EPTCasey Anthony not guilty - Page 5
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Phtes
United States370 Posts
| ||
|
Scorcher2k
United States802 Posts
| ||
|
Spacely
United States108 Posts
| ||
|
Hargol
United States52 Posts
On July 06 2011 03:44 gogogadgetflow wrote: She is directly implicated in the murder and numerous clues that it was premeditated. Was there reasonable doubt to at least the murder 2 charge? No, I didn't think so. Of course, i'm responding emotionally to the death of an innocent child. I am glad to be in a society where a jury of my peers will place the burden of evidence on the state. I really am. I am sad this case went so awry. I have to agree heartily with that. I'd much rather 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person go to jail. | ||
|
Playguuu
United States926 Posts
On July 06 2011 03:33 carloselcoco wrote: She is only guilty of lying. Not of murder.... Just wait for her book now I was just thinking the same thing. Seriously, they can't figure out how Caylee died when the body is found with tape all over the mouth and had her parents lie for her even when they opened the trunk and smelled decomposing flesh. Guess it's back to partying after maybe time served. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
If you haven't been following the case/trial you should probably just leave the thread instead of begging OP for more information. GOOGLE IT FOR YOURSELF, instead of whining for someone to summarize a 3 year long case that included 300 pieces of evidence and tons of expert testimony. | ||
|
MozzarellaL
United States822 Posts
On July 06 2011 03:46 VPGeneralHans wrote: There should have been a 2nd degree or manslaughter charge. But prosecutors went for home run. Damn shame. Poor kid They went for an aggravated manslaughter charge, d00d | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On July 06 2011 03:51 Spacely wrote: Just more evidence that the American Law system is flawed. Because of what a single idiot who didn't follow the trial and just listens to what pundits on TV said thinks the system is flawed. Don't even bother with the countless trials happening all around the country every week which work under the same rules. Thanks for the amazing imput. | ||
|
Mikilatov
United States3897 Posts
On July 06 2011 03:50 Scorcher2k wrote: I don't understand why they wouldn't charge her with some kind of negligance... It doesn't make any sense... I believe it's because they went after more serious charges, which didn't stick. | ||
|
Phenny
Australia1435 Posts
On July 06 2011 03:49 Phtes wrote: Anyone who thought the prosecution had enough evidence to link her to the murder was living in a dream, it was a lost battle from the start sadly Yeh, people can be as convinced as they want from how she acts and looks and how much she lies, but the evidence just wasn't there, at least not for murder 1. | ||
|
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
On July 06 2011 03:23 Dknight wrote: She was accused of murdering her three year old child ;\ The key word there is accused. She was accused, and the public tried her and found her guilty before she got to trial. The prosecution did not have substantial enough evidence to convict her. No matter how much anyone wants her to be punished, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone did the crime they were accused of. Even though she's an absolutely horrible mother, and a bad person, she has the same rights regarding a fair trial as everyone else in the country. Our justice system was thus not mocked today, but instead, it was exalted. Nobody really knows what happened to her daughter, but people have turned her into a murderer because she's a bad mother. There are only a couple of things that we know about Casey Anthony with absolute certainty: she's a liar (she lied to police, this is documented), and she is (what most would consider) an awful mother (partying during the month her daughter was missing would lead one to believe this). What we don't know, and cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt, is that she's a murderer--and that's what this trial was all about. Bad mother, liar . . . maybe not a murderer. To note: I'm only defending our justice system, I think she probably did it, and probably deserves horrible things to happen to her regardless of whether or not she murdered her daughter, she seems soulless and evil, in my eyes. But my eyes are biased, and the eyes of the law must be unbiased. | ||
|
Smoru
United States83 Posts
| ||
|
SafeAsCheese
United States4924 Posts
On July 06 2011 03:52 Mikilatov wrote: I believe it's because they went after more serious charges, which didn't stick. does double jeopardy apply to different, smaller charges?? | ||
|
mewbert
United States291 Posts
On July 06 2011 03:51 BlackJack wrote: Sometimes you have to let the guilty person go even if you know they are guilty. That's how our justice system works. She did it, but there was reasonable doubt. Correct verdict, imo. If you haven't been following the case/trial you should probably just leave the thread instead of begging OP for more information. GOOGLE IT FOR YOURSELF, instead of whining for someone to summarize a 3 year long case that included 300 pieces of evidence and tons of expert testimony. Exactly, I just posted my feelings on the verdict which was "LOL" I cant explain a 3 year case. Do you guys really prefer a justice system where everyone believes she is guilty based on all the information yet she can get off just because there is no physical evidence? Common sense should be the deciding factor. | ||
|
Battleaxe
United States843 Posts
Most people I think are of the opinion she had something to do with the death of her child, I'd most likely agree with this. After hearing most of the case involuntarily though (along with busting my mom's chops at dinner), I couldn't help but reiterate over and over that she shouldn't be surprised when she gets off just like OJ did. I know the cases are pretty different, but to me both cases seemed to play out in very similar fashions. I just can't wait for the book deal that's coming down the pipe for her whenever she wants to do it. As much as people will sit there and bitch about how guilty she is, those same people will be lining up at the bookstore waiting for that thing to be released | ||
|
Gescom
Canada3511 Posts
If the defense argued that she drowned in the grandparents pool then don't the grandparents/babysitter have to provide 100% concrete evidence for or against that? | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On July 06 2011 03:55 mewby wrote: Do you guys really prefer a justice system where everyone believes she is guilty based on all the information yet she can get off just because there is no physical evidence? Common sense should be the deciding factor. I'm pretty sure we tried this once a couple centuries ago. In Salem. It really didn't go over very well for obvious reasons. The main problem being that judgment by public opinion and "common sense", not hard evidence, is a stupid way to conduct a trial. | ||
|
Phenny
Australia1435 Posts
On July 06 2011 03:55 mewby wrote: Exactly, I just posted my feelings on the verdict which was "LOL" I cant explain a 3 year case. Do you guys really prefer a justice system where everyone believes she is guilty based on all the information yet she can get off just because there is no physical evidence? Common sense should be the deciding factor. No that's abhorrent, it should not be judged on subjective beliefs. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
Absolutely Pathetic. | ||
|
Smoru
United States83 Posts
On July 06 2011 03:55 mewby wrote: Do you guys really prefer a justice system where everyone believes she is guilty based on all the information yet she can get off just because there is no physical evidence? Common sense should be the deciding factor. common sense is prevailing. If you dont know 100% that she killed her child then you dont know at all. Is she guilty? possibly, i personally dont know. But the prosecution's argument got shot full of holes by the defense. | ||
| ||
