KwarK: Original poster is bad and put no content here.
On July 06 2011 03:22 -swordguy wrote: From CNN: Casey Anthony has been found not guilty of first-degree murder in the 2008 death of her 2-year-old daughter Caylee. She was also found not guilty of aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter.
Casey Anthony has been found guilty of four counts of providing false information to law enforcement in the case of her 2-year-old daughter Caylee, who was slain in 2008.
From CNN: Casey Anthony has been found not guilty of first-degree murder in the 2008 death of her 2-year-old daughter Caylee. She was also found not guilty of aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter.
Casey Anthony has been found guilty of four counts of providing false information to law enforcement in the case of her 2-year-old daughter Caylee, who was slain in 2008.
Watching the CNN live feed right now. I was thinking that with deliberations only taking 10 hours or so that they were going to come out with a guilty verdict.... my mind has been blown.
I wonder how much she payed the jury joke justice system. She should have a needle in her arm but hopefully the public outcry people harass her so much that she "takes the easy way out".
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.
On July 06 2011 03:25 Eddog wrote: I can not BELIEVE that she got off on EVERY single murder and manslaughter charge. I am actually shocked. This is worse then OJ
In what way is killing 1 person worse than killing 2
How can this entire family live with themselves at all??? There was no justice brought to that poor child... I don't even know how they expect to live on like that... Ugh...
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 verdict. While she obviously knows something, and may have even done it, I don't feel there was sufficient evidence to prove she actually killed her kid, despite the fact that she's a lying bish.
Exactly this, I'm not sure people understand how it's required to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
On July 06 2011 03:25 Eddog wrote: I can not BELIEVE that she got off on EVERY single murder and manslaughter charge. I am actually shocked. This is worse then OJ
In what way is killing 1 person worse than killing 2
I watched almost all of this trial, and I have absolutely no idea how they found her not guilty. I mean murder 1 might have been a stretch but only guilty on lying to the police? Insanity...
On a side note Nancy Grace is absolutely terrible.
She will just walk out, like nothing happend, because the 4 years might be reduced to 1 year because she already spent 3 years in prison. Her life is ruined though.
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 verdict. While she obviously knows something, and may have even done it, I don't feel there was sufficient evidence to prove she actually killed her kid, despite the fact that she's a lying bish.
Exactly this, I'm not sure people understand how it's required to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Yeah, I'm not saying she didn't do it, but as far as the trial's actual content, there's definitely quite a lot of reasonable doubt that surfaced... But I wouldn't have found it too crazy if she got some other type of manslaughter charge, but definitely not murder 1 based upon the trial's content.
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 throught 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.
This pretty much sums up my feelings as well. When I watched the closing statements, I heard the prosecutor say something to the effect of "Casey Anthony is a very good liar". If the prosecution's best evidence is that they think she's lying, you can't convict.
If you're going to try someone on capital murder charges, "We think this is what happened, so that's why she's guilty" is not good enough.
On July 06 2011 03:23 Shiragaku wrote: No more content is needed. The fact that she is not guilty is enough to disgust you and laugh at. Johnnie Cochran has a new rival.
The verdict was correct I blame the shitty amount of evidence. There was not enough proof to say beyond a reasonable doubt that casey anthony murdered the child, even though she probably did.
On July 06 2011 03:23 Shiragaku wrote: No more content is needed. The fact that she is not guilty is enough to disgust you and laugh at. Johnnie Cochran has a new rival.
white people can stop complaining about O.J good job america
Huh??? I don't get it... Why would we stop complaining about OJ simply because another person was let off when they should not have been? And what the hell does this have to do with being white?
Does no one here know the burden of proof for a murder trial? It's beyond a reasonable doubt. So stop getting pissed at the court system and get pissed at the shitty investigation process.
On July 06 2011 03:25 Eddog wrote: I can not BELIEVE that she got off on EVERY single murder and manslaughter charge. I am actually shocked. This is worse then OJ
In what way is killing 1 person worse than killing 2
Killing your two year old daughter My bad, i mean Letting your daughter die. Not telling anyone for over a month, Then posting all over facebook during that time of deaths that you are having the time of your life with your new boyfriend.
I guess her tattoo (the one she got AFTER the child died) is the perfect slogan for the whole verdict, "The good life"
Condolences to Caylee, my her soul rest in peace, because this is horrid she died without any form of justice, including parent responsibility.
On July 06 2011 03:35 EnWara wrote: Does no one here know the burden of proof for a murder trial? It's beyond a reasonable doubt. So stop getting pissed at the court system and get pissed at the shitty investigation process.
Yeah, one thing i didnt like the state going for, too harsh of a penalty, God it should of been far less severe charges and something for jailtime.
Followed this trial for a while, and i truly think she did do it or knows who did, but the evidence was really not there. There was no way they could find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
On July 06 2011 03:33 gogogadgetflow wrote: hugs and cheers all around but SOMEBODY put that child in a bag with duct tape on her face and there was NO justice done for that child today.
So sending a woman to gaol who cannot be directly implicated in the murder beyond any and all reasonable doubt it justice?
white people can stop complaining about O.J good job america
WAY DIFF oj killed his cheating skank of a wife. This woman Held a 3yo's head underwater, or Sufficated her till she drowned then dumped the body.
both did it and got away with it , no ? not much difference then
I hate to sound like a biggemist here but she almost deserved it cheating on her husband. He almost could have pleaded guilty via temporary insanity and gotten off cause didnt they accuse him of coming home finding his wife cheating getting the weapon and killing them? or was it premeditated I forgot. Oh well im not much of a religious person but for today im hoping 100% that there is a hell just for this women.
It's not ridiculous. That's how the justice system works. Whether or not she committed the crime is almost irrelevant. What is relevant is the proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed. There was none of that.
On July 06 2011 03:31 EnWara wrote: The verdict was correct I blame the shitty amount of evidence. There was not enough proof to say beyond a reasonable doubt that casey anthony murdered the child, even though she probably did.
On July 06 2011 03:35 Karthane wrote: Followed this trial for a while, and i truly think she did do it or knows who did, but the evidence was really not there. There was no way they could find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
This is exactly my feeling. Whether she did it or not, the jurors base the decision off of the case itself, and the evidence simply wasn't there.
On July 06 2011 03:35 EnWara wrote: Does no one here know the burden of proof for a murder trial? It's beyond a reasonable doubt. So stop getting pissed at the court system and get pissed at the shitty investigation process.
This is what it would seem
is there any kind of good resource for the information in this case?? I am still kind of confused where the doubt is, but i had only been following it quite passively
im not sure if its a good thing or a bad thing that I have no idea what this is all about or give 2 shits about it. That being said, it sounds pretty messed up is she the new OJ for the millenium?
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.
You are soo damn correct.. Im so disgusted right now..
On July 06 2011 03:31 EnWara wrote: The verdict was correct I blame the shitty amount of evidence. There was not enough proof to say beyond a reasonable doubt that casey anthony murdered the child, even though she probably did.
On July 06 2011 03:35 Karthane wrote: Followed this trial for a while, and i truly think she did do it or knows who did, but the evidence was really not there. There was no way they could find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
This is exactly my feeling. Whether she did it or not, the jurors base the decision off of the case itself, and the evidence simply wasn't there.
This bitch TOTALLY knows what happened to her baby... How she died and who was involved.. Now she is going to walk! WTF?! WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS 2 YR OLDS DEATH!?
Casey didnt even claim her child was missing until over a MONTH after she was missing!? What kind of mother does that... !?!?
I'd like to hear your guys' theories as to what happened to the baby, if you think Casey Anthony didn't kill her? I didn't follow the trial, but my parents did, so I ended up hearing a lot about it.
I mean....Whether she did it or not, the baby died somehow.
On July 06 2011 03:35 EnWara wrote: Does no one here know the burden of proof for a murder trial? It's beyond a reasonable doubt. So stop getting pissed at the court system and get pissed at the shitty investigation process.
This is what it would seem
is there any kind of good resource for the information in this case?? I am still kind of confused where the doubt is, but i had only been following it quite passively
I believe the first hole in the prosecution's case was when an expert showed that the duct tape had actually been placed on after the body had already decomposed. This brought up a lot of questions about the first post-mortem autopsy's accuracy and the competence of the original examiner. I didn't follow too closely after that but I also believe the defense brought up the possibility of a cover up story/possible accident that may have taken place involving Casey Anthony's father.
I can't believe she got out to be honest, but I also don't know all the details. Sounds like they just didn't have enough information to get her.
In other words though.. am I the only one that is oddly attracted to this woman. Something about her creepy killerness makes me want to beat it up very bad. lol..
On July 06 2011 03:33 gogogadgetflow wrote: hugs and cheers all around but SOMEBODY put that child in a bag with duct tape on her face and there was NO justice done for that child today.
So sending a woman to gaol who cannot be directly implicated in the murder beyond any and all reasonable doubt it justice?
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.
Obviously we feel bad for the little girl as justice wasn't served but you can't blame the jury for not convicting her without very solid evidence that proves she did it beyond a reasonable doubt. It would be hard being a juror and giving someone a guilty sentence (especially for murder) if you couldn't sit in your bed at night and be convinced that she did it and that you had the evidence to prove it.
Even if she doesn't go to jail her life is still ruined. No one will ever accept, hire her, be nice to her, she called out her dad on trial so her parents hate her, and I have no idea what kind of guy would ever want to be with her.
Yes she was almost certainly at least involved in her childs death but there is a very high burden on the state in this case (beyond a reasonable doubt).
They couldn't physically tie casey to the death through and relied heavily upon circumstantial evidence which normal people don't like (even though the law says it is fine). Also, they never showed her motive which jurors love to hear.
On July 06 2011 03:33 gogogadgetflow wrote: hugs and cheers all around but SOMEBODY put that child in a bag with duct tape on her face and there was NO justice done for that child today.
So sending a woman to gaol who cannot be directly implicated in the murder beyond any and all reasonable doubt it justice?
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 do agree with you there. There was evidence supporting murder 1 but there were holes (admittedly fairly poor), but they were there nonetheless.
On July 06 2011 03:43 RoosterSamurai wrote: I'd like to hear your guys' theories as to what happened to the baby, if you think Casey Anthony didn't kill her? I didn't follow the trial, but my parents did, so I ended up hearing a lot about it.
I mean....Whether she did it or not, the baby died somehow.
There was no actual proof that she killed the kid intentionally. There -may- have been enough evidence to say she may have accidentally killed her or something, however there was no seriously damning evidence, and she was cleared of that as well. A lot of it was on her father, and much of the evidence against her was shot down by the defense with pretty reasonable arguments that certainly put 'doubt' into all 12 of the juror's minds.
I've been saying since halfway through that she's gonna get off. Before the defense even started to take their turn, it didn't really seem like the prosecution had much. I watched about 80% of it, and stayed away from the news, because it's horribly biased, annoying, and covers irresponsible things outside of the actual case itself. Media coverage of this case was so bad, I gave it about 5 minutes and never watched again, as the jurors obviously don't watch media either.
On July 06 2011 03:43 RoosterSamurai wrote: I'd like to hear your guys' theories as to what happened to the baby, if you think Casey Anthony didn't kill her? I didn't follow the trial, but my parents did, so I ended up hearing a lot about it.
I mean....Whether she did it or not, the baby died somehow.
Our justice system is so fucked up it doesnt matter. All that matters is there was no physical evidence despite all the lying and bullshit. Anyone who has followed this with common sense would say she killed her daughter.
On July 06 2011 03:35 EnWara wrote: Does no one here know the burden of proof for a murder trial? It's beyond a reasonable doubt. So stop getting pissed at the court system and get pissed at the shitty investigation process.
This is what it would seem
is there any kind of good resource for the information in this case?? I am still kind of confused where the doubt is, but i had only been following it quite passively
I believe the first hole in the prosecution's case was when an expert showed that the duct tape had actually been placed on after the body had already decomposed. This brought up a lot of questions about the first post-mortem autopsy's accuracy and the competence of the original examiner. I didn't follow too closely after that but I also believe the defense brought up the possibility of a cover up story/possible accident that may have taken place involving Casey Anthony's father.
On July 06 2011 03:43 RoosterSamurai wrote: I'd like to hear your guys' theories as to what happened to the baby, if you think Casey Anthony didn't kill her? I didn't follow the trial, but my parents did, so I ended up hearing a lot about it.
I mean....Whether she did it or not, the baby died somehow.
Our justice system is so fucked up it doesnt matter. All that matters is there was no physical evidence despite all the lying and bullshit. Anyone who has followed this with common sense would say she killed her daughter.
how fucked would the whole system be though if you could convict on flimsy evidence?
On July 06 2011 03:43 RoosterSamurai wrote: I'd like to hear your guys' theories as to what happened to the baby, if you think Casey Anthony didn't kill her? I didn't follow the trial, but my parents did, so I ended up hearing a lot about it.
I mean....Whether she did it or not, the baby died somehow.
Our justice system is so fucked up it doesnt matter. All that matters is there was no physical evidence despite all the lying and bullshit. Anyone who has followed this with common sense would say she killed her daughter.
People can lie for a lot of reasons. I wouldn't want to have a justice system that convict people based on them simply lying through their teeth.
On July 06 2011 03:33 gogogadgetflow wrote: hugs and cheers all around but SOMEBODY put that child in a bag with duct tape on her face and there was NO justice done for that child today.
So sending a woman to gaol who cannot be directly implicated in the murder beyond any and all reasonable doubt it justice?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
there could be a followup trial where they charge casey or her father with wrongful death (i think thats what its called. criminal negligence perhaps?)
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.
My mother followed this case obsessively, and it was pretty much all could hear in my house between the computers, tvs, and laptops she had control of.
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
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?
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.
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.
No that's abhorrent, it should not be judged on subjective beliefs.
Nancy Grace and HLNs response to this is disgusting. They seem personally insulted by this since they were the ones the defense attorney was talking about where the pundits made a decision before hand. Even CNN is talking about how Nancy Grace put this trial under the spotlight and has been saying she was guilty for years. Now she looks like the dumbass that she is and she is spouting all over her channel how this is a false verdict and that casey must have done it etc.
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.
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?
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.
She did not hold her head underwater. She gave her pills to go to sleep, ducktaped her mouth and went out to party. when she came back her daughter was dead.
On July 06 2011 03:35 EnWara wrote: Does no one here know the burden of proof for a murder trial? It's beyond a reasonable doubt. So stop getting pissed at the court system and get pissed at the shitty investigation process.
This is what it would seem
is there any kind of good resource for the information in this case?? I am still kind of confused where the doubt is, but i had only been following it quite passively
I believe the first hole in the prosecution's case was when an expert showed that the duct tape had actually been placed on after the body had already decomposed. This brought up a lot of questions about the first post-mortem autopsy's accuracy and the competence of the original examiner. I didn't follow too closely after that but I also believe the defense brought up the possibility of a cover up story/possible accident that may have taken place involving Casey Anthony's father.
On July 06 2011 03:43 RoosterSamurai wrote: I'd like to hear your guys' theories as to what happened to the baby, if you think Casey Anthony didn't kill her? I didn't follow the trial, but my parents did, so I ended up hearing a lot about it.
I mean....Whether she did it or not, the baby died somehow.
Our justice system is so fucked up it doesnt matter. All that matters is there was no physical evidence despite all the lying and bullshit. Anyone who has followed this with common sense would say she killed her daughter.
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.
One more thing the defense put up a great fight to just show that their was no 100% evidence that the child was killed by the defended only that the child died and it was hidden.
I don't know still makes me wonder how she got off on aggravated child 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.
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.
On July 06 2011 03:33 mewby wrote: this is really sickening, im not a law expert but jesus christ. I learned that the law doesnt follow common sense.
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.
I don't understand this she told them the child got kidnapped 30 days before it was reported to a cop by her mother how isn't that child abuse. Even waiting a day or 2 wouldn't look good but an entire month WTF REALLY.
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.
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.
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>?
On July 06 2011 03:35 EnWara wrote: Does no one here know the burden of proof for a murder trial? It's beyond a reasonable doubt. So stop getting pissed at the court system and get pissed at the shitty investigation process.
This is what it would seem
is there any kind of good resource for the information in this case?? I am still kind of confused where the doubt is, but i had only been following it quite passively
I believe the first hole in the prosecution's case was when an expert showed that the duct tape had actually been placed on after the body had already decomposed. This brought up a lot of questions about the first post-mortem autopsy's accuracy and the competence of the original examiner. I didn't follow too closely after that but I also believe the defense brought up the possibility of a cover up story/possible accident that may have taken place involving Casey Anthony's father.
Cool, thanks.
On July 06 2011 03:47 mewby wrote:
On July 06 2011 03:43 RoosterSamurai wrote: I'd like to hear your guys' theories as to what happened to the baby, if you think Casey Anthony didn't kill her? I didn't follow the trial, but my parents did, so I ended up hearing a lot about it.
I mean....Whether she did it or not, the baby died somehow.
Our justice system is so fucked up it doesnt matter. All that matters is there was no physical evidence despite all the lying and bullshit. Anyone who has followed this with common sense would say she killed her daughter.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Can someone explain to me how the prosecution (if thats what you kill the people representing the state) blew it by going for the death penalty instead of just putting her in jail for a very long time?
On July 06 2011 04:07 MozzarellaL wrote: So my take on what probably happened:
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.
On July 06 2011 04:11 iamho wrote: The best part about this verdict is listening to the manufactured rage of that shrill hag Nancy Grace and her murder-profiteering colleagues.
