be able to make so much $$. God, this shit is depressing because it's so true.. She'll probably get offers to do mom porn as well. Yeeeeeeeeeeeeuckk.
First of all, this psycho bitch that should have just gotten the death penalty like what was originally an option.
With that being said she is a very sexy women. ^o^
When i found out she was innocent i really felt sick to my stomach, i had been following case the hole time(Which was on cable tv live every session) She really is a sick women, and lied tons about everything(which in the end was her only charges 3 counts).
They didn't have enough conclusive evidence to charge her with murder, all the evidence they had was..
(A) A veteran FBI specialist on hair samples, Karen Korsberg Lowe, testified a 9-inch strand of light brown hair found in Casey Anthony's trunk not only matched DNA in the Anthony family, but also matched hairs pulled from Caylee's brush.
(B)Prosecutors went to scientist Arpad Vass, of the prestigious Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. This guy is so good he can analyze air. He found "overwhelming" evidence in the trunk's atmosphere that a decomposed body had been in it. He also found "shockingly high" levels of chloroform in the trunk. Casey Anthonys' computer was confirmed to have looked up how to make chloroform.
+ Show Spoiler +Chloroform:to administer chloroform to, especially in order to anesthetize, make unconscious, or kill.
(C) She put duct tape over her daughter's mouth and nose to suffocate her. It was an unusual type of duct tape, and matched a rare brand found in the Anthony family garage.
So there wasn't enough evidence to convict her of murder of her THREE year old daughter.
Foul Mouth+ Show Spoiler +ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!
What a joke.
|
On July 07 2011 13:53 sunprince wrote:
Click on 'litigation', followed by 'trial practice'. When you look through the results, you'll notice that keywords such as "trial lawyer" are included as synonyms.
And my previous point still stands, as you get over 12,000 results when you actually just do a simple search for 'trial law'.
And 99% of them say things like "Criminal defense trial lawyer" and "Personal injury trial lawyer" and "Insurance defense trial lawyer". Clearly these lawyers should all be classified under the umbrella term of 'trial law' because that's the area of law they practice.
|
|
|
On July 07 2011 14:00 RealDeal wrote:
(A) A veteran FBI specialist on hair samples, Karen Korsberg Lowe, testified a 9-inch strand of light brown hair found in Casey Anthony's trunk not only matched DNA in the Anthony family, but also matched hairs pulled from Caylee's brush.
(B)Prosecutors went to scientist Arpad Vass, of the prestigious Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. This guy is so good he can analyze air. He found "overwhelming" evidence in the trunk's atmosphere that a decomposed body had been in it.
Both form evidence that Caylee or Caylee's body was in the trunk. That's not the same as proof that Casey killed Caylee. Hence, circumstancial evidence.
On July 07 2011 14:00 RealDeal wrote:(C) She put duct tape over her daughter's mouth and nose to suffocate her. It was an unusual type of duct tape, and matched a rare brand found in the Anthony family garage.
The evidence did not conclusively show that Caylee died from duct tape suffocation, nor does it show, more importantly, that Casey was the one who put the duct tape on Caylee.
On July 07 2011 14:00 RealDeal wrote:
So there wasn't enough evidence to convict her of murder of her THREE year old daughter.
No, there wasn't. And your caps-lock of the age is a blatant appeal to emotion, and suggests that you are operating on the same sense of outrage rather than logic.
|
On July 07 2011 14:02 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 13:53 sunprince wrote:
Click on 'litigation', followed by 'trial practice'. When you look through the results, you'll notice that keywords such as "trial lawyer" are included as synonyms.
And my previous point still stands, as you get over 12,000 results when you actually just do a simple search for 'trial law'. And 99% of them say things like "Criminal defense trial lawyer" and "Personal injury trial lawyer" and "Insurance defense trial lawyer". Clearly these lawyers should all be classified under the umbrella term of 'trial law' because that's the area of law they practice.
