EPTBecause i wouldnt want to kill or be killed because of a death that was an accident. Since the only thing that person did wrong was hide the body and lie about it. If lieing about someone thats already dead worth killing one more?
Casey Anthony not guilty - Page 6
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
hYdrA-MeNo
Mexico344 Posts
Because i wouldnt want to kill or be killed because of a death that was an accident. Since the only thing that person did wrong was hide the body and lie about it. If lieing about someone thats already dead worth killing one more? | ||
|
billyX333
United States1360 Posts
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0630/Casey-Anthony-trial-Her-father-spoke-of-accident-alleged-mistress-says "Testifying before the defense rested in the Casey Anthony trial, George Anthony's alleged mistress says he tearfully described Caylee's death as 'an accident that snowballed out of control" This was around when I stopped following so I don't know much more. Compounding the mistress's testimony along with the expert analysis of the duct tape kind of had me expecting a not guilty charge. | ||
|
Eroberer_
United States1 Post
| ||
|
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
On July 06 2011 03:48 Hawk wrote: Cool, thanks. how fucked would the whole system be though if you could convict on flimsy evidence? People don't understand how the justice system works. They think people should be found guilty based on how they are perceived. They think they should be found guilty of murder because they're bad parents, etc. A woman at work said to me "I dont think that they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she is not guilty." That's how people perceived this case, which is disgusting to me. | ||
|
yosisoy
Israel202 Posts
| ||
|
hYdrA-MeNo
Mexico344 Posts
| ||
|
Playguuu
United States926 Posts
I wonder if her mother will get charged with purgury after saying she did the searches at home when she was really at work. | ||
|
hYdrA-MeNo
Mexico344 Posts
On July 06 2011 04:04 yosisoy wrote: Where's Dexter when you need him? LOL | ||
|
SafeAsCheese
United States4924 Posts
On July 06 2011 04:02 hYdrA-MeNo wrote: I dont understand why people are mad? Lets just think about this for one second If you were the defended and you HONESTLY believe you didn't kill your child. but that it was an accident that you just fucked up afterwards. Would you want to be put to death because you hide your child after death? Because i wouldnt want to kill or be killed because of a death that was an accident. Since the only thing that person did wrong was hide the body and lie about it. If lieing about someone thats already dead worth killing one more? There is a difference between being imprisoned and put to death, or even charged with murder 2 or EVEN FUCKING NEGLIGENCE. There was NO justice for her child. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On July 06 2011 03:37 MozzarellaL wrote: there's no evidence of premeditation, so the correct ruling was not guilty on the charge of 1st degree murder not entirely sure what aggravated manslaughter is, but based on what manslaughter is, doubt she is guilty of that either. Involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide, more likely as to what happened, but they didn't try her for those crimes. there was no violation of common sense. This. I didn't follow this trial and have only heard about it in passing. I've served on a jury before, though. Generally, the judge gives the jury instructions about each possible charge. Each charge has a number of criteria that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before you can convict. Murder one, for example, requires premeditation among other things. I have no idea what aggravated manslaughter is, either, but it likely has a component in addition to killing someone. Sometimes, prosecutors overreach. They think they can convict on a greater charge than what they have evidence for. They deliberately do not include the lesser charges to prevent juries from finding the suspect guilty on the lesser charge. That strategy can sometimes backfire. | ||
|
Hister
United States89 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On July 06 2011 04:04 Playguuu wrote: I don't know still makes me wonder how she got off on aggravated chile abuse / neglect since she didn't report her daughter missing after 30 days. Just enough time to party and get your parents to lie for you. I wonder if her mother will get charged with purgury after saying she did the searches at home when she was really at work. I'm guessing that aggravated child abuse requires certain elements which they didn't prove, such as malice or intent etc. | ||
|
hYdrA-MeNo
Mexico344 Posts
On July 06 2011 04:04 Playguuu wrote: I don't know still makes me wonder how she got off on aggravated chile abuse / neglect since she didn't report her daughter missing after 30 days. Just enough time to party and get your parents to lie for you. I wonder if her mother will get charged with purgury after saying she did the searches at home when she was really at work. She was not guilty because she didn't abuse her child she died by an accident according with the defense. and you cant neglect something that's dead. | ||
|
Juddas
768 Posts
| ||
|
TheFrankOne
United States667 Posts
On July 06 2011 04:04 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: People don't understand how the justice system works. They think people should be found guilty based on how they are perceived. They think they should be found guilty of murder because they're bad parents, etc. A woman at work said to me "I dont think that they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she is not guilty." That's how people perceived this case, which is disgusting to me. That woman seems to be as confused as the people in this thread calling for "common sense" which is really "mob justice" and is no way to go about justice at all. | ||
|
MozzarellaL
United States822 Posts
Casey was looking up ways to put her child asleep, so she could go off and do random shit without getting a babysitter. She finds something, accidentally OD's her kid in an attempt to put her to sleep, freaks out and tries to cover it up. Is that murder? No. Is it manslaughter? Probably not. Criminally negligent homicide? Likely yes. The hardass DA trying to make a career /name for himself did more to prevent justice being served, not the jury, or the defense, or the court of law. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On July 06 2011 04:05 SafeAsCheese wrote: There is a difference between being imprisoned and put to death, or even charged with murder 1 or EVEN FUCKING NEGLIGENCE. There was NO justice for her child. There is no justice in wrongful conviction or, as a previous poster puts it, "mob justice". And there apparently wasn't enough evidence to convict for aggravated child abuse. Child neglect was dropped by both parties because you can't neglect a dead child. | ||
|
mewbert
United States291 Posts
On July 06 2011 04:06 Juddas wrote: I haven't the slightest idea why National News has cared about this trial so much. I couldn't care less. It is one woman and one child. Who cares and why should we>? People care because they have been so exposed to it, people want justice for a 2 year old that was killed. | ||
|
hYdrA-MeNo
Mexico344 Posts
On July 06 2011 04:05 SafeAsCheese wrote: There is a difference between being imprisoned and put to death, or even charged with murder 2 or EVEN FUCKING NEGLIGENCE. There was NO justice for her child. Take your emotions out of the equation. And look at the evidence the state only proved that the child was dead and was mistreated after death. The state provided no evidence of murder other than3 pieces of tape. Which was stated in court that the tape was around the child and was speculated that the tape was the murder weapon but with no proof would u give an guilty plea with no evidence of that action? | ||
|
iamho
United States3347 Posts
| ||
| ||