Yeah shes pissed because they been saying that she was guilty over the last 3 years and then with the defenses attorney mashed on them by saying you dont know nothing about this case lol
On July 06 2011 04:11 mewby wrote: Can someone explain to me how the prosecution (if thats what you kill the people representing the state) blew it by going for the death penalty instead of just putting her in jail for a very long time?
Well, they still didn't prove that Casey was the murderer or even guilty of "aggravated manslaughter". She'll still probably go to jail for a while due to the lying part.
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>?
Pretty easy to understand why its gotten attention. Its got all the drama of a Hollywood movie.
On July 06 2011 04:11 mewby wrote: Can someone explain to me how the prosecution (if thats what you kill the people representing the state) blew it by going for the death penalty instead of just putting her in jail for a very long time?
What? That has nothing to do with anything, that's part of the punishment (which comes after a guilty verdict) and for murder 1 (which the state sought) you can have death penalty or a long gaol time.
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.
Exactly. And our emotions tell "us" that 2 year olds are innocent and whoever killed said child is a monster. Makes me wonder if "we" would be as upset over the verdict of the victim was a criminal. We're all too quick in applying these labels and prejudgments that blind us to how justice system works.
It's called due processing, brahs--if you don't like it, move to another country where you would be stoned to death if you were accused of rape.
On July 06 2011 04:11 mewby wrote: Can someone explain to me how the prosecution (if thats what you kill the people representing the state) blew it by going for the death penalty instead of just putting her in jail for a very long time?
Well, they still didn't prove that Casey was the murderer or even guilty of "aggravated manslaughter". She'll still probably go to jail for a while due to the lying part.
the judge may let her walk this week or put her away for a year. Hardly a fitting punishment. Shit the trial cost Florida probably half a million dollars.
On July 06 2011 04:11 mewby wrote: Can someone explain to me how the prosecution (if thats what you kill the people representing the state) blew it by going for the death penalty instead of just putting her in jail for a very long time?
Well, they still didn't prove that Casey was the murderer or even guilty of "aggravated manslaughter". She'll still probably go to jail for a while due to the lying part.
apparently the max you can get for lying is like 5 years, and the 3 years she spent waiting for the trial is counted towards that, plus she probably wont get the max, so most likely she will walk free this week.
On July 06 2011 04:07 MozzarellaL wrote: So my take on what probably happened:
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.
That is exactly manslaughter, actually.
There is a difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter (not called manslaughter in every jurisdiction). Something tells me aggravated is not the involuntary one.
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>?
Murder of a defenseless child. You are pretty stupid if you don't understand why people would care.
I don't agree with the verdict. But I must respect the jury's decision. They have followed the case closer than anyone else and sat right there. Therefore, I disagree, but I will respect and honor their verdict.
On July 06 2011 04:07 MozzarellaL wrote: So my take on what probably happened:
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.
That is exactly manslaughter, actually.
Manslaughter in Florida requires 'reckless indifference to human life'.
If she was looking up dosage amounts on the internet (which she probably was -- googling chloroform and what not), I would think that counts against having reckless indifference to human life. Granted, it is very stupid. It is criminally negligent, but at least it shows that you cared, and was not recklessly indifferent.
Thank god this is over. I knew she wasn't guilty. I'm sick of seeing the news trucks downtown while I'm trying to party. Maybe Casey will join me at dragon room next week for some shots
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>?
Murder of a defenseless child. You are pretty stupid if you don't understand why people would care.
Little kids get murdered all the time, this one just got popular because Nancy Grace and her HLN crew have spent the last 3 years exploiting it for ratings.
On July 06 2011 04:07 MozzarellaL wrote: So my take on what probably happened:
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.
This is just an assumption. because you are using the states argument that Casey want a better live. But would it be easier to just give her grandmother and grandfather custody other than giving your kids a drug that is used to rape/kidnapped people..........
On July 06 2011 04:11 mewby wrote: Can someone explain to me how the prosecution (if thats what you kill the people representing the state) blew it by going for the death penalty instead of just putting her in jail for a very long time?
Well, they still didn't prove that Casey was the murderer or even guilty of "aggravated manslaughter". She'll still probably go to jail for a while due to the lying part.
the judge may let her walk this week or put her away for a year. Hardly a fitting punishment. Shit the trial cost Florida probably half a million dollars.
Punishment only applies to people who are actually proven guilty. She's only proven guilty for lying to the cops four times, which could be served concurrently or consecutively, depending on a lot of things.
The cost of the trial is NOT an argument for innocence or guilt for obvious reasons. Nor should it be an argument for the degree of punishment. Punishment should be based on the merits of the case alone, not external factors.
From the liveblog on wftv.com Comment From Kevin in Fairfax, VA Kevin in Fairfax, VA: ] They didn't say she is innocent. They said she is not guilty as charged.
This is an extremely important point to take note of.
On July 06 2011 04:07 MozzarellaL wrote: So my take on what probably happened:
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.
That is exactly manslaughter, actually.
Manslaughter in Florida requires 'reckless indifference to human life'.
If she was looking up dosage amounts on the internet (which she probably was -- googling chloroform and what not), I would think that counts against having reckless indifference to human life. Granted, it is very stupid. It is criminally negligent, but at least it shows that you cared, and was not recklessly indifferent.
Sorry, I'm afraid I was mis-informed. Where I come from manslaughter is when you kill someone by accident. Gassing your kid to death would be manslaughter in yosisoy-land.
Also, Florida. I'm not surprised. Where people have trouble understanding how to vote.
What really gets to me is how she could have easily avoided this whole thing. She lives in the shit hole of a swamp state of Florida, can drop her baby off in any swamp and leave it to the crocks. Mind = blown at her stupidity.
i dont understand how the jury came to this. the chlorophorm(sp?) searches on the internet, and traces of it in the trunk seemed like solid enough evidence to me. no one searches for that out of the blue. and the fact that she dissapeared herself while caylee was missing says alot. idk i'm a bit dissapointed honestly. i thought she would get manslaughter and aggravated child abuse at the least.
Anyone up for taking bets on whether or not Casey Anthony gets murdered in prison by a fellow inmate? I'm betting she'll last maybe a couple of months if she's lucky.
Obviously assuming she goes to prison for the lying charges.
On July 06 2011 04:22 Sporadic44 wrote: i dont understand how the jury came to this. the chlorophorm(sp?) searches on the internet, and traces of it in the trunk seemed like solid enough evidence to me. no one searches for that out of the blue. and the fact that she dissapeared herself while caylee was missing says alot. idk i'm a bit dissapointed honestly. i thought she would get manslaughter and aggravated child abuse at the least.
You've never done a search on anything questionable, ever? Plus it was only proved that it was done on her computer, not that Casey searched for it.
And take a look in your garage chemical supply. Chloroform is a common ingredient in automotive repair stuff (generally as propellant in older spray cans, I think).
On July 06 2011 04:24 SolHeiM wrote: Anyone up for taking bets on whether or not Casey Anthony gets murdered in prison by a fellow inmate? I'm betting she'll last maybe a couple of months if she's lucky.
Obviously assuming she goes to prison for the lying charges.
She could easily just get time served since she's already been in jail for a couple years for a crime she was acquitted of.
On July 06 2011 04:22 urasheep wrote: What really gets to me is how she could have easily avoided this whole thing. She lives in the shit hole of a swamp state of Florida, can drop her baby off in any swamp and leave it to the crocks. Mind = blown at her stupidity.
Perfect first post, welcome to TL.
Contrary to your belief, the entire state of Florida isn't swamp. Also, we have alligators here in central Florida, not crocodiles. Lastly, good-bye, as I can't imagine you'll last long here.
On July 06 2011 04:24 SolHeiM wrote: Anyone up for taking bets on whether or not Casey Anthony gets murdered in prison by a fellow inmate? I'm betting she'll last maybe a couple of months if she's lucky.
On July 06 2011 04:24 Eknoid4 wrote: ITT: People insult the justice system because they believed the Media before even asking about the facts.
are you stupid? the facts are that she lied to police for months about helping them find her missing daughter, she partied and was getting tattoos and enjoying her life while her 2 year old daughter was missing, chloroform, smell of death, etc.
On July 06 2011 04:22 Sporadic44 wrote: i dont understand how the jury came to this. the chlorophorm(sp?) searches on the internet, and traces of it in the trunk seemed like solid enough evidence to me. no one searches for that out of the blue. and the fact that she dissapeared herself while caylee was missing says alot. idk i'm a bit dissapointed honestly. i thought she would get manslaughter and aggravated child abuse at the least.
It was conclusively proven that during most of the time the alleged searches took place, Casey was at work.
On July 06 2011 04:22 Sporadic44 wrote: i dont understand how the jury came to this. the chlorophorm(sp?) searches on the internet, and traces of it in the trunk seemed like solid enough evidence to me. no one searches for that out of the blue. and the fact that she dissapeared herself while caylee was missing says alot. idk i'm a bit dissapointed honestly. i thought she would get manslaughter and aggravated child abuse at the least.
The grandmother claimed the google searches. The duct tape didn't fit right. None of the evidence was strong enough.
I'm actually more offended by the fact that this women values her personal desires more than her two year old child. She didn't properly care for her child and as a result, an accident related to negligence led to her child's death. I believe that parenthood is universally understood, even by those without children or parents and even moreso by those who have children or parents that they dearly love. When we see a case like, we begin to wonder that there may be something very wrong about this woman as a person. As a result, we believe she MUST be punished for the sake of cartharsis. We want to believe that this women is a terrible person because of what she did to her child and as a result, we want to believe that terrible people (especially those who kill their own kin) recieve nothing but punishment.
But then again, it's all a matter of perspective. Obviously the mother has her own story. She may have been grieving since it happened, panicing in doubt of what would happen to her, etc. etc. We really can't know all this and I honestly wouldn't want any form of media to pitch it to me in any way. This is why I was not upset at the verdict, just a bit uneasy.
On July 06 2011 04:24 Eknoid4 wrote: ITT: People insult the justice system because they believed the Media before even asking about the facts.
are you stupid? the facts are that she lied to police for months about helping them find her missing daughter, she partied and was getting tattoos and enjoying her life while her 2 year old daughter was missing, chloroform, smell of death, etc.
Everyone is so convinced she is guilty, I'm afraid for her life. I feel like prison would have been a much safer place for it. I wonder if she will receive protection from the govt for the coming years.
On July 06 2011 04:24 Eknoid4 wrote: ITT: People insult the justice system because they believed the Media before even asking about the facts.
are you stupid? the facts are that she lied to police for months about helping them find her missing daughter, she partied and was getting tattoos and enjoying her life while her 2 year old daughter was missing, chloroform, smell of death, etc.
so what you're saying is that if you lie to the police you should get charged with murder ?
On July 06 2011 04:24 Eknoid4 wrote: ITT: People insult the justice system because they believed the Media before even asking about the facts.
are you stupid? the facts are that she lied to police for months about helping them find her missing daughter, she partied and was getting tattoos and enjoying her life while her 2 year old daughter was missing, chloroform, smell of death, etc.
The case was built on a narrative by the prosecution and a bunch of circumstantial evidence.
Summed up perfectly by one of the prosecution's closing argument:
"Who's life was better off with Caylee dead? That's the only question you have to consider."
No! That's not the only question you have to consider!!!!!! wtf!
I think my friend said it well in his facebook post:
I am not gonna say what I think about Casey Anthony and whether she is guilty or not. I will say, it disgusts me that someone can go through every element of the justice system with the fiercest opposition, be found not guilty, and still be crucified by people who have no idea what the truth is. A trial is meant to be what determines guilt and innocence. If you just decide that someone must have gotten it wrong and so it's your right, power and privilege to act as though they are exactly what they were not found to be, you demean justice. Even if you are right. Even if they did it. The idea of a trial is to avoid you and people like you seeking villification and vindication for their own ends. Just so you know.
On July 06 2011 04:29 Gunther wrote: Everyone is so convinced she is guilty, I'm afraid for her life. I feel like prison would have been a much safer place for it. I wonder if she will receive protection from the govt for the coming years.
Yeh same, I'm wouldn't be suprised if a bunch of weirdos try and go vigilante on her ass.
I am not gonna say what I think about Casey Anthony and whether she is guilty or not. I will say, it disgusts me that someone can go through every element of the justice system with the fiercest opposition, be found not guilty, and still be crucified by people who have no idea what the truth is. A trial is meant to be what determines guilt and innocence. If you just decide that someone must have gotten it wrong and so it's your right, power and privilege to act as though they are exactly what they were not found to be, you demean justice. Even if you are right. Even if they did it. The idea of a trial is to avoid you and people like you seeking villification and vindication for their own ends. Just so you know.
That guy is an idiot, a non guilty verdict does not mean innocent. OJ simpson was found not guilty in criminal court, but still guilty in civil court and forced to pay the families of the two people he killed for murder.
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.
Your eyes aren't biased, it's the fact that the human brain is capable of simple logic... But logic never gets you anywhere these days does it?
The fact that she tried that counter suit on her father was enough for me to make my decision on her. But the evidence wasn't there and the prosecution was painful to watch. I remember one of the state's pieces of evidence:
(Begin crude paraphrasing) "We found a shovel and there was a hair on it." "Was it her hair?" "We don't know who it belongs to, but it has been tested and it is hair."
The end result isn't surprising, as the sentences increase, the chance of conviction decreases.
On July 06 2011 04:31 3clipse wrote: I think my friend said it well in his facebook post:
I am not gonna say what I think about Casey Anthony and whether she is guilty or not. I will say, it disgusts me that someone can go through every element of the justice system with the fiercest opposition, be found not guilty, and still be crucified by people who have no idea what the truth is. A trial is meant to be what determines guilt and innocence. If you just decide that someone must have gotten it wrong and so it's your right, power and privilege to act as though they are exactly what they were not found to be, you demean justice. Even if you are right. Even if they did it. The idea of a trial is to avoid you and people like you seeking villification and vindication for their own ends. Just so you know.
That guy is an idiot, a non guilty verdict does not mean innocent. OJ simpson was found not guilty in criminal court, but still guilty in civil court and forced to pay the families of the two people he killed for murder.
I am not gonna say what I think about Casey Anthony and whether she is guilty or not. I will say, it disgusts me that someone can go through every element of the justice system with the fiercest opposition, be found not guilty, and still be crucified by people who have no idea what the truth is. A trial is meant to be what determines guilt and innocence. If you just decide that someone must have gotten it wrong and so it's your right, power and privilege to act as though they are exactly what they were not found to be, you demean justice. Even if you are right. Even if they did it. The idea of a trial is to avoid you and people like you seeking villification and vindication for their own ends. Just so you know.
The outcome of a trial is completely irrelevant to what you should think about it when the entire trial is televised. You don't have to share the opinion of 12 random people anymore than you have to share the opinion of 60 million people that voted for Bush.
On July 06 2011 04:31 3clipse wrote: I think my friend said it well in his facebook post:
I am not gonna say what I think about Casey Anthony and whether she is guilty or not. I will say, it disgusts me that someone can go through every element of the justice system with the fiercest opposition, be found not guilty, and still be crucified by people who have no idea what the truth is. A trial is meant to be what determines guilt and innocence. If you just decide that someone must have gotten it wrong and so it's your right, power and privilege to act as though they are exactly what they were not found to be, you demean justice. Even if you are right. Even if they did it. The idea of a trial is to avoid you and people like you seeking villification and vindication for their own ends. Just so you know.
That guy is an idiot, a non guilty verdict does not mean innocent. OJ simpson was found not guilty in criminal court, but still guilty in civil court and forced to pay the families of the two people he killed for murder.
Public vilification does not a villain make.
Actually I would call her a villain or a psychopath. She was partying the entire time. Yes though you are right, I should not use my common sense on this case and instead defer to a legal system for determining my judgment. Again it just means the jurors, 12 people, decided it was not without a reasonable doubt, not that she did not do it.
She obviously did kill her child IMO. The justice system is wrong a lot of the time. they could not get a "smoking" gun, but it was pretty clear to most people.
She whacked out her kid on accident because she wanted to put her to sleep while she was partying and OD'd her on homemade chloroform. Just like the Jon-Benet Ramsey girl was slapped/knocked down on accident because she didn't do her beauty pageant walk right, mommy dearest style.
We'll never know whether or not she did it, but the fact is that SOMEONE did it, and NO ONE is going to jail over it. It's impossible to feel good about the situation for that reason alone.
On July 06 2011 04:32 dacthehork wrote: That guy is an idiot, a non guilty verdict does not mean innocent. OJ simpson was found not guilty in criminal court, but still guilty in civil court and forced to pay the families of the two people he killed for murder.
On July 06 2011 04:40 AzurewinD wrote: Charge wasn't dropped. She was declared not guilty of aggravated child neglect along with the other charges today.
"The neglect charges were premised on the theory that Caylee was still alive. As the investigation progressed and it became clear that the evidence proved that the child was deceased, the State sought an indictment on the legally appropriate charges."
I am not gonna say what I think about Casey Anthony and whether she is guilty or not. I will say, it disgusts me that someone can go through every element of the justice system with the fiercest opposition, be found not guilty, and still be crucified by people who have no idea what the truth is. A trial is meant to be what determines guilt and innocence. If you just decide that someone must have gotten it wrong and so it's your right, power and privilege to act as though they are exactly what they were not found to be, you demean justice. Even if you are right. Even if they did it. The idea of a trial is to avoid you and people like you seeking villification and vindication for their own ends. Just so you know.