Lol. Feels so satisfying to see trolls, especially faux intelligent ones get thoroughly owned at their own game.
|
On July 07 2011 14:09 teamsolid wrote:
Lol. Feels so satisfying to see trolls, especially faux intelligent ones get thoroughly owned at their own game.
Indeed. And then they play a game of semantics when they know they're wrong.
|
On July 07 2011 14:08 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 14:00 RealDeal wrote:
(A) A veteran FBI specialist on hair samples, Karen Korsberg Lowe, testified a 9-inch strand of light brown hair found in Casey Anthony's trunk not only matched DNA in the Anthony family, but also matched hairs pulled from Caylee's brush.
(B)Prosecutors went to scientist Arpad Vass, of the prestigious Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. This guy is so good he can analyze air. He found "overwhelming" evidence in the trunk's atmosphere that a decomposed body had been in it. Both form evidence that Caylee or Caylee's body was in the trunk. That's not the same as proof that Casey killed Caylee. Hence, circumstancial evidence. Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 14:00 RealDeal wrote:(C) She put duct tape over her daughter's mouth and nose to suffocate her. It was an unusual type of duct tape, and matched a rare brand found in the Anthony family garage. The evidence did not conclusively show that Caylee died from duct tape suffocation, nor does it show, more importantly, that Casey was the one who put the duct tape on Caylee. Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 14:00 RealDeal wrote:
So there wasn't enough evidence to convict her of murder of her THREE year old daughter. No, there wasn't. And your caps-lock of the age is a blatant appeal to emotion, and suggests that you are operating on the same sense of outrage rather than logic.
This is a real stretch dude. It might be circumstantial evidence, but its very powerful circumstantial evidence that, when coupled with the psychological profile and behavior of casey anthony, is pretty damning. I suppose I'm a supporter of Occam's Razor.
|
On July 07 2011 14:19 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 14:09 teamsolid wrote:
Lol. Feels so satisfying to see trolls, especially faux intelligent ones get thoroughly owned at their own game. Indeed. And then they play a game of semantics when they know they're wrong.
I just don't understand guys like that. I asked an honest question, and even if you want to quibble over terminology, the meaning was self-apparent.
Just because you're on TL doesn't mean you have to be sarcastic and contentious all the time.
|
On July 07 2011 14:37 JamesJohansen wrote:
This is a real stretch dude. It might be circumstantial evidence, but its very powerful circumstantial evidence that, when coupled with the psychological profile and behavior of casey anthony, is pretty damning.
It wasn't enough evidence to convince 12 jurors, who unanimously deemed the defendant not guilty of murder, in controvention of popular opinion and despite the fact that they will likely take tons of flak for it.
I encourage you to view the videos of the trial online, particularly the closing statements, to get a better understanding of why there is legally not enough evidence to convict Casey Anthony of murder beyond any reasonable doubt.
|
On July 07 2011 14:37 JamesJohansen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 14:08 sunprince wrote:On July 07 2011 14:00 RealDeal wrote:
(A) A veteran FBI specialist on hair samples, Karen Korsberg Lowe, testified a 9-inch strand of light brown hair found in Casey Anthony's trunk not only matched DNA in the Anthony family, but also matched hairs pulled from Caylee's brush.
(B)Prosecutors went to scientist Arpad Vass, of the prestigious Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. This guy is so good he can analyze air. He found "overwhelming" evidence in the trunk's atmosphere that a decomposed body had been in it. Both form evidence that Caylee or Caylee's body was in the trunk. That's not the same as proof that Casey killed Caylee. Hence, circumstancial evidence. On July 07 2011 14:00 RealDeal wrote:(C) She put duct tape over her daughter's mouth and nose to suffocate her. It was an unusual type of duct tape, and matched a rare brand found in the Anthony family garage. The evidence did not conclusively show that Caylee died from duct tape suffocation, nor does it show, more importantly, that Casey was the one who put the duct tape on Caylee. On July 07 2011 14:00 RealDeal wrote:
So there wasn't enough evidence to convict her of murder of her THREE year old daughter. No, there wasn't. And your caps-lock of the age is a blatant appeal to emotion, and suggests that you are operating on the same sense of outrage rather than logic. This is a real stretch dude. It might be circumstantial evidence, but its very powerful circumstantial evidence that, when coupled with the psychological profile and behavior of casey anthony, is pretty damning. I suppose I'm a supporter of Occam's Razor.
