|
On July 07 2011 19:49 Brett wrote:LOL! After reading this thread, I sort of imagined more people wanting to beat her than beat off to her...
Wait, just wait... are they making a movie off of her? This world can REALLY get more shitty can't it? I don't know why I'm so surprised.. ah well. Why is she going to get rich and famous? Humans man... can be disgusting creatures. It's time for me to sha la la la, have fun everyone.
|
On July 07 2011 19:11 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 18:29 nihlon wrote: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.
That's still not the opposite of what he said unless you are trying to argue the poster you responded to doesn't realize that there are people that get convicted on mostly DNA evidence. He's just of the opinion that the system suffers in all cases where you don't have "CSI evidence" which is a fair share of them.
I'm quite sure I've seen people in law enforcement claim that it's gotten harder to convict people in cases that are built on evidence that doesn't involve DNA and such but I don't think I have seen any studies on it. I suppose it's quite hard to take all factors into consideration to make such a comparison valid. You have to in some way measure how much this factor influences the jury and how large portion the possible changes to laws/routines/police work/etc have changed over time.
|
On July 07 2011 20:34 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2011 19:11 Brett wrote:On July 07 2011 18:29 nihlon wrote: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. That's still not the opposite of what he said unless you are trying to argue the poster you responded to doesn't realize that there are people that get convicted on mostly DNA evidence. He's just of the opinion that the system suffers in all cases where you don't have "CSI evidence" which is a fair share of them. I'm quite sure I've seen people in law enforcement claim that it's gotten harder to convict people in cases that are built on evidence that doesn't involve DNA and such but I don't think I have seen any studies on it. I suppose it's quite hard to take all factors into consideration to make such a comparison valid. You have to in some way measure how much this factor influences the jury and how large portion the possible changes to laws/routines/police work/etc have changed over time.
It's pretty clear that I'm responding to his last sentence which clearly states he believes it has become "HARDER" to secure convictions because of the CSI-effect. The opposite of that premise is obviously that it has become "EASIER" to secure convictions due to the CSI-effect. I showed a primary example of that very situation; a case where there was no evidence except this 'infallible' DNA evidence upon which a properly directed jury could act, and yet a man was found guilty.
I'm agreeing with him that the CSI-effect exists and can place an unhealthy emphasis on such evidence, but disagreeing with his conclusion that the effect necessarily makes it "HARDER" to secure a conviction.
|
fuck the trial.
How do u live with yourself?
|
|
|
On July 07 2011 22:02 zeru wrote:
So interesting that whenever something small, like this case happens/goes wrong, a shitstorm is created. With all the major bad things going on in the world, the tiny ones that don't matter at all compared to the major ones interest everyone, and get all attention, while the major issues remain "ignored". Very interesting indeed.
Also, the porn offer is pretty funny.
killing a baby is obviously > genocide. at least according to the media :S
|
On July 07 2011 21:55 dangots0ul wrote:
fuck the trial.
How do u live with yourself?
THIS. I honestly can't comprehend evil. So how can one live their lives free of guilt knowing that they had done such a thing?
This hearkens back to the problem with young mothers nowadays. They become infatuated with the attention and supposed 'fun' that having a baby will bring, like a pet or a toy. But I have news for you:
CHILDREN ARE NOT TOYS Having a child is not a trend or a fashion that you can give up once you are tired of it. It is not something to amuse yourself with until you are bored of it and want to do something else. A child is for life, and once your bring that upon yourself you can never turn your back on that responsibility. The life you might have had before you had a child is dead forever and you will only get rare glimpses of it again in the future.
Life is full of many different stages, and to accelerate yourself through all of them just to beat other people will not bring you happiness. In the end you'll find out that you've missed out on things that you cannot go back and do again. To quote my grandfather's greatest proverb, which probably isn't his, but he swore by it nonetheless:
|
She will end up serving about 30 days and be forced to pay a $4k fine for lying to law enforcement. The reason for the short sentence is due to time served already (about 2 years 8 months).
EDIT: Post above is very true.
EDIT 2: She will be released July 13.
|
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.
I've been trying to find out. What exactly is the damning evidence ?
|
On July 08 2011 02:10 Kaitlin wrote:
I've been trying to find out. What exactly is the damning evidence ?
She lied about her daughter being missing, so she obviously committed first degree murder.