So a non guilty verdict automatically invalidates everyone's opinion on the matter? Are courts infallible arbiters of truth? She was not found guilty legally, but people can hold whatever opinion they like.
On July 06 2011 04:38 mewby wrote: is there any chance that this case will get another shot?
Double jeopardy, the state can't prosecute someone twice for the same crime. If she was found guilty then it's within the realm of possibility that she could get a new trial if there was an appealable issue but obviously that's not the case.
I didn't follow the case extensively but from what I understand there was reasonable doubt, if we imprisoned everyone that probably did it innocent people would inevitably get convicted and that's not a world that I think the majority of us want to live in.
On July 06 2011 04:32 dacthehork wrote: That guy is an idiot, a non guilty verdict does not mean innocent. OJ simpson was found not guilty in criminal court, but still guilty in civil court and forced to pay the families of the two people he killed for murder.
You can't be found guilty in civil court, bro
It is obvious what he means though. He was did not win his case in civil court, and was charged with a monetary penalty, but in criminal court he is still not guilty. Pretty obvious both in this situation are guilty.
On July 06 2011 04:38 mewby wrote: is there any chance that this case will get another shot?
The fifth amendment prevents double jeopardy, so she cannot be charged with the first degree murder of her daughter again. I don't know how it works for slightly different charges, but I don't think the prosecution would be able to convict, unless some new evidence came into play.
On July 06 2011 04:31 3clipse wrote: I think my friend said it well in his facebook post:
I am not gonna say what I think about Casey Anthony and whether she is guilty or not. I will say, it disgusts me that someone can go through every element of the justice system with the fiercest opposition, be found not guilty, and still be crucified by people who have no idea what the truth is. A trial is meant to be what determines guilt and innocence. If you just decide that someone must have gotten it wrong and so it's your right, power and privilege to act as though they are exactly what they were not found to be, you demean justice. Even if you are right. Even if they did it. The idea of a trial is to avoid you and people like you seeking villification and vindication for their own ends. Just so you know.
That guy is an idiot, a non guilty verdict does not mean innocent. OJ simpson was found not guilty in criminal court, but still guilty in civil court and forced to pay the families of the two people he killed for murder.
Public vilification does not a villain make.
Actually I would call her a villain or a psychopath. She was partying the entire time. Yes though you are right, I should not use my common sense on this case and instead defer to a legal system for determining my judgment. Again it just means the jurors, 12 people, decided it was not without a reasonable doubt, not that she did not do it.
She obviously did kill her child IMO. The justice system is wrong a lot of the time. they could not get a "smoking" gun, but it was pretty clear to most people.
Right, what you know from the media obviously trumps the mountains of evidence and testimony presented to the jurors.
I'm not saying it's probable that she didn't do it. With my limited knowledge, I think it's probable that she did. But I recognize that: 1. I really don't know enough to make a truly well-informed decision, and 2. I think society should refrain from demonizing or incarcerating suspects who "probably" committed a crime. Letting the guilty go free sucks, but it's preferable to wrongful convictions.
On July 06 2011 04:31 3clipse wrote: I think my friend said it well in his facebook post:
I am not gonna say what I think about Casey Anthony and whether she is guilty or not. I will say, it disgusts me that someone can go through every element of the justice system with the fiercest opposition, be found not guilty, and still be crucified by people who have no idea what the truth is. A trial is meant to be what determines guilt and innocence. If you just decide that someone must have gotten it wrong and so it's your right, power and privilege to act as though they are exactly what they were not found to be, you demean justice. Even if you are right. Even if they did it. The idea of a trial is to avoid you and people like you seeking villification and vindication for their own ends. Just so you know.
That guy is an idiot, a non guilty verdict does not mean innocent. OJ simpson was found not guilty in criminal court, but still guilty in civil court and forced to pay the families of the two people he killed for murder.
Public vilification does not a villain make.
Actually I would call her a villain or a psychopath. She was partying the entire time. Yes though you are right, I should not use my common sense on this case and instead defer to a legal system for determining my judgment. Again it just means the jurors, 12 people, decided it was not without a reasonable doubt, not that she did not do it.
She obviously did kill her child IMO. The justice system is wrong a lot of the time. they could not get a "smoking" gun, but it was pretty clear to most people.
Yeh let's send her to gaol/give her the death penalty even though there is a small yet existent possibility she is innocent >.<
Remember to get a Not guilty verdict ALL 12 of the members of the jury must agree that she is not guilty....that alone is why I believe she isn't guilty.
Of course she may have done it, and lied about it, but there is no proof...and the defense played upon that by introducing new evidence about child abuse, sexual abuse, chronic lying, misparenting, etc...all sorts of stuff.
white people can stop complaining about O.J good job america
WAY DIFF oj killed his cheating skank of a wife. This woman Held a 3yo's head underwater, or Sufficated her till she drowned then dumped the body.
I'm glad you have your facts straight...
I really think someone will kill her on the street.
I hope she is killed, but think about it realistically, if she gets killed it will be by someone in prison who has nothing to lose. I think it is highly unlikely she is killed anywhere other then jail/prison.
On July 06 2011 04:38 mewby wrote: is there any chance that this case will get another shot?
nope, she is free to do a "I did it" book ala OJ simpson talking about how he murdered 2 people and make good money off this.
I wonder who will play her in the movie.
If she testified and said that she didn't do it then she could be tried for perjury but from what I understand she didn't testify. If she were to admit right now that she did it I'm not sure what the state's recourse would be if any.
On July 06 2011 04:40 AzurewinD wrote: Charge wasn't dropped. She was declared not guilty of aggravated child neglect along with the other charges today.
"The neglect charges were premised on the theory that Caylee was still alive. As the investigation progressed and it became clear that the evidence proved that the child was deceased, the State sought an indictment on the legally appropriate charges."
On July 06 2011 04:45 IntoTheBush wrote: Looks like justice took a day off... Unfortunate, but it just proves that with the right legal representation you can literally get away with murder.
most people seem to be in agreement that the prosecutor didnt exactly do such a hot job and the arugment largely rested on circumstantial stuff??
On July 06 2011 04:43 MaxField wrote: It is obvious what he means though. He was did not win his case in civil court, and was charged with a monetary penalty, but in criminal court he is still not guilty. Pretty obvious both in this situation are guilty.
Wrong yet again. The families of the victim sued him on behalf of the victims for wrongful death and battery. The jury agreed that it was more likely than not that OJ did kill the victims, and awarded the victims' estates monetary damages for things like lost wages, pain and suffering, etc., etc. That is remarkably different from a criminal court proceeding.
On July 06 2011 04:31 3clipse wrote: I think my friend said it well in his facebook post:
I am not gonna say what I think about Casey Anthony and whether she is guilty or not. I will say, it disgusts me that someone can go through every element of the justice system with the fiercest opposition, be found not guilty, and still be crucified by people who have no idea what the truth is. A trial is meant to be what determines guilt and innocence. If you just decide that someone must have gotten it wrong and so it's your right, power and privilege to act as though they are exactly what they were not found to be, you demean justice. Even if you are right. Even if they did it. The idea of a trial is to avoid you and people like you seeking villification and vindication for their own ends. Just so you know.
That guy is an idiot, a non guilty verdict does not mean innocent. OJ simpson was found not guilty in criminal court, but still guilty in civil court and forced to pay the families of the two people he killed for murder.
Public vilification does not a villain make.
Actually I would call her a villain or a psychopath. She was partying the entire time. Yes though you are right, I should not use my common sense on this case and instead defer to a legal system for determining my judgment. Again it just means the jurors, 12 people, decided it was not without a reasonable doubt, not that she did not do it.
She obviously did kill her child IMO. The justice system is wrong a lot of the time. they could not get a "smoking" gun, but it was pretty clear to most people.
Right, what you know from the media obviously trumps the mountains of evidence and testimony presented to the jurors.
I'm not saying it's probable that she didn't do it. With my limited knowledge, I think it's probable that she did. But I recognize that: 1. I really don't know enough to make a truly well-informed decision, and 2. I think society should refrain from demonizing or incarcerating suspects who "probably" committed a crime. Letting the guilty go free sucks, but it's preferable to wrongful convictions.
Do you realize I don't care, it's my opinion she did it based on a whole slew of factors from search terms, going to a party that night and every other night after her daughter is missing 31 days, and getting a tattoo that says "beautiful life". To making up stories that someone abducted her daughter that didn't exist etc.
It's pretty obvious she did do it. I'm honestly not that upset, the world is fucked up this is nothing new but to tell people to think "nah she was probably innocent" is a joke, she murdered her own little girl.
The OJ Simpson case shocked me that fame,power, and wealth could skew the justice system here in the USA. This case (from the tidbits of evidence I've seen) shocks me in that a jury of/by your peers seems to be failing. The part that disturbs me is what happens when the population of a country becomes so amoral uneducated to the point where the jury pool no longer has the tools or the desire to do "justice" based on evidence and objective thinking. Ever since the Iraq Gulf war I've noticed a vacuum in the USA journalist core, it looks like the Judicial branch of gov./ system isn't working as intended by the Founders anymore as well.
On July 06 2011 04:31 3clipse wrote: I think my friend said it well in his facebook post:
I am not gonna say what I think about Casey Anthony and whether she is guilty or not. I will say, it disgusts me that someone can go through every element of the justice system with the fiercest opposition, be found not guilty, and still be crucified by people who have no idea what the truth is. A trial is meant to be what determines guilt and innocence. If you just decide that someone must have gotten it wrong and so it's your right, power and privilege to act as though they are exactly what they were not found to be, you demean justice. Even if you are right. Even if they did it. The idea of a trial is to avoid you and people like you seeking villification and vindication for their own ends. Just so you know.
That guy is an idiot, a non guilty verdict does not mean innocent. OJ simpson was found not guilty in criminal court, but still guilty in civil court and forced to pay the families of the two people he killed for murder.
Public vilification does not a villain make.
Actually I would call her a villain or a psychopath. She was partying the entire time. Yes though you are right, I should not use my common sense on this case and instead defer to a legal system for determining my judgment. Again it just means the jurors, 12 people, decided it was not without a reasonable doubt, not that she did not do it.
She obviously did kill her child IMO. The justice system is wrong a lot of the time. they could not get a "smoking" gun, but it was pretty clear to most people.
There's nothing obvious about it and what you call her has nothing to do with what she is. The people with all the evidence and the express job of giving her a fair ruling without years of media exaggeration are the ones who made that decision, not just 12 random people asked on the street. Just because you think she did it doesn't mean you're qualified to make that decision.
On July 06 2011 04:45 IntoTheBush wrote: Looks like justice took a day off... Unfortunate, but it just proves that with the right legal representation you can literally get away with murder.
most people seem to be in agreement that the prosecutor didnt exactly do such a hot job and the arugment largely rested on circumstantial stuff??
The latter largely being the reason for the prior. Circumstantial evidence is like an opinion, you can't make everyone see it the way you do.
Lol, I bet my friend they she would be not guilty, just won myself $50. Whether she is guilty or not, obviously the justice system won't be right all the time and never will be, but I still think we have the best justice system in the world.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) neither the prosecutors or the defense had or presented enough evidence to support their own claims, let alone dispute the claims of the other party. It was just a mishmash of contradicting stories and contradicting witnesses, at least that's how I felt following the trial on and off. The real tragedy is that whether Anthony is guilty or not, justice wasn't served to the person(s) responsible for Caylee's death.
On July 06 2011 04:45 IntoTheBush wrote: Looks like justice took a day off... Unfortunate, but it just proves that with the right legal representation you can literally get away with murder.
most people seem to be in agreement that the prosecutor didnt exactly do such a hot job and the arugment largely rested on circumstantial stuff??
The latter largely being the reason for the prior. Circumstantial evidence is like an opinion, you can't make everyone see it the way you do.
They did what they could with what they had. They did as well as anyone could have expected them to do.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) neither the prosecutors or the defense had or presented enough evidence to support their own claims, let alone dispute the claims of the other party. It was just a mishmash of contradicting stories and contradicting witnesses, at least that's how I felt following the trial on and off. The real tragedy is that whether Anthony is guilty or not, justice wasn't served to the person(s) responsible for Caylee's death.
This pretty much sums it up eloquently and clearly.
On July 06 2011 04:50 relyt wrote: Lol, I bet my friend they she would be not guilty, just won myself $50. Whether she is guilty or not, obviously the justice system won't be right all the time and never will be, but I still think we have the best justice system in the world.
I agree with this we do have the best system because to be able to convince 12 people that you didn't not do something is no small task and is almost impossible to convince them all on the same decision.
On July 06 2011 04:31 3clipse wrote: I think my friend said it well in his facebook post:
I am not gonna say what I think about Casey Anthony and whether she is guilty or not. I will say, it disgusts me that someone can go through every element of the justice system with the fiercest opposition, be found not guilty, and still be crucified by people who have no idea what the truth is. A trial is meant to be what determines guilt and innocence. If you just decide that someone must have gotten it wrong and so it's your right, power and privilege to act as though they are exactly what they were not found to be, you demean justice. Even if you are right. Even if they did it. The idea of a trial is to avoid you and people like you seeking villification and vindication for their own ends. Just so you know.
That guy is an idiot, a non guilty verdict does not mean innocent. OJ simpson was found not guilty in criminal court, but still guilty in civil court and forced to pay the families of the two people he killed for murder.
Public vilification does not a villain make.
Actually I would call her a villain or a psychopath. She was partying the entire time. Yes though you are right, I should not use my common sense on this case and instead defer to a legal system for determining my judgment. Again it just means the jurors, 12 people, decided it was not without a reasonable doubt, not that she did not do it.
She obviously did kill her child IMO. The justice system is wrong a lot of the time. they could not get a "smoking" gun, but it was pretty clear to most people.
There's nothing obvious about it and what you call her has nothing to do with what she is. The people with all the evidence and the express job of giving her a fair ruling without years of media exaggeration are the ones who made that decision, not just 12 random people asked on the street. Just because you think she did it doesn't mean you're qualified to make that decision.
Im not qualified to make an opinion? Nice point, I didn't say I'm going to execute her or something I just said imo she murdered her daughter. It's not like I believe my opinion will actually change anything.
your point is stupid, just because she was innocent in court doesn't mean it's wrong to still think she is a murderer. Not to mention having an freedom of opinion... honestly I don't understand how any normal person would think she isn't a murderer.
When I woke up I was extremely surprised she wasn't guilty. But I don't see how she didn't do it either. IF she did it she is the best cover up of all time. Other than the cover ups that haven't been found out yet xD
On July 06 2011 04:31 3clipse wrote: I think my friend said it well in his facebook post:
I am not gonna say what I think about Casey Anthony and whether she is guilty or not. I will say, it disgusts me that someone can go through every element of the justice system with the fiercest opposition, be found not guilty, and still be crucified by people who have no idea what the truth is. A trial is meant to be what determines guilt and innocence. If you just decide that someone must have gotten it wrong and so it's your right, power and privilege to act as though they are exactly what they were not found to be, you demean justice. Even if you are right. Even if they did it. The idea of a trial is to avoid you and people like you seeking villification and vindication for their own ends. Just so you know.
That guy is an idiot, a non guilty verdict does not mean innocent. OJ simpson was found not guilty in criminal court, but still guilty in civil court and forced to pay the families of the two people he killed for murder.
Public vilification does not a villain make.
Actually I would call her a villain or a psychopath. She was partying the entire time. Yes though you are right, I should not use my common sense on this case and instead defer to a legal system for determining my judgment. Again it just means the jurors, 12 people, decided it was not without a reasonable doubt, not that she did not do it.
She obviously did kill her child IMO. The justice system is wrong a lot of the time. they could not get a "smoking" gun, but it was pretty clear to most people.
There's nothing obvious about it and what you call her has nothing to do with what she is. The people with all the evidence and the express job of giving her a fair ruling without years of media exaggeration are the ones who made that decision, not just 12 random people asked on the street. Just because you think she did it doesn't mean you're qualified to make that decision.
Im not qualified to make an opinion? Nice point, I didn't say I'm going to execute her or something I just said imo she murdered her daughter.
Lets say you believe the defenses argument that she died in the pool. And all that Casey did was hide the body is that murder? or just stupidity IMHO its just a stupid decision to hide a body but is no way near enough to kill someone over it. despite what you belive
On July 06 2011 04:51 Charger wrote: Unfortunately (or fortunately) neither the prosecutors or the defense had or presented enough evidence to support their own claims, let alone dispute the claims of the other party. It was just a mishmash of contradicting stories and contradicting witnesses, at least that's how I felt following the trial on and off. The real tragedy is that whether Anthony is guilty or not, justice wasn't served to the person(s) responsible for Caylee's death.
The defense doesn't have to prove anything, just to poke holes in the prosecution's case. The burden of proof wholly lies in the prosecution. Not to mention that juries can only convict on the charges that they were asked to consider. They can't convict suspects of lesser charges if the prosecution doesn't include those lesser charges.
I am not surprised she was found not guilty. It seems to be this way with all the huge cases that get weeks of nationwide coverage. I, however, still haven't heard a plausible story for how she didn't do it - guess its a good thing I wasnt a juror.
On July 06 2011 04:19 Phenny wrote: From the liveblog on wftv.com Comment From Kevin in Fairfax, VA Kevin in Fairfax, VA: ] They didn't say she is innocent. They said she is not guilty as charged.
This is an extremely important point to take note of.