Ergo, Occam's Razor would be: there is no evidence to sufficiently prove she is guilty of murder; she is not guilty of murder.
|
I wish the media just never got involved. Nobody who watches the media on this case can make an opinion based on evidence rather than emotion and outrage.
|
On July 07 2011 11:35 Rybka wrote:
This entire fiasco really underscores how out of touch people are with respect to what is possible from science and criminal investigations. Jurors want it be just like CSI, where the most irrefutable scientific and genetic evidence ties the suspect to the killing. And then they want shiny computer-generated graphics to lay it all out for them in a format they can quickly and easily digest before they are willing to deliver a guilty verdict.
It's like advances in forensic science have actually made it HARDER to send murderers to jail. Totally ridiculous.
Actually, experience in the state of Victoria, Australia shows that the so-called "CSI effect" can and does produce results completely the opposite to those which you argue. See the case of Mr Jama, who was sentenced to six years imprisonment for a rape he did not commit, purely on the basis of DNA evidence which was completely uncorroborated and was afforded an "almost mystical infallibility" by the jury which convicted him. Mr Jama ended up spending 14 months in gaol before being completely exonerated.
See the report ordered into Mr Jama's case and associated DNA practices here:
http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/5a103e804263c8da810e832b0760a79a/VincentReportFinal6May2010.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
A journal article summarising the report is available here:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JlLawInfoSci/2010/7.html#fn6
|
Ok, so I haven't really paid much attention to the coverage of this trial until the last few days, and saw parts of the closing arguments. Some people here and in the media seem to be drawing conclusions that I don't understand.
First, the hair in the car. Why is this evidence that she was in the trunk ? I see how things like this tie a child to an unrelated person, but I would expect the girl's hair and DNA to be all over their property. One hair in the trunk very well would have been (and probably was) a result of something that had her hair on it, such as a beach towel, being placed in the trunk at some point. I would be very hesitant to made a bet on my life that none of my hair is in my trunk, even though I'm quite certain that I've never been in my trunk.
Second, why did the government charge First Degree Murder ? What is their evidence of pre-meditation ? I actually believe she didn't intend for her daughter to die, let alone did she intend to kill her.
I think a lot of the outrage being directed at the jury should be directed at the cop who didn't bother to pursue the initial call about the body (who was fired), and the prosecution for overcharging. A jury can only work with what is in the indictment. The prosecution overcharged, and because of that, Casey will go free. I think she is the reason her daughter is dead, and that has to be against some law, but not what the prosecution charged her with.
Could someone fill me in on why the hair in the trunk is supposed to be such damning evidence of murder, and also the other evidence they see supporting First Degree Murder ?
|
On July 07 2011 16:48 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 11:35 Rybka wrote:
This entire fiasco really underscores how out of touch people are with respect to what is possible from science and criminal investigations. Jurors want it be just like CSI, where the most irrefutable scientific and genetic evidence ties the suspect to the killing. And then they want shiny computer-generated graphics to lay it all out for them in a format they can quickly and easily digest before they are willing to deliver a guilty verdict.