And that sums up 80% of this evidence that is so 'damning'.
|
No the damning evidence is the duct tape over the mouth of the kid. Even if she "drowned in the pool" why would there be duct tape over her mouth? The chloroform searches, the lying for 31 days, the hair in the trunk. The trunk stain evidence that wasn't allowed. The mom saying she did the searches...lies.
Just because 12 people in florida think she is not guilty, that doesn't mean she is to US.
|
aperantly people are already talking about getting a book deal with her.
|
On July 08 2011 02:17 TheResidentEvil wrote:
No the damning evidence is the duct tape over the mouth of the kid. Even if she "drowned in the pool" why would there be duct tape over her mouth? The chloroform searches, the lying for 31 days, the hair in the trunk. The trunk stain evidence that wasn't allowed. The mom saying she did the searches...lies.
Just because 12 people in florida think she is not guilty, that doesn't mean she is to US.
^^this...
So this right here gives hope to any and all aspiring murderers out there. Just don't have your fingerprint or any "significant" evidence lying around and you will get away
oh and having a pair of boobs is a plus
edit:
About that porn offer link:
Wow that is just amazing. She kills her kid and gets away.
"Well err heroyi derp, she has to pay some fines"
Whoopie the fuck doo. She is now a fucking celebrity in the US and is getting offers (money ranging from thousands to millions) from the media so they can interview her sorry, lying, killing, ass.
The land of opportunity
You can kill your kid, get away with the flawed system, and get rich all in one life.
Only in America...
|
On July 08 2011 02:17 TheResidentEvil wrote:
No the damning evidence is the duct tape over the mouth of the kid. Even if she "drowned in the pool" why would there be duct tape over her mouth?
Later shown to have been placed post mortem.
shown to be placed while the body was decomposing The chloroform searches,
Most of which were timestamped at a date when there is documentation that Casey was not at home
the lying for 31 days,
Proof that something happened she was trying to cover up, not proof of premeditated murder
the hair in the trunk.
There's my hair in the trunk of my parent's car, was I ever put in there?
The trunk stain evidence that wasn't allowed. The mom saying she did the searches...lies.
Just because 12 people in florida think she is not guilty, that doesn't mean she is to US.
dude, go read the juror interviews. they basically flat out said "We wanted to convict her, but the evidence wasn't there"
u mad?
|
I just worry that she won't last long in the public without moving to another country (which she should now do).
A not guilty verdict is a not guilty verdict, it means what it says. Evidence was provided, defense was provided and with it the case is closed.
Unfortunately the justice system is not what it is meant to be in most countries, it is not a final and people do not believe the conclusions that come out unless it is a guilty verdict - so there should be questions about why bother having trials? They found her not guilty but in the eyes of the majority she is still guilty. Abolish the justice system?
I just hope she moves country so she can live out her life in private.
|
LOL!
I called it! 
|
On July 08 2011 02:38 Defacer wrote:LOL! I called it!
It was rescinded
|
Not surprised, lots of people were saying "I'd hit that" before the offer anyway
|
america's judicial power ftw
|
On July 08 2011 02:12 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2011 02:10 Kaitlin wrote:
I've been trying to find out. What exactly is the damning evidence ? She lied about her daughter being missing, so she obviously committed first degree murder. And that sums up 80% of this evidence that is so 'damning'.
people arguing against the verdict really don't understand how the court system works. The quote above is a perfect example. Lying about your daughter missing most certaintly DOES NOT prove you commited murder. You can't convict someone because you "think" or are "pretty sure" they did something. To convict someone in US court you have to prove your case "beyond a reasonable doubt" and without hard evidence there's always going to be reasonable doubt. Especially when the prosecution is seeking the death penalty. If I was a juror, no way would I ever sentence someone to death without hard evidence.
Do I think Casey Anthony murdered her daughter? Of course I do. Most people would assume based on the circumstantial evidence that she did it. Again though, circumstantial evidence is NOT proof. The prosecution was seeking the death penalty, yet they couldnt even prove cause of death or motive. It's all speculation. The not guilty verdict is clearly the right verdict in this case, regardless of wether she did it or not. The reason prosecutors are required to prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt" is to protect innocent citizens from being wrongfully incarcirated or god forbid sentenced to death. It's the only way to be sure, and sometimes because of this high burden of proof people who are actually guilty get off. The system isn't perfect, but no system will ever be perfect. It's better to let someone off who is guilty than convict someone who is innocent, so this is the way it has to be. It's a horrible injustice, because it's very likely she is guilty, but the verdict was still the right one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