Kevin is a moron trying to show how intelligent he is by playing semantics.
in·no·cent/ˈinəsənt/ Noun: An innocent person, in particular. Adjective: Not guilty of a crime or offense
On July 06 2011 04:31 3clipse wrote: I think my friend said it well in his facebook post:
I am not gonna say what I think about Casey Anthony and whether she is guilty or not. I will say, it disgusts me that someone can go through every element of the justice system with the fiercest opposition, be found not guilty, and still be crucified by people who have no idea what the truth is. A trial is meant to be what determines guilt and innocence. If you just decide that someone must have gotten it wrong and so it's your right, power and privilege to act as though they are exactly what they were not found to be, you demean justice. Even if you are right. Even if they did it. The idea of a trial is to avoid you and people like you seeking villification and vindication for their own ends. Just so you know.
That guy is an idiot, a non guilty verdict does not mean innocent. OJ simpson was found not guilty in criminal court, but still guilty in civil court and forced to pay the families of the two people he killed for murder.
Public vilification does not a villain make.
Actually I would call her a villain or a psychopath. She was partying the entire time. Yes though you are right, I should not use my common sense on this case and instead defer to a legal system for determining my judgment. Again it just means the jurors, 12 people, decided it was not without a reasonable doubt, not that she did not do it.
She obviously did kill her child IMO. The justice system is wrong a lot of the time. they could not get a "smoking" gun, but it was pretty clear to most people.
There's nothing obvious about it and what you call her has nothing to do with what she is. The people with all the evidence and the express job of giving her a fair ruling without years of media exaggeration are the ones who made that decision, not just 12 random people asked on the street. Just because you think she did it doesn't mean you're qualified to make that decision.
Im not qualified to make an opinion? Nice point, I didn't say I'm going to execute her or something I just said imo she murdered her daughter.
Lets say you believe the defenses argument that she died in the pool. And all that Casey did was hide the body is that murder? or just stupidity IMHO its just a stupid decision to hide a body but is no way near enough to kill someone over it. despite what you belive
Actually I believe in guilt regardless of intention. Also the whole going out that same night and participating in a show off your rack contest etc. A normal person would have called the police/ambulance, and even in that case it's the parents responsibility to protect their children from drowning, and In my opinion a murder charge would be fine.
Do you understand that people's opinions do not have to match the legal systems in the country they are born? For instance I am very in favor of punishments like giving murder charges for DUI/car accidents/negligence/manslaughter/having a very young child drown while watching them / leaving a baby in a car in summer etc.
On July 06 2011 04:19 Phenny wrote: From the liveblog on wftv.com Comment From Kevin in Fairfax, VA Kevin in Fairfax, VA: ] They didn't say she is innocent. They said she is not guilty as charged.
This is an extremely important point to take note of.
Kevin is a moron trying to show how intelligent he is by playing semantics.
in·no·cent/ˈinəsənt/ Noun: An innocent person, in particular. Adjective: Not guilty of a crime or offense
well what he said is true, and jurors sometimes do come out afterward saying that they thought the person was guilty but could not convict. The NYC Cop rape case just a few weeks ago being a prime example. Similar in some ways how everything points to it, but no real hard evidence to act on.
mob mentality is hilarious. it's like you all, without any detailed facts, want her to be guilty so you can group together with pitchforks and chant burn the witch. it goes beyond not having trust in the legal system. all is fine until you are on the other side of the hypocrisy
On July 06 2011 04:19 Phenny wrote: From the liveblog on wftv.com Comment From Kevin in Fairfax, VA Kevin in Fairfax, VA: ] They didn't say she is innocent. They said she is not guilty as charged.
This is an extremely important point to take note of.
Kevin is a moron trying to show how intelligent he is by playing semantics.
in·no·cent/ˈinəsənt/ Noun: An innocent person, in particular. Adjective: Not guilty of a crime or offense
What he's saying is that she isn't innocent of killing Cayley necessarily, but she is not guilty of 1st degree murder as she was charged (for the fact she cannot be clearly and directly implicated and that there is definite grounds for reasonable doubt).
It's easy to forget that justice is not the same as revenge. The public wanted revenge, but the jury delivered justice. It was the correct decision. The prosecution overreached and the investigation was sloppy -- whether or not she actually killed her daughter is beside the point.
That Jury did the right thing even though they knew everyone would hate it. That's pretty admirable, in my opinion. If you could convict someone of murder without proper evidence, then imagine what kind of a country we would live in..*shudder*. Though we can't say for sure(and anyone who thinks they can say for sure is pretty misguided) whether or not she killed the child, if we can't prove she did, we can't charge her for murder. It's that simple. Regardless, it doesn't really matter that much. That woman's life is completely destroyed. Putting her in jail would probably help her more than be a punishment, imo
On July 06 2011 04:31 3clipse wrote: I think my friend said it well in his facebook post:
I am not gonna say what I think about Casey Anthony and whether she is guilty or not. I will say, it disgusts me that someone can go through every element of the justice system with the fiercest opposition, be found not guilty, and still be crucified by people who have no idea what the truth is. A trial is meant to be what determines guilt and innocence. If you just decide that someone must have gotten it wrong and so it's your right, power and privilege to act as though they are exactly what they were not found to be, you demean justice. Even if you are right. Even if they did it. The idea of a trial is to avoid you and people like you seeking villification and vindication for their own ends. Just so you know.
That guy is an idiot, a non guilty verdict does not mean innocent. OJ simpson was found not guilty in criminal court, but still guilty in civil court and forced to pay the families of the two people he killed for murder.
Public vilification does not a villain make.
Actually I would call her a villain or a psychopath. She was partying the entire time. Yes though you are right, I should not use my common sense on this case and instead defer to a legal system for determining my judgment. Again it just means the jurors, 12 people, decided it was not without a reasonable doubt, not that she did not do it.
She obviously did kill her child IMO. The justice system is wrong a lot of the time. they could not get a "smoking" gun, but it was pretty clear to most people.
There's nothing obvious about it and what you call her has nothing to do with what she is. The people with all the evidence and the express job of giving her a fair ruling without years of media exaggeration are the ones who made that decision, not just 12 random people asked on the street. Just because you think she did it doesn't mean you're qualified to make that decision.
Im not qualified to make an opinion? Nice point, I didn't say I'm going to execute her or something I just said imo she murdered her daughter.
Lets say you believe the defenses argument that she died in the pool. And all that Casey did was hide the body is that murder? or just stupidity IMHO its just a stupid decision to hide a body but is no way near enough to kill someone over it. despite what you belive
Actually I believe in guilt regardless of intention. Also the whole going out that same night and participating in a show off your rack contest etc. A normal person would have called the police/ambulance, and even in that case it's the parents responsibility to protect their children from drowning, and In my opinion a murder charge would be fine.
Do you understand that people's opinions do not have to match the legal systems in the country they are born?
A death by accident cannot be seen as murder 1 because of what murder one states which i not sure what it is but if their was enough proof they would of gave it to her. By 12 people saying not guilty that should be able to prove that she is not guilty of murder one but im not saying shes innocent of everything. Im sure she didnt something like negligence before the drowning (or who ever was inchareged of the child at that moment) because she was oviosiulsy not being watched over. But in no way is close to murder in the 1st degree.
On July 06 2011 05:01 Kokujin wrote: mob mentality is hilarious. it's like you all, without any detailed facts, want her to be guilty so you can group together with pitchforks and chant burn the witch. it goes beyond not having trust in the legal system. all is fine until you are on the other side of the hypocrisy
I don't think it is that at all. It's just a small example of how shitty humanity is and the lack of justice in it. The fact a 3-4 year old girl is dead, buried in a shallow grave, and her mother partied that night and the other 31 days without ever reporting her missing and will not face any real justice is what people are upset about. Because people with empathy understand that if your little daughter goes missing 31 days you dont party the whole time unless you are severely psychopathic and guilty. Including making up a story that her babysitter abducted her. Most people can use logical deduction to figure out what happened.
On July 06 2011 04:31 3clipse wrote: I think my friend said it well in his facebook post:
I am not gonna say what I think about Casey Anthony and whether she is guilty or not. I will say, it disgusts me that someone can go through every element of the justice system with the fiercest opposition, be found not guilty, and still be crucified by people who have no idea what the truth is. A trial is meant to be what determines guilt and innocence. If you just decide that someone must have gotten it wrong and so it's your right, power and privilege to act as though they are exactly what they were not found to be, you demean justice. Even if you are right. Even if they did it. The idea of a trial is to avoid you and people like you seeking villification and vindication for their own ends. Just so you know.
That guy is an idiot, a non guilty verdict does not mean innocent. OJ simpson was found not guilty in criminal court, but still guilty in civil court and forced to pay the families of the two people he killed for murder.
Public vilification does not a villain make.
Actually I would call her a villain or a psychopath. She was partying the entire time. Yes though you are right, I should not use my common sense on this case and instead defer to a legal system for determining my judgment. Again it just means the jurors, 12 people, decided it was not without a reasonable doubt, not that she did not do it.
She obviously did kill her child IMO. The justice system is wrong a lot of the time. they could not get a "smoking" gun, but it was pretty clear to most people.
There's nothing obvious about it and what you call her has nothing to do with what she is. The people with all the evidence and the express job of giving her a fair ruling without years of media exaggeration are the ones who made that decision, not just 12 random people asked on the street. Just because you think she did it doesn't mean you're qualified to make that decision.
Im not qualified to make an opinion? Nice point, I didn't say I'm going to execute her or something I just said imo she murdered her daughter.
Lets say you believe the defenses argument that she died in the pool. And all that Casey did was hide the body is that murder? or just stupidity IMHO its just a stupid decision to hide a body but is no way near enough to kill someone over it. despite what you belive
Actually I believe in guilt regardless of intention. Also the whole going out that same night and participating in a show off your rack contest etc. A normal person would have called the police/ambulance, and even in that case it's the parents responsibility to protect their children from drowning, and In my opinion a murder charge would be fine.
Do you understand that people's opinions do not have to match the legal systems in the country they are born?
A death by accident cannot be seen as murder 1 because of what murder one states which i not sure what it is but if their was enough proof they would of gave it to her. By 12 people saying not guilty that should be able to prove that she is not guilty of murder one but im not saying shes innocent of everything. Im sure she didnt something like negligence before the drowning (or who ever was inchareged of the child at that moment) because she was oviosiulsy not being watched over. But in no way is close to murder in the 1st degree.
It completely flew over your head right? I meant in my opinion and my beliefs not the legal systems. Do you not understand you can hold personal beliefs and opinions and don't have to follow a national version? Yes I know it is not possible to charge someone for accidentally running over someone with murder in America. It's just in my personal belief, if you by stupidity, error, or while in charge cause someone to die it should be murder regardless of intent. It's a very hard line view not many people have.
lol at all the people in this thread screaming she's guilty. Based on the evidence a jury found that there was reasonable doubt that she committed the crime. There were no eyewitnesses, and all evidence was circumstantial at best. They made the right decision, imo.
On a related note, its things like this that make me wish trials weren't televised like some sporting event. Now the whole country will be up in arms and Casey Anthony, who is not guilty of murder, will still be treated like a murderer. Trials being made into these spectacles by the media biases people to the point of blindness to the facts of the matter, and leads to the verdict being cheapened. She's innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around, and yet now that her non-guilt is confirmed she'll probably be treated even worse for something a jury of her peers said she did not do.
white people can stop complaining about O.J good job america
WAY DIFF oj killed his cheating skank of a wife. This woman Held a 3yo's head underwater, or Sufficated her till she drowned then dumped the body.
both did it and got away with it , no ? not much difference then
I hate to sound like a biggemist here but she almost deserved it cheating on her husband. He almost could have pleaded guilty via temporary insanity and gotten off cause didnt they accuse him of coming home finding his wife cheating getting the weapon and killing them? or was it premeditated I forgot. Oh well im not much of a religious person but for today im hoping 100% that there is a hell just for this women.
yeah it's not like oj beat the shit out of his wife before she cheated on him bitch deserved to die you know??????
On July 06 2011 04:59 dacthehork wrote: Actually I believe in guilt regardless of intention. Also the whole going out that same night and participating in a show off your rack contest etc. A normal person would have called the police/ambulance, and even in that case it's the parents responsibility to protect their children from drowning, and In my opinion a murder charge would be fine.
Do you understand that people's opinions do not have to match the legal systems in the country they are born? For instance I am very in favor of punishments like giving murder charges for DUI/car accidents/negligence/manslaughter/having a very young child drown while watching them / leaving a baby in a car in summer etc.
What you describe is the difference between a country governed by law, and a country governed by despotism. Do you understand what murder is defined as? It isn't what you want it to be, it is what is written down in the fucking book of statutes.
On July 06 2011 05:01 Kokujin wrote: mob mentality is hilarious. it's like you all, without any detailed facts, want her to be guilty so you can group together with pitchforks and chant burn the witch. it goes beyond not having trust in the legal system. all is fine until you are on the other side of the hypocrisy
I don't think it is that at all. It's just a small example of how shitty humanity is and the lack of justice in it. The fact a 3-4 year old girl is dead, buried in a shallow grave, and her mother partied that night and the other 31 days without ever reporting her missing and will not face any real justice is what people are upset about. Because people with empathy understand that if your little daughter goes missing 31 days you dont party the whole time unless you are severely psychopathic and guilty. Including making up a story that her babysitter abducted her. Most people can use logical deduction to figure out what happened.
No, you cannot speculate, especially not when you are potentially holding someones life in the balance. You can only go by the facts and evidence provided.
On July 06 2011 05:01 Kokujin wrote: mob mentality is hilarious. it's like you all, without any detailed facts, want her to be guilty so you can group together with pitchforks and chant burn the witch. it goes beyond not having trust in the legal system. all is fine until you are on the other side of the hypocrisy
We have the mob mentality to ensure that if anyone ends up on the other side of said "hypocrisy", that we can rightfully persecute him or her by the rules set up by said mob mentality. That way, if someone happens to fall on the other side, that one person can't weasle his or her way out of what he or she used to support.
And besides, this isn't a witch hunt. I think Anthony has a higher chance of being a murderer than a woman actually being a witch. At least that's what conventional logic tells us. Maybe we'll find one day that there are no murderer's, only witches that frame the murderers.
On July 06 2011 04:59 dacthehork wrote: Actually I believe in guilt regardless of intention. Also the whole going out that same night and participating in a show off your rack contest etc. A normal person would have called the police/ambulance, and even in that case it's the parents responsibility to protect their children from drowning, and In my opinion a murder charge would be fine.
Do you understand that people's opinions do not have to match the legal systems in the country they are born? For instance I am very in favor of punishments like giving murder charges for DUI/car accidents/negligence/manslaughter/having a very young child drown while watching them / leaving a baby in a car in summer etc.
What you describe is the difference between a country governed by law, and a country governed by despotism. Do you understand what murder is defined as? It isn't what you want it to be, it is what is written down in the fucking book of statutes.
Holy crap you don't understand, It's my personal opinion NOTHING MORE. I'm allowed to have that opinion, I do not think they will change the laws on murders because of my opinions. What it is defined as legally in America does not effect my opinion.
On July 06 2011 05:07 SilverJohnny wrote: lol at all the people in this thread screaming she's guilty. Based on the evidence a jury found that there was reasonable doubt that she committed the crime. There were no eyewitnesses, and all evidence was circumstantial at best. They made the right decision, imo.
On a related note, its things like this that make me wish trials weren't televised like some sporting event. Now the whole country will be up in arms and Casey Anthony, who is not guilty of murder, will still be treated like a murderer. Trials being made into these spectacles by the media biases people to the point of blindness to the facts of the matter, and leads to the verdict being cheapened. She's innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around, and yet now that her non-guilt is confirmed she'll probably be treated even worse for something a jury of her peers said she did not do.
So people aren't allowed to think she's guilty, and state that opinion? When did courts become infallible arbiters of truth?
On July 06 2011 05:01 Kokujin wrote: mob mentality is hilarious. it's like you all, without any detailed facts, want her to be guilty so you can group together with pitchforks and chant burn the witch. it goes beyond not having trust in the legal system. all is fine until you are on the other side of the hypocrisy
I don't think it is that at all. It's just a small example of how shitty humanity is and the lack of justice in it. The fact a 3-4 year old girl is dead, buried in a shallow grave, and her mother partied that night and the other 31 days without ever reporting her missing and will not face any real justice is what people are upset about. Because people with empathy understand that if your little daughter goes missing 31 days you dont party the whole time unless you are severely psychopathic and guilty. Including making up a story that her babysitter abducted her. Most people can use logical deduction to figure out what happened.
I, for one, am glad that our justice system takes as much care as possible to remove irrational emotions from its due process. Justice is concerned with fair punishment as well. Juries shouldn't convict on grave charges that the evidence do not support just because some people want to go "Hulk smash!"
On July 06 2011 05:01 Kokujin wrote: mob mentality is hilarious. it's like you all, without any detailed facts, want her to be guilty so you can group together with pitchforks and chant burn the witch. it goes beyond not having trust in the legal system. all is fine until you are on the other side of the hypocrisy
I don't think it is that at all. It's just a small example of how shitty humanity is and the lack of justice in it. The fact a 3-4 year old girl is dead, buried in a shallow grave, and her mother partied that night and the other 31 days without ever reporting her missing and will not face any real justice is what people are upset about. Because people with empathy understand that if your little daughter goes missing 31 days you dont party the whole time unless you are severely psychopathic and guilty. Including making up a story that her babysitter abducted her. Most people can use logical deduction to figure out what happened.