It's like advances in forensic science have actually made it HARDER to send murderers to jail. Totally ridiculous. Actually, experience in the state of Victoria, Australia shows that the so-called "CSI effect" can and does produce results completely the opposite to those which you argue. See the case of Mr Jama, who was sentenced to six years imprisonment for a rape he did not commit, purely on the basis of DNA evidence which was completely uncorroborated and was afforded an "almost mystical infallibility" by the jury which convicted him. Mr Jama ended up spending 14 months in gaol before being completely exonerated. See the report ordered into Mr Jama's case and associated DNA practices here: http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/5a103e804263c8da810e832b0760a79a/VincentReportFinal6May2010.pdf?MOD=AJPERESA journal article summarising the report is available here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JlLawInfoSci/2010/7.html#fn6
How is that opposite of what he was arguing? He's arguing that it's harder to send people to prison without "CSI-esque evidence" and you posted a case where they sent a man to prison on the strong belief in DNA evidence. If anything it supports his theory or at least doesn't speak against it.
|
On July 07 2011 06:36 CrimsonLotus wrote:
This is just proof that the justice system doesn't suck in the US.
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.
i agree that you can't judge someone of murder because she is weird and lying. the burden of proof is on prosecution.
however what i find is strange is that when the evidence points in your direction, without going into deep in semantics what pointing in your direction means, you dont have to give any explanation at all on your whereabouts but can lie as much as you want just to get away. the penalty for lying in such cases should at least be proportional to the charges.
im not saying i have the answer for a perfect justice system but i don't like when something like this happens and instead of people admitting that something is wrong and discuss how to make the system better just blindly defends the system.
the only comfort i find in this case is that society will not be as forgiving as the jury.
|
On July 07 2011 18:29 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 16:48 Brett wrote:On July 07 2011 11:35 Rybka wrote:
This entire fiasco really underscores how out of touch people are with respect to what is possible from science and criminal investigations. Jurors want it be just like CSI, where the most irrefutable scientific and genetic evidence ties the suspect to the killing. And then they want shiny computer-generated graphics to lay it all out for them in a format they can quickly and easily digest before they are willing to deliver a guilty verdict.
It's like advances in forensic science have actually made it HARDER to send murderers to jail. Totally ridiculous. Actually, experience in the state of Victoria, Australia shows that the so-called "CSI effect" can and does produce results completely the opposite to those which you argue. See the case of Mr Jama, who was sentenced to six years imprisonment for a rape he did not commit, purely on the basis of DNA evidence which was completely uncorroborated and was afforded an "almost mystical infallibility" by the jury which convicted him. Mr Jama ended up spending 14 months in gaol before being completely exonerated. See the report ordered into Mr Jama's case and associated DNA practices here: http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/5a103e804263c8da810e832b0760a79a/VincentReportFinal6May2010.pdf?MOD=AJPERESA journal article summarising the report is available here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JlLawInfoSci/2010/7.html#fn6 How is that opposite of what he was arguing? He's arguing that it's harder to send people to prison without "CSI-esque evidence" and you posted a case where they sent a man to prison on the strong belief in DNA evidence. If anything it supports his theory or at least doesn't speak against it.
He's saying that the existence of this "CSI-effect" makes it harder to secure a conviction because people expect or possibly only accept such evidence.
But that same expectation/acceptance can actually make it easier to secure a conviction (wrongly in Mr Jama's case).
In other words, this reliance on technology theoretically both assists and inhibits convictions. Im not aware of any known examples or studies backing up his contention however. If there are any, I'd be interested in reading about them.
|
|
|
LOL!
After reading this thread, I sort of imagined more people wanting to beat her than beat off to her...
|
I have a question for anyone who's actually followed the trial. Did the defense have any reasonable alternative scenario concerning who killed the kid? Just reading this thread the circumstantial evidence seems pretty damning for the mother.
|
On July 07 2011 20:05 FecalFrown wrote:
I have a question for anyone who's actually followed the trial. Did the defense have any reasonable alternative scenario concerning who killed the kid? Just reading this thread the circumstantial evidence seems pretty damning for the mother.
They said it was an accidental drowning in the family pool
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