No, you cannot speculate, especially not when you are potentially holding someones life in the balance. You can only go by the facts and evidence provided.
Yes I can speculate, jesus christ, what are you talking about? No ones life is in the balance if I have that opinion. Are they going to execute her because I think it would be just? No. I am going by the facts and evidence I have seen in forming my opinion. I don't think you have any idea what I am saying.
I'm just saying its perfectly reasonable for people to be upset and think justice was not served despite an "official ruling", people are entitled to their opinions and to speculate.
On July 06 2011 05:10 dacthehork wrote: Holy crap you don't understand, It's my personal opinion NOTHING MORE. I'm allowed to have that opinion, I do not think they will change the laws on murders because of my opinions. What it is defined as legally in America does not effect my opinion.
You're allowed to have opinions. You aren't allowed to be free from criticism for having a stupid opinion.
On July 06 2011 05:11 Olinim wrote: So people aren't allowed to think she's guilty, and state that opinion? When did courts become infallible arbiters of truth?
When 12 people had to sit in court and listen to 8 hrs of evidence every day for 3 weeks. Your opinion on her guilt is worthless. Do you ask Sarah Palin about US-Russian foreign policy just because she can see Russia from her house? When did people working in federal government who studied foreign policy for decades become authoritative judges on foreign policy decisions?
On July 06 2011 05:10 dacthehork wrote: Holy crap you don't understand, It's my personal opinion NOTHING MORE. I'm allowed to have that opinion, I do not think they will change the laws on murders because of my opinions. What it is defined as legally in America does not effect my opinion.
You're allowed to have opinions. You aren't allowed to be free from criticism for having a stupid opinion.
My bad it's clear the mother who never reported her daughter missing after even 31 days, who partied that whole time, who had search forms for chloroform (used on the little girl) and broken neck is innocent. Whoops my daughter vanished sometime, I have no idea where she is, better go party and lie to my family that she is at an imaginary babysitter who kidnapped her's house.
Yes thinking that isn't about the most damning set of situations is stupid.
On July 06 2011 05:07 SilverJohnny wrote: lol at all the people in this thread screaming she's guilty. Based on the evidence a jury found that there was reasonable doubt that she committed the crime. There were no eyewitnesses, and all evidence was circumstantial at best. They made the right decision, imo.
On a related note, its things like this that make me wish trials weren't televised like some sporting event. Now the whole country will be up in arms and Casey Anthony, who is not guilty of murder, will still be treated like a murderer. Trials being made into these spectacles by the media biases people to the point of blindness to the facts of the matter, and leads to the verdict being cheapened. She's innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around, and yet now that her non-guilt is confirmed she'll probably be treated even worse for something a jury of her peers said she did not do.
So people aren't allowed to think she's guilty, and state that opinion? When did courts become infallible arbiters of truth?
It's perfectly acceptable to believe she did killed her, infact I do or at least I believe she knows a significant amount of info about what happened.
However to not conceed that there are grounds for reasonable doubt to the murder 1 charge is just blind hatred without considering the evidence presented and observering that it's mostly circumstancial, strong but still circumstancial.
On July 06 2011 05:11 Olinim wrote: So people aren't allowed to think she's guilty, and state that opinion? When did courts become infallible arbiters of truth?
When 12 people had to sit in court and listen to 8 hrs of evidence every day for 3 weeks. Your opinion on her guilt is worthless. Do you ask Sarah Palin about US-Russian foreign policy just because she can see Russia from her house? When did people working in federal government who studied foreign policy for decades become authoritative judges on foreign policy decisions?
Oh, wait.
What's your point? It's not like they are fucking polling the public on their opinion to have an impact on the case. If you didn't want to hear people's OPINIONS on the matter why did you open the fucking thread? No one is elevating their opinion on the matter.
I don't agree with the media like Nancy grace etc. But I think the fault is with the prosecution. They put sooooo much on the fact she deliberately killed her daughter so she could go back to the glory days. When you try to get every charge under the rainbow, it diluties your case, doesn't look like you know what you want. See Michael Jackson trial.
Either way, however you want to think this poor girl died. It doesn't change that her mom wrapped her in a garbage bag, duck taped whatever she duck taped, threw the body in the car for days and days, didn't report her little girl missing for 1 month, and never took the stand to have the chance to truly explain everything. And with good behavior who knows when Casey Anthony might get out.
But.....the real focus should be on this little girl and not her mom.
On July 06 2011 05:01 Kokujin wrote: mob mentality is hilarious. it's like you all, without any detailed facts, want her to be guilty so you can group together with pitchforks and chant burn the witch. it goes beyond not having trust in the legal system. all is fine until you are on the other side of the hypocrisy
I don't think it is that at all. It's just a small example of how shitty humanity is and the lack of justice in it. The fact a 3-4 year old girl is dead, buried in a shallow grave, and her mother partied that night and the other 31 days without ever reporting her missing and will not face any real justice is what people are upset about. Because people with empathy understand that if your little daughter goes missing 31 days you dont party the whole time unless you are severely psychopathic and guilty. Including making up a story that her babysitter abducted her. Most people can use logical deduction to figure out what happened.
Well, thank God we have you, Mr. Ace Psychologist, for letting us into the mind of this woman! I mean, I watched the trial, and I know they presented evidence, and facts, and research that they did for literally years, but I find your forum warrior opinions to be much more convincing. I agree, going out partying obviously must make her a horrible human and a psychopath who murdered her daughter, there is no other explanation! it couldn't be that anything else happened to her daughter, and Casey, distraught, afraid, and unable to cope with it, shut down and tried to drown her sorrows in drugs, alcohol, and partying. No, that would never even be a possibility, would it? And even if she didn't do anything wrong, at all, other than go out and party, we should definitely hold her responsible for something entirely different right? I mean, I remember a time when I accidentally hit someone with a ball while playing catch, and two weeks later they died, and I was more than happy to be found guilty of murder because, well, circumstances showed that I had been violent towards that person and then partied for two weeks!
On July 06 2011 05:10 dacthehork wrote: Holy crap you don't understand, It's my personal opinion NOTHING MORE. I'm allowed to have that opinion, I do not think they will change the laws on murders because of my opinions. What it is defined as legally in America does not effect my opinion.
You're allowed to have opinions. You aren't allowed to be free from criticism for having a stupid opinion.
On July 06 2011 05:01 Kokujin wrote: mob mentality is hilarious. it's like you all, without any detailed facts, want her to be guilty so you can group together with pitchforks and chant burn the witch. it goes beyond not having trust in the legal system. all is fine until you are on the other side of the hypocrisy
I don't think it is that at all. It's just a small example of how shitty humanity is and the lack of justice in it. The fact a 3-4 year old girl is dead, buried in a shallow grave, and her mother partied that night and the other 31 days without ever reporting her missing and will not face any real justice is what people are upset about. Because people with empathy understand that if your little daughter goes missing 31 days you dont party the whole time unless you are severely psychopathic and guilty. Including making up a story that her babysitter abducted her. Most people can use logical deduction to figure out what happened.
No, you cannot speculate, especially not when you are potentially holding someones life in the balance. You can only go by the facts and evidence provided.
Yes I can speculate, jesus christ, what are you talking about? No ones life is in the balance if I have that opinion. Are they going to execute her because I think it would be just? No. I am going by the facts and evidence I have seen in forming my opinion. I don't think you have any idea what I am saying.
I'm just saying its perfectly reasonable for people to be upset and think justice was not served despite an "official ruling", people are entitled to their opinions and to speculate.
My bad. I thought you were speaking from a jurors perspective, reread what you quoted, your speculation is completely fine.
On July 06 2011 05:10 dacthehork wrote: Holy crap you don't understand, It's my personal opinion NOTHING MORE. I'm allowed to have that opinion, I do not think they will change the laws on murders because of my opinions. What it is defined as legally in America does not effect my opinion.
You're allowed to have opinions. You aren't allowed to be free from criticism for having a stupid opinion.
My bad it's clear the mother who never reported her daughter missing after even 31 days, who partied that whole time, who had search forms for chloroform (used on the little girl) and broken neck is innocent. Whoops my daughter vanished sometime, I have no idea where she is, better go party and lie to my family that she is at an imaginary babysitter who kidnapped her's house.
Yes thinking that isn't about the most damning set of situations is stupid.
Having the opinion that a drunk driver should be considered the same as a man who plans to kill his wife for insurance money and carries the act through is a stupid opinion. Thinking that an irresponsible mother who accidentally killed her child should be treated the same as a gang member who robs a house and kills the inhabitants is also a stupid opinion.
On July 06 2011 05:11 Olinim wrote: So people aren't allowed to think she's guilty, and state that opinion? When did courts become infallible arbiters of truth?
When 12 people had to sit in court and listen to 8 hrs of evidence every day for 3 weeks. Your opinion on her guilt is worthless. Do you ask Sarah Palin about US-Russian foreign policy just because she can see Russia from her house? When did people working in federal government who studied foreign policy for decades become authoritative judges on foreign policy decisions?
Oh, wait.
you do realize OJ simpson was found not guilty and later admitted to doing the murders, even writing a book "I did it", and there have been countless other cases. Probably the most frequent example is numerous convicted rapists and murderers who where later found innocent 10-20 years later when DNA testing started.
On July 06 2011 04:19 Phenny wrote: From the liveblog on wftv.com Comment From Kevin in Fairfax, VA Kevin in Fairfax, VA: ] They didn't say she is innocent. They said she is not guilty as charged.
This is an extremely important point to take note of.
Kevin is a moron trying to show how intelligent he is by playing semantics.
in·no·cent/ˈinəsənt/ Noun: An innocent person, in particular. Adjective: Not guilty of a crime or offense
What he's saying is that she isn't innocent of killing Cayley necessarily, but she is not guilty of 1st degree murder as she was charged (for the fact she cannot be clearly and directly implicated and that there is definite grounds for reasonable doubt).
She was found not guilty on the manslaughter charge as well, which was the lowest (burden of proof) charge of homicide the prosecution brought in this case. If the prosecution couldn't prove her guilty of manslaughter, the state is saying that as far as it's concerned she didn't kill her child.
On July 06 2011 05:10 dacthehork wrote: Holy crap you don't understand, It's my personal opinion NOTHING MORE. I'm allowed to have that opinion, I do not think they will change the laws on murders because of my opinions. What it is defined as legally in America does not effect my opinion.
You're allowed to have opinions. You aren't allowed to be free from criticism for having a stupid opinion.
My bad it's clear the mother who never reported her daughter missing after even 31 days, who partied that whole time, who had search forms for chloroform (used on the little girl) and broken neck is innocent. Whoops my daughter vanished sometime, I have no idea where she is, better go party and lie to my family that she is at an imaginary babysitter who kidnapped her's house.
Yes thinking that isn't about the most damning set of situations is stupid.
Having the opinion that a drunk driver should be considered the same as a man who plans to kill his wife for insurance money and carries the act through is a stupid opinion. Thinking that an irresponsible mother who accidentally killed her child should be treated the same as a gang member who robs a house and kills the inhabitants is also a stupid opinion.
Not really, in my world view when you risk someone elses life (say drunk driving) and do in fact kill them you are guilty of murder. As the intent to kill someone is there, just a smaller percent. Same reason I think attempted murder should be the same as murder. In the case of a parent letting a child drown to death due to poor parenting or leaving them in a locked car in the sun, it's the parents express responsibility to keep them alive, by failing to do so they basically did murder them in my eyes.
It's more the fact someone died due to the actions of someone else. Not whether it was shooting them in the head or driving into the side of their car randomly at 80 mph.
On July 06 2011 04:22 Sporadic44 wrote: i dont understand how the jury came to this. the chlorophorm(sp?) searches on the internet, and traces of it in the trunk seemed like solid enough evidence to me. no one searches for that out of the blue. and the fact that she dissapeared herself while caylee was missing says alot. idk i'm a bit dissapointed honestly. i thought she would get manslaughter and aggravated child abuse at the least.
The grandmother claimed the google searches. The duct tape didn't fit right. None of the evidence was strong enough.
The grandmother claiming the searches was ridiculous. Why on Earth would you google if chlorophyll is bad for your dogs?
On July 06 2011 05:10 dacthehork wrote: Holy crap you don't understand, It's my personal opinion NOTHING MORE. I'm allowed to have that opinion, I do not think they will change the laws on murders because of my opinions. What it is defined as legally in America does not effect my opinion.
You're allowed to have opinions. You aren't allowed to be free from criticism for having a stupid opinion.
My bad it's clear the mother who never reported her daughter missing after even 31 days, who partied that whole time, who had search forms for chloroform (used on the little girl) and broken neck is innocent. Whoops my daughter vanished sometime, I have no idea where she is, better go party and lie to my family that she is at an imaginary babysitter who kidnapped her's house.
Yes thinking that isn't about the most damning set of situations is stupid.
That doesn't prove a thing. And it doesn't prove that she deserves the punishment that murder one gives, which can include life imprisonment or the death penalty. It's funny you talk about having empathy and logic when you haven't risen above the basic human desire to just mindlessly smash things when they don't go your way.
The prosecutors tried a charge that contained premeditation to give out a greater punishment. It didn't work. Society has long distinguished between intentional, malicious and accidental for a host of good reasons. Yes, an opinion that doesn't distinguish between them is horribly misguided.
On July 06 2011 05:18 dacthehork wrote: you do realize OJ simpson was found not guilty and later admitted to doing the murders, even writing a book "I did it", and there have been countless other cases. Probably the most frequent example is numerous convicted rapists and murderers who where later found innocent 10-20 years later when DNA testing started.
What does that have anything to do with making a determination based on the available evidence (what a jury does), and making a determination based off your gut (what people ITT and everywhere else do)?
On July 06 2011 04:19 Phenny wrote: From the liveblog on wftv.com Comment From Kevin in Fairfax, VA Kevin in Fairfax, VA: ] They didn't say she is innocent. They said she is not guilty as charged.
This is an extremely important point to take note of.
Kevin is a moron trying to show how intelligent he is by playing semantics.
in·no·cent/ˈinəsənt/ Noun: An innocent person, in particular. Adjective: Not guilty of a crime or offense
What he's saying is that she isn't innocent of killing Cayley necessarily, but she is not guilty of 1st degree murder as she was charged (for the fact she cannot be clearly and directly implicated and that there is definite grounds for reasonable doubt).
Except that, by definition, innocent means not guilty. She is innocent as charged. You're right that they didn't say "she absolutely did not kill her daughter." They said "she is innocent of murder in the first, second, and all the other charges, except lying to police." The terms are synonymous.
It's quite simple, Casey Anthony could not directly be linked to the death of Caylee. Their was absolutely no evidence presented that could have proven that without a shadow of a doubt. Do I think she did it? Yes. However, only finding the decomposed remains only worked into Casey's favor. There was no way to determine cause of death, and there was no indication of trauma. Casey won, not the defense council or anybody for that matter.
God damn, I thought that Facebook would be the only place I had to look people in the face who don't understand what actually happened throughout the entirety of the case. Guess I was wrong..
I find it nearly impossible for many of you that think she was guilty to have watched the entire trial and draw your own conclusions.
Besides, the world has a shitload more to worry about that a death of a child that happened three years ago. Three year old children die each and every day from a plethora of causes that are probably more fucked up than what you presume that Casey Anthony did to her daughter, but this single case is the one that was glorified to the public. Grow up.
On July 06 2011 05:18 dacthehork wrote: you do realize OJ simpson was found not guilty and later admitted to doing the murders, even writing a book "I did it", and there have been countless other cases. Probably the most frequent example is numerous convicted rapists and murderers who where later found innocent 10-20 years later when DNA testing started.
What does that have anything to do with making a determination based on the available evidence (what a jury does), and making a determination based off your gut (what people ITT and everywhere else do)?
It's simply an example courts are not right 100% and saying the court found her innocent so your opinion she is guilty is wrong does not work.
Aka courts are fallible If opinion differs from court it can still be valid
Hence it's valid to hold an opinion that differs from a criminal courts decision
I would say I was shocked but honestly ... these kinds of verdicts happen WAY to often ...
Some good tweets I saw though today:
@HeyYolanda Ms. Yolanda Smith Moms who will do anything to protect their children are certainly feeling some type of way right now.
@XtinaNoel Xtina Noel Now Casey will write a book, make a lifetime movie about it and be stalked by paparazzi like a celebrity. Its a fucked up world we live in
@mrvincecarter15 Vince Carter Casey might want to move out of Florida like ASAP!!
@mrvincecarter15 Vince Carter All I can say is wow!
@mrvincecarter15 Vince Carter I just don't think a juror would come out & talk about this even though I know we all wanna know Wth they were thinking!!
Also Alec Sulkin (@thesulk),who is a writer for family guy, has been posting some funny tweets about the whole situation but there are to many to quote but one example is
thesulk Alec Sulkin Thanks, Florida. First Bush, now this bush.
My bad it's clear the mother who never reported her daughter missing after even 31 days, who partied that whole time, who had search forms for chloroform (used on the little girl) and broken neck is innocent. Whoops my daughter vanished sometime, I have no idea where she is, better go party and lie to my family that she is at an imaginary babysitter who kidnapped her's house.
Yes thinking that isn't about the most damning set of situations is stupid.
Yes, it's a damning set of situations, and to most humans would clearly indicate murder.
But it's all circumstantial evidence. Our court system always errs on the side of innocence, that is to say that they would rather let a murderer be free than execute an innocent person (don't quote me on that).
On July 06 2011 05:27 SpaceJam wrote: God damn, I thought that Facebook would be the only place I had to look people in the face who don't understand what actually happened throughout the entirety of the case. Guess I was wrong..
I find it nearly impossible for many of you that think she was guilty to have watched the entire trial and draw your own conclusions.
Besides, the world has a shitload more to worry about that a death of a child that happened three years ago. Three year old children die each and every day from a plethora of causes that are probably more fucked up than what you presume that Casey Anthony did to her daughter, but this single case is the one that was glorified to the public. Grow up.
I think you are mistaken in your reasoning. Yes there are people starving to death, murdered, dying of various things, injustices, sexual abuse, etc. The fact people are upset about one out of the plethora of cases is not in any way weird or wrong.
The fact is people in general understand this does happen a lot, and all over the world. It's just a lone case and being upset that a 3 year old girl died and there will never be any true justice (no one will ever go to jail for her murder and shallow burial in a swamp) is just another reminder to people of that fact.
Looking at a statistic will never psychologically effect you as much as seeing pictures of holocaust victims or reading individual stories. It doesn't mean the people upset over a single Holocaust victim's story are ignoring the rest, but rather can relate to it on a deeper level.
saying thousands are killed/cannibalized every day in Liberia is not as impactful psychologically as reading a story or seeing a documentary with a man visiting said country. Yes there are far worse injustices (cambodian killing fields etc etc etc etc). It's not a bad or unusual thing if this story interests or causes people to become emotional.
Most everyone saying "who cares blah blah" are just too jaded or simply think this happens 100000 times a year why get mad over a single case. It's completely understandable to agree in part with both sides. The true problem is a lack of empathy (psychopaths) or of just decent human beings in general, both are upset at about the same thing and there really is no solution but having this be news or liberia be news is far better than the normal news cycle of which politician cheated or celebrity overdosed.
On July 06 2011 05:18 dacthehork wrote: you do realize OJ simpson was found not guilty and later admitted to doing the murders, even writing a book "I did it", and there have been countless other cases. Probably the most frequent example is numerous convicted rapists and murderers who where later found innocent 10-20 years later when DNA testing started.
What does that have anything to do with making a determination based on the available evidence (what a jury does), and making a determination based off your gut (what people ITT and everywhere else do)?
It's simply an example courts are not right 100% and saying the court found her innocent so your opinion she is guilty is wrong does not work.
Aka courts are fallible If opinion differs from court it can still be valid
Hence it's valid to hold an opinion that differs from a criminal courts decision
But saying she is guilty is not valid once the court has said she's not guilty.
There's this legal process that determines whether someone is guilty or not guilty. There's this burden of proof thing. The court used those things and declared her not guilty of these crimes. Whether you like it or not, as a member of society you must live by that decree.
On July 06 2011 05:31 Froadac wrote: I think she probably did it, but I knew that this verdict was a possibility based on evidence.
I couldn't agree with you more. This prosecution on this trial seemed to really haphazardly put their case together. I am sure she committed the crime however I am not a member of the jury so that doesn't really matter, the fact remains that they could not be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is also not OJ part 2. OJ had all the evidence in the world against him including DNA evidence, motive and the white bronco chase is pretty close to an admission of guilt as well. However inexplicably the jury found him innocent. Casey Anthony had no solid evidence against her other than her really strange behavior.
Facts are. Caylee was chloroformed then Duct tape was put around her. You don't put duct tape around a dead person. Someone did it. Intentionally. Either it was A. The flying spaghetti monster or B. The woman who partied for 30 days and got a tattoo saying life was great during the entire time her daughter was claimed "missing" Now im no specialist. and i sure as hell dont have the education of a lawyer. But i for one believe it was A. The flying spaghetti monster and im glad my peers and there infinite wisdom could reach this verdict.
Just another example of sexism. If this had been a man, he would have been found guilty and screwed over. But the courts always favor women, they think they are innocent creatures that can do no wrong. I can't believe she got off so easy.
On July 06 2011 05:31 Froadac wrote: I think she probably did it, but I knew that this verdict was a possibility based on evidence.
I couldn't agree with you more. This prosecution on this trial seemed to really haphazardly put their case together. I am sure she committed the crime however I am not a member of the jury so that doesn't really matter, the fact remains that they could not be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is also not OJ part 2. OJ had all the evidence in the world against him including DNA evidence, motive and the white bronco chase is pretty close to an admission of guilt as well. However inexplicably the jury found him innocent. Casey Anthony had no solid evidence against her other than her really strange behavior.
The OJ case wasn't inexplicable, it was caused by gigantic investigative fuck-ups by the police that disqualified a bunch of evidence.
On July 06 2011 05:18 dacthehork wrote: you do realize OJ simpson was found not guilty and later admitted to doing the murders, even writing a book "I did it", and there have been countless other cases. Probably the most frequent example is numerous convicted rapists and murderers who where later found innocent 10-20 years later when DNA testing started.
What does that have anything to do with making a determination based on the available evidence (what a jury does), and making a determination based off your gut (what people ITT and everywhere else do)?
It's simply an example courts are not right 100% and saying the court found her innocent so your opinion she is guilty is wrong does not work.
Aka courts are fallible If opinion differs from court it can still be valid
Hence it's valid to hold an opinion that differs from a criminal courts decision
But saying she is guilty is not valid once the court has said she's not guilty.
There's this legal process that determines whether someone is guilty or not guilty. There's this burden of proof thing. The court used those things and declared her not guilty of these crimes. Whether you like it or not, as a member of society you must live by that decree.
no its perfectly reasonable to say I think she killed her daughter even if a court found her innocent. I also think OJ simpson was guilty even though a court found him not guilty. There are also legal processes that throw out cases due to very small mistakes by police, even if its very obvious without a doubt the murderer did it. The fact is the legal process is very often incorrect, bureaucratic and has many safeguards and in some cases silly rules that let people get off. It's designed to protect the innocent as much as possible and in many cases this also protects the guilty. It's a trade off in the system.
On July 06 2011 05:28 dacthehork wrote: It's simply an example courts are not right 100% and saying the court found her innocent so your opinion she is guilty is wrong does not work.
Aka courts are fallible If opinion differs from court it can still be valid
Hence it's valid to hold an opinion that differs from a criminal courts decision
No it isn't. Your opinion isn't based on anything, except for gut feelings and what you hear from the media. The jury's decision is based on everything presented at trial, and nothing else. Their determination is better than yours, and if we accept that your opinion is valid, their determination is MORE valid than yours.
On July 06 2011 05:42 fishjie wrote: Just another example of sexism. If this had been a man, he would have been found guilty and screwed over. But the courts always favor women, they think they are innocent creatures that can do no wrong. I can't believe she got off so easy.
This is a pretty strong claim. I imagine you must have some pretty strong statistical evidence to back it up.
On July 06 2011 05:42 fishjie wrote: Just another example of sexism. If this had been a man, he would have been found guilty and screwed over. But the courts always favor women, they think they are innocent creatures that can do no wrong. I can't believe she got off so easy.
This is a pretty strong claim. I imagine you must have some pretty strong statistical evidence to back it up.
ye. Woman are never treated differently. Evidence ploz !
On July 06 2011 05:26 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: Except that, by definition, innocent means not guilty. She is innocent as charged. You're right that they didn't say "she absolutely did not kill her daughter." They said "she is innocent of murder in the first, second, and all the other charges, except lying to police." The terms are synonymous.
Lawyer here. The terms are synonymous in the english language yes, but as to criminal trials they are not the same. A verdict of "NOT GUILTY" is not the same as a verdict of "INNOCENT". "NOT GUILTY" does not mean you did not do the crime, it means that the prosecution could not make the case to a jury of her piers, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did the deed. "INNOCENT" means you did not do the crime, period. The nuance is slight, I'll grant you and they effectively lead to the same result (i.e. she will never be held accountable for the crime), but the nuance still exists.
I think the defense did a fantastic job of injecting doubt into the trial, which is effectively the main way he could have gotten her off. I still think she did it, but I could see how there was sufficient doubt that a jury could have found her unanimously not-guilty.
So she went partying and her two year old walks into the swimming pool and drowns. What time did the toddler drown? Who found the body first? What time did Casey come home? What was an average day for Casey? Was Cindy responsible for Caylee's childcare most of the time? Why does Cindy feel the need to cover for Casey by lying? Who was the perpetrator of the "accident that went wrong"? Why is this lawsuit just he-says and she-says? The prosecution was terrible from day 1; they had nothing. I felt Casey should go free from day 1, since from the pictures, it seems as if Casey was a great mom. Chloroform can be a byproduct of the swimming pool water. John could have been the one searching chloroform on the computer. John definitely seems like an unstable grandfather with his abnormal suicidal behavior. I want justice for Caylee, but what justice is it for Caylee if her mom is executed for Caylee's own accidental death. I believe Caylee drowned on accident in the swimming pool. The defense just needs to prove Caylee loves the water and voila! I know as a kid, I loved the water. I fell in a swimming pool as a teenager and almost drowned due to the weight of the clothes, even though I was and still am a very, very good swimmer and had lifeguard training. If Casey had reported her kid's death instead of going into panick mode (due to her crazy father), this whole lawsuit never would have occurred. The defense proved Casey was innocent, while the prosecution never cross-examined the defense's story. In a way, if Caylee was indeed murdered, a lot of responsibility falls onto the prosecution. If Caylee was really murdered, the prosecution would not be forgiven - at least we don't know as Caylee is in heaven. If Caylee was murdered, the prosecution would be guilty of being unprepared and giving a performance that is so incredibly poor, it could explain why the chief prosecutor got the middle finger by one of the bystanders. Anyways, I believe Casey is innocent as I had in the beginning. This legal adventure of hers might harm her resume though.
On July 06 2011 05:28 dacthehork wrote: It's simply an example courts are not right 100% and saying the court found her innocent so your opinion she is guilty is wrong does not work.
Aka courts are fallible If opinion differs from court it can still be valid
Hence it's valid to hold an opinion that differs from a criminal courts decision
No it isn't. Your opinion isn't based on anything, except for gut feelings and what you hear from the media. The jury's decision is based on everything presented at trial, and nothing else. Their determination is better than yours, and if we accept that your opinion is valid, their determination is MORE valid than yours.
Please prove without a reasonable doubt that they have more valid determinations than mine and they know more about the case than I do, and that they are much better able to determine if she was guilty than me. I mean without a single doubt. In my defense I will allege I watched the entire court case and never listened or read anything about the case besides what was shown in court. Hence my determination was also only based on what was presented in court.
So please prove their opinion was better than mine without a reasonable doubt otherwise I'm right.
On July 06 2011 05:31 Froadac wrote: I think she probably did it, but I knew that this verdict was a possibility based on evidence.
I couldn't agree with you more. This prosecution on this trial seemed to really haphazardly put their case together. I am sure she committed the crime however I am not a member of the jury so that doesn't really matter, the fact remains that they could not be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is also not OJ part 2. OJ had all the evidence in the world against him including DNA evidence, motive and the white bronco chase is pretty close to an admission of guilt as well. However inexplicably the jury found him innocent. Casey Anthony had no solid evidence against her other than her really strange behavior.
The OJ case wasn't inexplicable, it was caused by gigantic investigative fuck-ups by the police that disqualified a bunch of evidence.
True, its been a long time since I looked at anything regarding the OJ case.
Problems with this and the OJ case are basically the same. They both had little to no evidence and what was there either had to be thrown out because someone fucked it up or is circumstantial which in our law system cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm sure she did it but I'm also sure that not guilty is the only possible ruling.
Thanks goodness for sense! Everyone commenting about the trial on Facebook is all up in arms about how Casey should have been convicted and put on death row. Leave it to the tl community to actually have some sense.
There is no way that Casey should have been convicted. All the prosecution was running on was Casey's behavior after Caylee went missing, and no sane person could use that information to sentence someone to death. I personally believe that she did it, but I have know way of knowing for sure beyond a reasonable doubt, and the prosecution didn't help any.
On July 06 2011 05:18 dacthehork wrote: you do realize OJ simpson was found not guilty and later admitted to doing the murders, even writing a book "I did it", and there have been countless other cases. Probably the most frequent example is numerous convicted rapists and murderers who where later found innocent 10-20 years later when DNA testing started.
What does that have anything to do with making a determination based on the available evidence (what a jury does), and making a determination based off your gut (what people ITT and everywhere else do)?
It's simply an example courts are not right 100% and saying the court found her innocent so your opinion she is guilty is wrong does not work.
Aka courts are fallible If opinion differs from court it can still be valid
Hence it's valid to hold an opinion that differs from a criminal courts decision
But saying she is guilty is not valid once the court has said she's not guilty.
There's this legal process that determines whether someone is guilty or not guilty. There's this burden of proof thing. The court used those things and declared her not guilty of these crimes. Whether you like it or not, as a member of society you must live by that decree.
no its perfectly reasonable to say I think she killed her daughter even if a court found her innocent. I also think OJ simpson was guilty even though a court found him not guilty. There are also legal processes that throw out cases due to very small mistakes by police, even if its very obvious without a doubt the murderer did it. The fact is the legal process is very often incorrect, bureaucratic and has many safeguards and in some cases silly rules that let people get off. It's designed to protect the innocent as much as possible and in many cases this also protects the guilty. It's a trade off in the system.
If you live in the US, the system is yours. It's your best system. If you don't think it does a good job, then get a better one in place. Until then, a person goes through the system and if they come out not guilty... guess what, they're not guilty. Thinking that you know better than the people deciding her guilt isn't reasonable.
On July 06 2011 05:49 dacthehork wrote: Please prove without a reasonable doubt that they have more valid determinations than mine and they know more about the case than I do, and that they are much better able to determine if she was guilty than me. I mean without a single doubt. In my defense I will allege I watched the entire court case and never listened or read anything about the case besides what was shown in court. Hence my determination was also only based on what was presented in court.
So please prove their opinion was better than mine without a reasonable doubt otherwise I'm right.
I'll humor you. Feel free to poke holes in holes in this argument:
1. 12 minds are better than 1 when it comes to analyzing the same set of facts and being forced to all arrive to the same conclusion. Therefore, the jury is more likely to reach a reasonable finding when 12 people, all of who have differing thoughts on the case, come together and unanimously make a decision. You will have only one point of view (maybe two), and will never be forced to listen to another give his viewpoint to try to convince you, nor will you be forced to try to convince another. This makes your conclusion suspect, no matter what it is.
2. You don't even know what Florida law is concerning homicide. Because of your complete and total ignorance to the law, you have no possible way to determine whether or not the law was broken. The jury doesn't either, however, they were given instructions by a Florida Judge instructing them how to apply the law in view of the facts, instructions which were agreed upon by both the prosecutors and the defense counsel--so in essence you had three people with law degrees coming together and deciding how to present the law to 12 laymen who don't know anything about the law.
Meanwhile, we have you, who doesn't know anything about the law, applying facts, which we will assume you have the whole, full, correct view as to what happened, to a law you know nothing about.
3. In light of these circumstances, there can be no doubt that the 12 members of the jury are in a better position to arrive at a determination of guilt than you could ever make.
On July 06 2011 05:54 FictionSC wrote: Thanks goodness for sense! Everyone commenting about the trial on Facebook is all up in arms about how Casey should have been convicted and put on death row. Leave it to the tl community to actually have some sense.
There is no way that Casey should have been convicted. All the prosecution was running on was Casey's behavior after Caylee went missing, and no sane person could use that information to sentence someone to death. I personally believe that she did it, but I have know way of knowing for sure beyond a reasonable doubt, and the prosecution didn't help any.
Yes, for the most part this thread is pretty reasonable which is refreshing from Facebook which is completely fed off of emotionally invested news reports.
On July 06 2011 05:26 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: Except that, by definition, innocent means not guilty. She is innocent as charged. You're right that they didn't say "she absolutely did not kill her daughter." They said "she is innocent of murder in the first, second, and all the other charges, except lying to police." The terms are synonymous.
I think the defense did a fantastic job of injecting doubt into the trial, which is effectively the main way he could have gotten her off. I still think she did it, but I could see how there was sufficient doubt that a jury could have found her unanimously not-guilty.
As a trial attorney, my experience with juries has been that they generally don't like the strategy of throwing shit against a wall and seeing what sticks. Juries want a logical explanation of what happened -- ie, they want a story that makes sense and has minimal holes in it. My suspicion is that the jury didn't acquit Casey Anthony because of something that the defense did so much as it was because of what the prosecution did not do: present sufficient evidence to tie Casey to her daughter's death beyond a reasonable doubt.
Note: I just heard an interview of one of the alternate jurors and he basically confirmed that the problem was the prosecution's lack of evidence.
On July 06 2011 05:28 dacthehork wrote: It's simply an example courts are not right 100% and saying the court found her innocent so your opinion she is guilty is wrong does not work.
Aka courts are fallible If opinion differs from court it can still be valid
Hence it's valid to hold an opinion that differs from a criminal courts decision
No it isn't. Your opinion isn't based on anything, except for gut feelings and what you hear from the media. The jury's decision is based on everything presented at trial, and nothing else. Their determination is better than yours, and if we accept that your opinion is valid, their determination is MORE valid than yours.
Please prove without a reasonable doubt that they have more valid determinations than mine and they know more about the case than I do, and that they are much better able to determine if she was guilty than me. I mean without a single doubt. In my defense I will allege I watched the entire court case and never listened or read anything about the case besides what was shown in court. Hence my determination was also only based on what was presented in court.
So please prove their opinion was better than mine without a reasonable doubt otherwise I'm right.
Except if you're advancing the idea that your opinion is the correct one and that the jury got in wrong, then the burden is on you to prove that fact. We don't have to prove that the jury's opinion was better than yours, just like you never have to prove a negative.
If I told you that I was of the opinion that the world was floating on the back of a giant unicorn, in rebuttal you would argue that there's tons of evidence to the contrary. I can't then say that you have to prove to me that that evidence is more "valid" that my opinion. It's up to me to prove the theory I'm advancing, not the other way around.
On July 06 2011 05:28 dacthehork wrote: It's simply an example courts are not right 100% and saying the court found her innocent so your opinion she is guilty is wrong does not work.
Aka courts are fallible If opinion differs from court it can still be valid
Hence it's valid to hold an opinion that differs from a criminal courts decision
No it isn't. Your opinion isn't based on anything, except for gut feelings and what you hear from the media. The jury's decision is based on everything presented at trial, and nothing else. Their determination is better than yours, and if we accept that your opinion is valid, their determination is MORE valid than yours.
Please prove without a reasonable doubt that they have more valid determinations than mine and they know more about the case than I do, and that they are much better able to determine if she was guilty than me. I mean without a single doubt. In my defense I will allege I watched the entire court case and never listened or read anything about the case besides what was shown in court. Hence my determination was also only based on what was presented in court.
So please prove their opinion was better than mine without a reasonable doubt otherwise I'm right.
Their opinion is better than yours because they are the ones that decided if she was guilty or not. So legally in the united states she was guilty of lying to investigators. Sorry you weren't part of the jury. Maybe one day you can decide a court case and your determination will be something more than just an opinion on a starcraft forum.
I'm really curious as to why it took 2 days to convince juror(s) to change their stance? What was said and discussed to sway the opposition and come to this verdict? It's obvious your view was shared in that jury.
On July 06 2011 06:00 Roe wrote: How come she's always crying so much when I see her on TV?
you serious dude? she had a chance to be sentenced to life in jail as well as getting the death penalty, as well as her ruining her family there are tons of emotions.
On July 06 2011 05:26 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: Except that, by definition, innocent means not guilty. She is innocent as charged. You're right that they didn't say "she absolutely did not kill her daughter." They said "she is innocent of murder in the first, second, and all the other charges, except lying to police." The terms are synonymous.
I think the defense did a fantastic job of injecting doubt into the trial, which is effectively the main way he could have gotten her off. I still think she did it, but I could see how there was sufficient doubt that a jury could have found her unanimously not-guilty.
As a trial attorney, my experience with juries has been that they generally don't like the strategy of throwing shit against a wall and seeing what sticks. Juries want a logical explanation of what happened -- ie, they want a story that makes sense and has minimal holes in it. My suspicion is that the jury didn't acquit Casey Anthony because of something that the defense did so much as was the prosecution did not do: present sufficient evidence to tie Casey to her daughter's death beyond a reasonable doubt.
Note: I just heard an interview of one of the alternate jurors and he basically confirmed that the problem was the prosecution's lack of evidence.
Not to split hairs, but isn't that exactly what the defense is supposed to convey to the jury? Pointing out exactly what the prosecution did not do? I doubt a jury could on its own point what was missing in a skilled prosecutor's case if a good defense attorney did not harp on it to no end.
On a side note, from post-trial jury interviews that I've heard, I almost never hear "the defense did a good job showing X", its always, "the prosecution failed to show X" because that's what good defense attorneys do, they emphasize that the burden is on the state and that the burden has not been met because they failed to show X.
On July 06 2011 06:00 Roe wrote: How come she's always crying so much when I see her on TV?
you serious dude? she had a chance to be sentenced to life in jail as well as getting the death penalty, as well as her ruining her family there are tons of emotions.
Let's hope some of those tears were for her dead daughter. I still have hope in humanity.
On July 06 2011 05:26 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: Except that, by definition, innocent means not guilty. She is innocent as charged. You're right that they didn't say "she absolutely did not kill her daughter." They said "she is innocent of murder in the first, second, and all the other charges, except lying to police." The terms are synonymous.
Lawyer here. The terms are synonymous in the english language yes, but as to criminal trials they are not the same. A verdict of "NOT GUILTY" is not the same as a verdict of "INNOCENT". "NOT GUILTY" does not mean you did not do the crime, it means that the prosecution could not make the case to a jury of her piers, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did the deed. "INNOCENT" means you did not do the crime, period. The nuance is slight, I'll grant you and they effectively lead to the same result (i.e. she will never be held accountable for the crime), but the nuance still exists.
I think the defense did a fantastic job of injecting doubt into the trial, which is effectively the main way he could have gotten her off. I still think she did it, but I could see how there was sufficient doubt that a jury could have found her unanimously not-guilty.
That's weird, Black's Law dictionary agrees with me:
Innocent: (somewhere around pg 485) Free from guilt; acting in good faith and without knowledge of incriminatory circumstances, or of defects or objection.
Not guilty (somewhere around pg 644) The form of the verdict in criminal cases where the jury acquit the prisoner.
Acquit (pg 18) To release, absolve, or discharge one from an obligation or liability, or to legally certify the innocence of one charged with crime.
You guys can manually search the terms here if you'd like.
She had the audacity to accuse her (I believe) her father of sexually assaulting her and her daughter. Too bad they showed a recorded meeting of her parents+herself where she stated that he has been a great father.
On July 06 2011 05:26 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: Except that, by definition, innocent means not guilty. She is innocent as charged. You're right that they didn't say "she absolutely did not kill her daughter." They said "she is innocent of murder in the first, second, and all the other charges, except lying to police." The terms are synonymous.
Lawyer here. The terms are synonymous in the english language yes, but as to criminal trials they are not the same. A verdict of "NOT GUILTY" is not the same as a verdict of "INNOCENT". "NOT GUILTY" does not mean you did not do the crime, it means that the prosecution could not make the case to a jury of her piers, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did the deed. "INNOCENT" means you did not do the crime, period. The nuance is slight, I'll grant you and they effectively lead to the same result (i.e. she will never be held accountable for the crime), but the nuance still exists.
I think the defense did a fantastic job of injecting doubt into the trial, which is effectively the main way he could have gotten her off. I still think she did it, but I could see how there was sufficient doubt that a jury could have found her unanimously not-guilty.
That's weird, Black's Law dictionary agrees with me:
Innocent: (somewhere around pg 485) Free from guilt; acting in good faith and without knowledge of incriminatory circumstances, or of defects or objection.
Not guilty (somewhere around pg 644) The form of the verdict in criminal cases where the jury acquit the prisoner.
Acquit (pg 18) To release, absolve, or discharge one from an obligation or liability, or to legally certify the innocence of one charged with crime.
You guys can manually search the terms here if you'd like.
On July 06 2011 05:26 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: Except that, by definition, innocent means not guilty. She is innocent as charged. You're right that they didn't say "she absolutely did not kill her daughter." They said "she is innocent of murder in the first, second, and all the other charges, except lying to police." The terms are synonymous.
Lawyer here. The terms are synonymous in the english language yes, but as to criminal trials they are not the same. A verdict of "NOT GUILTY" is not the same as a verdict of "INNOCENT". "NOT GUILTY" does not mean you did not do the crime, it means that the prosecution could not make the case to a jury of her piers, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did the deed. "INNOCENT" means you did not do the crime, period. The nuance is slight, I'll grant you and they effectively lead to the same result (i.e. she will never be held accountable for the crime), but the nuance still exists.
I think the defense did a fantastic job of injecting doubt into the trial, which is effectively the main way he could have gotten her off. I still think she did it, but I could see how there was sufficient doubt that a jury could have found her unanimously not-guilty.
That's weird, Black's Law dictionary agrees with me:
Innocent: (somewhere around pg 485) Free from guilt; acting in good faith and without knowledge of incriminatory circumstances, or of defects or objection.
Not guilty (somewhere around pg 644) The form of the verdict in criminal cases where the jury acquit the prisoner.
Acquit (pg 18) To release, absolve, or discharge one from an obligation or liability, or to legally certify the innocence of one charged with crime.
You guys can manually search the terms here if you'd like.
While Black's isn't the end-all/be-all of legal knowledge, it's pretty clear that what you're saying is the truth. The bias of our criminal justice system does not change these facts:
1. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. 2. Casey Anthony was declared not guilty by a jury of her peers in a court of criminal law on the charges of murder and manslaughter.
Pretty sure that means she was declared innocent, no matter how you define "innocent" and "not guilty."
On July 06 2011 06:14 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: That's weird, Black's Law dictionary agrees with me:
Innocent: (somewhere around pg 485) Free from guilt; acting in good faith and without knowledge of incriminatory circumstances, or of defects or objection.
Not guilty (somewhere around pg 644) The form of the verdict in criminal cases where the jury acquit the prisoner.
Acquit (pg 18) To release, absolve, or discharge one from an obligation or liability, or to legally certify the innocence of one charged with crime.
You guys can manually search the terms here if you'd like.
BTW a legal certification of innocence is not the same as a verdict of not guilty. Judges issue certificates of innocence, and do so very rarely, as it is a pronouncement that the carrier could not have possibly committed the crime for which he is charged (e.g. if you were charged for the OJ Simpson murders, and it was discovered you were in France at the time of their deaths).
On July 06 2011 06:18 scorch- wrote: While Black's isn't the end-all/be-all of legal knowledge, it's pretty clear that what you're saying is the truth. The bias of our criminal justice system does not change these facts:
1. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. 2. Casey Anthony was declared not guilty by a jury of her peers in a court of criminal law on the charges of murder and manslaughter.
Pretty sure that means she was declared innocent, no matter how you define "innocent" and "not guilty."
No. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. That is, they assume you are innocent until proven otherwise. The jury then decides whether the proof exists of your guilt. either the proof is there (making you guilty), or the proof isn't there (making you not guilty). It is not a declaration of innocence, because the point of the trial isn't to decide on your innocence (the only way they could declare innocence). They are deciding on your guilt.
On July 06 2011 05:26 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: Except that, by definition, innocent means not guilty. She is innocent as charged. You're right that they didn't say "she absolutely did not kill her daughter." They said "she is innocent of murder in the first, second, and all the other charges, except lying to police." The terms are synonymous.
Lawyer here. The terms are synonymous in the english language yes, but as to criminal trials they are not the same. A verdict of "NOT GUILTY" is not the same as a verdict of "INNOCENT". "NOT GUILTY" does not mean you did not do the crime, it means that the prosecution could not make the case to a jury of her piers, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did the deed. "INNOCENT" means you did not do the crime, period. The nuance is slight, I'll grant you and they effectively lead to the same result (i.e. she will never be held accountable for the crime), but the nuance still exists.
I think the defense did a fantastic job of injecting doubt into the trial, which is effectively the main way he could have gotten her off. I still think she did it, but I could see how there was sufficient doubt that a jury could have found her unanimously not-guilty.
That's weird, Black's Law dictionary agrees with me:
Innocent: (somewhere around pg 485) Free from guilt; acting in good faith and without knowledge of incriminatory circumstances, or of defects or objection.
Not guilty (somewhere around pg 644) The form of the verdict in criminal cases where the jury acquit the prisoner.
Acquit (pg 18) To release, absolve, or discharge one from an obligation or liability, or to legally certify the innocence of one charged with crime.
You guys can manually search the terms here if you'd like.
This changes nothing about the nuance. The burden was on the prosecution. Therefore the jury can find either for the prosecution or against it. In other words it can only find either: "GUILTY" or "NOT GUILTY". It CANNOT find "INNOCENT" or "NOT INNOCENT" as that would suggest that the defense had to prove innocence, which it never does.
There is such as thing as a "Declaration of innocence" that judges can sign but these are exceedingly rare, normally in cases when the prosecution drops the charges due to lack of evidence.
On July 06 2011 05:26 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: Except that, by definition, innocent means not guilty. She is innocent as charged. You're right that they didn't say "she absolutely did not kill her daughter." They said "she is innocent of murder in the first, second, and all the other charges, except lying to police." The terms are synonymous.
I think the defense did a fantastic job of injecting doubt into the trial, which is effectively the main way he could have gotten her off. I still think she did it, but I could see how there was sufficient doubt that a jury could have found her unanimously not-guilty.
As a trial attorney, my experience with juries has been that they generally don't like the strategy of throwing shit against a wall and seeing what sticks. Juries want a logical explanation of what happened -- ie, they want a story that makes sense and has minimal holes in it. My suspicion is that the jury didn't acquit Casey Anthony because of something that the defense did so much as was the prosecution did not do: present sufficient evidence to tie Casey to her daughter's death beyond a reasonable doubt.
Note: I just heard an interview of one of the alternate jurors and he basically confirmed that the problem was the prosecution's lack of evidence.
Not to split hairs, but isn't that exactly what the defense is supposed to convey to the jury? Pointing out exactly what the prosecution did not do? I doubt a jury could on its own point what was missing in a skilled prosecutor's case if a good defense attorney did not harp on it to no end.
On a side note, from post-trial jury interviews that I've heard, I almost never hear "the defense did a good job showing X", its always, "the prosecution failed to show X" because that's what good defense attorneys do, they emphasize that the burden is on the state and that the burden has not been met because they failed to show X.
You'd be surprised at how smart juries are. Individually, jurors aren't particularly bright, but when you pool them together such that 6 to 12 of them are viewing a case from 6 to 12 different perspectives, you'd be surprised at what they pick up on. In fact, more often than not, jurors will latch on to some key fact(s) at trial that none of the attorneys found to be particularly significant.
am i the only one that is glad this is over? now when i turn on the news i might be able to watch real news that might effect more then a handful of people. sorry if i sound bitter but when i turn on news i want to see what is happening in the world NOT some trial that has zero meaning to 99.99% of people. this crap was like the royal wedding 2.0. i'm in the states why should i care about the wedding of a symbolic prince that holds less power then richard branson. The best part is i know i will be hearing about casey anthony for the rest of the week.
On July 06 2011 06:14 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: That's weird, Black's Law dictionary agrees with me:
Innocent: (somewhere around pg 485) Free from guilt; acting in good faith and without knowledge of incriminatory circumstances, or of defects or objection.
Not guilty (somewhere around pg 644) The form of the verdict in criminal cases where the jury acquit the prisoner.
Acquit (pg 18) To release, absolve, or discharge one from an obligation or liability, or to legally certify the innocence of one charged with crime.
You guys can manually search the terms here if you'd like.
BTW a legal certification of innocence is not the same as a verdict of not guilty. Judges issue certificates of innocence, and do so very rarely, as it is a pronouncement that the carrier could not have possibly committed the crime for which he is charged (e.g. if you were charged for the OJ Simpson murders, and it was discovered you were in France at the time of their deaths).
On July 06 2011 06:18 scorch- wrote: While Black's isn't the end-all/be-all of legal knowledge, it's pretty clear that what you're saying is the truth. The bias of our criminal justice system does not change these facts:
1. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. 2. Casey Anthony was declared not guilty by a jury of her peers in a court of criminal law on the charges of murder and manslaughter.
Pretty sure that means she was declared innocent, no matter how you define "innocent" and "not guilty."
No. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. That is, they assume you are innocent until proven otherwise. The jury then decides whether the proof exists of your guilt. either the proof is there (making you guilty), or the proof isn't there (making you not guilty). It is not a declaration of innocence, because the point of the trial isn't to decide on your innocence (the only way they could declare innocence). They are deciding on your guilt.
So, logically, how does this change the presumption of innocence by our system? She was not found guilty, so our criminal justice system still presumes her innocence, correct? Presumption of innocence is a legal idea, but it is also a fundamental idea of our justice system. How can you say that she is anything but innocent when they haven't found her guilty of the crime?
On July 06 2011 06:36 scorch- wrote: So, logically, how does this change the presumption of innocence by our system? She was not found guilty, so our criminal justice system still presumes her innocence, correct? Presumption of innocence is a legal idea, but it is also a fundamental idea of our justice system. How can you say that she is anything but innocent when they haven't found her guilty of the crime?
Here's an example.
I work at a company, and for years, I have been stealing funds from the company every time I go on a business trip by overstating my expenses, I take home supplies that have been entrusted to me by my supervisor and use them for my own purposes. This is embezzlement.
When my actions are exposed, a not very bright DA charges me with theft. The jury laughs at the DA because I did not commit theft--I committed embezzlement. So they find me not guilty of theft.
I am anything but innocent of a crime, but I am not guilty of theft.
On July 06 2011 05:26 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: Except that, by definition, innocent means not guilty. She is innocent as charged. You're right that they didn't say "she absolutely did not kill her daughter." They said "she is innocent of murder in the first, second, and all the other charges, except lying to police." The terms are synonymous.
Lawyer here. The terms are synonymous in the english language yes, but as to criminal trials they are not the same. A verdict of "NOT GUILTY" is not the same as a verdict of "INNOCENT". "NOT GUILTY" does not mean you did not do the crime, it means that the prosecution could not make the case to a jury of her piers, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did the deed. "INNOCENT" means you did not do the crime, period. The nuance is slight, I'll grant you and they effectively lead to the same result (i.e. she will never be held accountable for the crime), but the nuance still exists.
I think the defense did a fantastic job of injecting doubt into the trial, which is effectively the main way he could have gotten her off. I still think she did it, but I could see how there was sufficient doubt that a jury could have found her unanimously not-guilty.
That's weird, Black's Law dictionary agrees with me:
Innocent: (somewhere around pg 485) Free from guilt; acting in good faith and without knowledge of incriminatory circumstances, or of defects or objection.
Not guilty (somewhere around pg 644) The form of the verdict in criminal cases where the jury acquit the prisoner.
Acquit (pg 18) To release, absolve, or discharge one from an obligation or liability, or to legally certify the innocence of one charged with crime.
You guys can manually search the terms here if you'd like.
We're using legal definitions, not general definitions. If the argument was purely on general definitions then I won, because innocent = not guilty in general definitions. He said that, legally, they were defined differently. Black's Law Dictionary (one of the most widely used in American Law) disagrees with what he's saying. In fact, as far as I can tell, a verdict of "Innocent" is not read, since the verdict "not guilty," is used to show acquittals, which (according to the same dictionary) means to "legally certify as innocent."
In other words, dictionary.com is not a valid source in a discussion of legal terminology. Black's Law dictionary, however, is (and there's only one definition of acquittal, you can look at it yourself).
He is claiming some non-listed nuance in the terminology of law. I doubt the validity of that, but can't prove it.
On July 06 2011 03:22 Spekulatius wrote: Who's Casey Anthony? And why is it funny that he's not guilty?
You are my hero. People cared way too much about this damn case. I wish I had never heard about it.
buuuuttt I guess it was inevitable given all the news media coverage. Even though i think she did it, I'm kinda glad she was found not guilty as I believe the prosecution was going to the death penalty.
On July 06 2011 05:26 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: Except that, by definition, innocent means not guilty. She is innocent as charged. You're right that they didn't say "she absolutely did not kill her daughter." They said "she is innocent of murder in the first, second, and all the other charges, except lying to police." The terms are synonymous.
Lawyer here. The terms are synonymous in the english language yes, but as to criminal trials they are not the same. A verdict of "NOT GUILTY" is not the same as a verdict of "INNOCENT". "NOT GUILTY" does not mean you did not do the crime, it means that the prosecution could not make the case to a jury of her piers, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did the deed. "INNOCENT" means you did not do the crime, period. The nuance is slight, I'll grant you and they effectively lead to the same result (i.e. she will never be held accountable for the crime), but the nuance still exists.
I think the defense did a fantastic job of injecting doubt into the trial, which is effectively the main way he could have gotten her off. I still think she did it, but I could see how there was sufficient doubt that a jury could have found her unanimously not-guilty.
That's weird, Black's Law dictionary agrees with me:
Innocent: (somewhere around pg 485) Free from guilt; acting in good faith and without knowledge of incriminatory circumstances, or of defects or objection.
Not guilty (somewhere around pg 644) The form of the verdict in criminal cases where the jury acquit the prisoner.
Acquit (pg 18) To release, absolve, or discharge one from an obligation or liability, or to legally certify the innocence of one charged with crime.
You guys can manually search the terms here if you'd like.
It's ironic that we got onto this topic because you called someone an idiot and claimed they were using semantics to make an argument.
People are simply pointing out that there is a difference between not guilty and innocent in the eyes of the law. Innocent = you definitely didn't do it, and not guilty = it can't be proven that you did it.
You are using dictionaries to try to equate not guilty to innocent. If anyone is using semantics it's you.
On July 06 2011 06:14 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: That's weird, Black's Law dictionary agrees with me:
Innocent: (somewhere around pg 485) Free from guilt; acting in good faith and without knowledge of incriminatory circumstances, or of defects or objection.
Not guilty (somewhere around pg 644) The form of the verdict in criminal cases where the jury acquit the prisoner.
Acquit (pg 18) To release, absolve, or discharge one from an obligation or liability, or to legally certify the innocence of one charged with crime.
You guys can manually search the terms here if you'd like.
BTW a legal certification of innocence is not the same as a verdict of not guilty. Judges issue certificates of innocence, and do so very rarely, as it is a pronouncement that the carrier could not have possibly committed the crime for which he is charged (e.g. if you were charged for the OJ Simpson murders, and it was discovered you were in France at the time of their deaths).
On July 06 2011 06:18 scorch- wrote: While Black's isn't the end-all/be-all of legal knowledge, it's pretty clear that what you're saying is the truth. The bias of our criminal justice system does not change these facts:
1. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. 2. Casey Anthony was declared not guilty by a jury of her peers in a court of criminal law on the charges of murder and manslaughter.
Pretty sure that means she was declared innocent, no matter how you define "innocent" and "not guilty."
No. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. That is, they assume you are innocent until proven otherwise. The jury then decides whether the proof exists of your guilt. either the proof is there (making you guilty), or the proof isn't there (making you not guilty). It is not a declaration of innocence, because the point of the trial isn't to decide on your innocence (the only way they could declare innocence). They are deciding on your guilt.
So, logically, how does this change the presumption of innocence by our system? She was not found guilty, so our criminal justice system still presumes her innocence, correct? Presumption of innocence is a legal idea, but it is also a fundamental idea of our justice system. How can you say that she is anything but innocent when they haven't found her guilty of the crime?
Are you talking legally or what? If you take every person in the world and put them on the same trial (including the murderer whoever it is) and they are all found not guilty, everyone is innocent even though someone actually did the crime? Saying someone is "not guilty" is simply saying "we can't prove you did it." Legally declaring ones innocents is "you did not commit this crime." There is a difference, legally or not.
It changes how you approach the questions raised. The perspective of any person is very important. This was an excellent conclusion to a case that offered no proof of her guilt. Circumstantial evidence is an argument from a lack of information, and therefore does not eliminate a reasonable doubt. If this were not logically, and thankfully legally, the case then family members would almost always be found guilty in unsolved murder cases.
I don't know if she was charged with accessory to murder or not. This type of charge may have been rightfully upheld with the evidence that had been collected.
Everyone needs to remember that they were not on the jury and so did not have the same access to evidence or the same instructions from the judge. Also remember that the media early on crucified this woman and that is the only source of information that any of us outside the courtroom have. The media needs to demonstrate a humility in reporting things that allows the rest of us who rely on them to also demonstrate humility towards juries.
On July 06 2011 06:44 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: show acquittals, which (according to the same dictionary) means to "legally certify as innocent."
In other words, dictionary.com is not a valid source in a discussion of legal terminology. Black's Law dictionary, however, is (and there's only one definition of acquittal, you can look at it yourself).
He is claiming some non-listed nuance in the terminology of law. I doubt the validity of that, but can't prove it.
An acquittal is not a legal certificate of innocence. You had two different people tell you that a certificate of innocence is a rare judge-made pronouncement. Stop derping.
edit: Just because to 'legally certify as innocent' can be described as an acquittal does not mean that is how it is used in this context. either way, stop derping.
On July 06 2011 05:26 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: Except that, by definition, innocent means not guilty. She is innocent as charged. You're right that they didn't say "she absolutely did not kill her daughter." They said "she is innocent of murder in the first, second, and all the other charges, except lying to police." The terms are synonymous.
Lawyer here. The terms are synonymous in the english language yes, but as to criminal trials they are not the same. A verdict of "NOT GUILTY" is not the same as a verdict of "INNOCENT". "NOT GUILTY" does not mean you did not do the crime, it means that the prosecution could not make the case to a jury of her piers, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did the deed. "INNOCENT" means you did not do the crime, period. The nuance is slight, I'll grant you and they effectively lead to the same result (i.e. she will never be held accountable for the crime), but the nuance still exists.
I think the defense did a fantastic job of injecting doubt into the trial, which is effectively the main way he could have gotten her off. I still think she did it, but I could see how there was sufficient doubt that a jury could have found her unanimously not-guilty.
That's weird, Black's Law dictionary agrees with me:
Innocent: (somewhere around pg 485) Free from guilt; acting in good faith and without knowledge of incriminatory circumstances, or of defects or objection.
Not guilty (somewhere around pg 644) The form of the verdict in criminal cases where the jury acquit the prisoner.
Acquit (pg 18) To release, absolve, or discharge one from an obligation or liability, or to legally certify the innocence of one charged with crime.
You guys can manually search the terms here if you'd like.
It's ironic that we got onto this topic because you called someone an idiot and claimed they were using semantics to make an argument.
People are simply pointing out that there is a difference between not guilty and innocent in the eyes of the law. Innocent = you definitely didn't do it, and not guilty = it can't be proven that you did it.
You are using dictionaries to try to equate not guilty to innocent. If anyone is using semantics it's you.
No, I said he was stupid because he incorrectly used semantics. I think that I am correctly using them, because Black's Law dictionary defines Not guilty as "The form of the verdict in criminal cases where the jury acquit the prisoner." And acquit means "To release, absolve, or discharge one from an obligation or liability, or to legally certify the innocence of one charged with crime."
So, if Not Guilty = Acquitted, and Acquitted = Legally certified as innocent," how does not guilty != Innocent? Again, this is from Black's Law dictionary, which is one of the (maybe the) most widely used law dictionaries in the USA. By the definitions, I'm 100% correct, however, there is apparently some nuance in the language (undefined) that makes that not so. My point is that he's stupid because he's wrong, because (by definition) they mean the same thing. So far, no one has shown me that what I have said is false; they have, however, made unsubstantiated claims. I can't refute the claims very well, because he claims he's a lawyer (which could be true), and comes from a position of authority.
On July 06 2011 06:14 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: That's weird, Black's Law dictionary agrees with me:
Innocent: (somewhere around pg 485) Free from guilt; acting in good faith and without knowledge of incriminatory circumstances, or of defects or objection.
Not guilty (somewhere around pg 644) The form of the verdict in criminal cases where the jury acquit the prisoner.
Acquit (pg 18) To release, absolve, or discharge one from an obligation or liability, or to legally certify the innocence of one charged with crime.
You guys can manually search the terms here if you'd like.
BTW a legal certification of innocence is not the same as a verdict of not guilty. Judges issue certificates of innocence, and do so very rarely, as it is a pronouncement that the carrier could not have possibly committed the crime for which he is charged (e.g. if you were charged for the OJ Simpson murders, and it was discovered you were in France at the time of their deaths).
On July 06 2011 06:18 scorch- wrote: While Black's isn't the end-all/be-all of legal knowledge, it's pretty clear that what you're saying is the truth. The bias of our criminal justice system does not change these facts:
1. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. 2. Casey Anthony was declared not guilty by a jury of her peers in a court of criminal law on the charges of murder and manslaughter.
Pretty sure that means she was declared innocent, no matter how you define "innocent" and "not guilty."
No. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. That is, they assume you are innocent until proven otherwise. The jury then decides whether the proof exists of your guilt. either the proof is there (making you guilty), or the proof isn't there (making you not guilty). It is not a declaration of innocence, because the point of the trial isn't to decide on your innocence (the only way they could declare innocence). They are deciding on your guilt.
So, logically, how does this change the presumption of innocence by our system? She was not found guilty, so our criminal justice system still presumes her innocence, correct? Presumption of innocence is a legal idea, but it is also a fundamental idea of our justice system. How can you say that she is anything but innocent when they haven't found her guilty of the crime?
Are you talking legally or what? If you take every person in the world and put them on the same trial (including the murderer whoever it is) and they are all found not guilty, everyone is innocent even though someone actually did the crime? Saying someone is "not guilty" is simply saying "we can't prove you did it." Legally declaring ones innocents is "you did not commit this crime." There is a difference, legally or not.
There isn't a difference. If, for some reason, you tried every person in the world and they are all found not guilty, then they ARE ALL INNOCENT in the eyes of the state. Absolute truth is irrelevant because our society has decided that absolute truth cannot be known in most cases and that in order to achieve various goals, people will be presumed innocent until proven guilty in all legal matters.
The jury cannot be shown absolute truth. You do not know absolute truth. In most cases, the accused is the only living person who knows what really happened, and that "truth" only exists in their memories (which can be fucked up in traumatic situations). You're trying to reduce the situation to a math equation while ignoring the set of rules governing it.
On July 06 2011 05:26 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: Except that, by definition, innocent means not guilty. She is innocent as charged. You're right that they didn't say "she absolutely did not kill her daughter." They said "she is innocent of murder in the first, second, and all the other charges, except lying to police." The terms are synonymous.
Lawyer here. The terms are synonymous in the english language yes, but as to criminal trials they are not the same. A verdict of "NOT GUILTY" is not the same as a verdict of "INNOCENT". "NOT GUILTY" does not mean you did not do the crime, it means that the prosecution could not make the case to a jury of her piers, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did the deed. "INNOCENT" means you did not do the crime, period. The nuance is slight, I'll grant you and they effectively lead to the same result (i.e. she will never be held accountable for the crime), but the nuance still exists.
I think the defense did a fantastic job of injecting doubt into the trial, which is effectively the main way he could have gotten her off. I still think she did it, but I could see how there was sufficient doubt that a jury could have found her unanimously not-guilty.
That's weird, Black's Law dictionary agrees with me:
Innocent: (somewhere around pg 485) Free from guilt; acting in good faith and without knowledge of incriminatory circumstances, or of defects or objection.
Not guilty (somewhere around pg 644) The form of the verdict in criminal cases where the jury acquit the prisoner.
Acquit (pg 18) To release, absolve, or discharge one from an obligation or liability, or to legally certify the innocence of one charged with crime.
You guys can manually search the terms here if you'd like.
It's ironic that we got onto this topic because you called someone an idiot and claimed they were using semantics to make an argument.
People are simply pointing out that there is a difference between not guilty and innocent in the eyes of the law. Innocent = you definitely didn't do it, and not guilty = it can't be proven that you did it.
You are using dictionaries to try to equate not guilty to innocent. If anyone is using semantics it's you.
No, I said he was stupid because he incorrectly used semantics. I think that I am correctly using them, because Black's Law dictionary defines Not guilty as "The form of the verdict in criminal cases where the jury acquit the prisoner." And acquit means "To release, absolve, or discharge one from an obligation or liability, or to legally certify the innocence of one charged with crime."
So, if Not Guilty = Acquitted, and Acquitted = Legally certified as innocent," how does not guilty != Innocent? Again, this is from Black's Law dictionary, which is one of the (maybe the) most widely used law dictionaries in the USA. By the definitions, I'm 100% correct, however, there is apparently some nuance in the language (undefined) that makes that not so. My point is that he's stupid because he's wrong, because (by definition) they mean the same thing. So far, no one has shown me that what I have said is false; they have, however, made unsubstantiated claims. I can't refute the claims very well, because he claims he's a lawyer (which could be true), and comes from a position of authority.
Such bad logic and understanding
If I kill someone but cover it up well, and a jury says "Not guilty", I'm not innocent. I'm legally innocent, but I still killed the person.
Legally innocent does not mean innocent. It's possible to be Legally Innocent and have committed the crime, it just means the jury did not see enough evidence / good lawyers / etc.
Legally innocent does not mean innocent. If you can't understand this... the level of stupid in this thread is astounding.
On July 06 2011 06:14 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: That's weird, Black's Law dictionary agrees with me:
Innocent: (somewhere around pg 485) Free from guilt; acting in good faith and without knowledge of incriminatory circumstances, or of defects or objection.
Not guilty (somewhere around pg 644) The form of the verdict in criminal cases where the jury acquit the prisoner.
Acquit (pg 18) To release, absolve, or discharge one from an obligation or liability, or to legally certify the innocence of one charged with crime.
You guys can manually search the terms here if you'd like.
BTW a legal certification of innocence is not the same as a verdict of not guilty. Judges issue certificates of innocence, and do so very rarely, as it is a pronouncement that the carrier could not have possibly committed the crime for which he is charged (e.g. if you were charged for the OJ Simpson murders, and it was discovered you were in France at the time of their deaths).
On July 06 2011 06:18 scorch- wrote: While Black's isn't the end-all/be-all of legal knowledge, it's pretty clear that what you're saying is the truth. The bias of our criminal justice system does not change these facts:
1. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. 2. Casey Anthony was declared not guilty by a jury of her peers in a court of criminal law on the charges of murder and manslaughter.
Pretty sure that means she was declared innocent, no matter how you define "innocent" and "not guilty."
No. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. That is, they assume you are innocent until proven otherwise. The jury then decides whether the proof exists of your guilt. either the proof is there (making you guilty), or the proof isn't there (making you not guilty). It is not a declaration of innocence, because the point of the trial isn't to decide on your innocence (the only way they could declare innocence). They are deciding on your guilt.
So, logically, how does this change the presumption of innocence by our system? She was not found guilty, so our criminal justice system still presumes her innocence, correct? Presumption of innocence is a legal idea, but it is also a fundamental idea of our justice system. How can you say that she is anything but innocent when they haven't found her guilty of the crime?
Are you talking legally or what? If you take every person in the world and put them on the same trial (including the murderer whoever it is) and they are all found not guilty, everyone is innocent even though someone actually did the crime? Saying someone is "not guilty" is simply saying "we can't prove you did it." Legally declaring ones innocents is "you did not commit this crime." There is a difference, legally or not.
There isn't a difference. If, for some reason, you tried every person in the world and they are all found not guilty, then they ARE ALL INNOCENT in the eyes of the state.
Exactly legally innocent, no one is arguing she isn't legally innocent. She is legally innocent, but that does not mean she did not do it. zzzz
Legally Innocent = a court of law says there is not enough proof to punish her Innocent = she really did not do it
On July 06 2011 06:58 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: No, I said he was stupid because he incorrectly used semantics. I think that I am correctly using them, because Black's Law dictionary defines Not guilty as "The form of the verdict in criminal cases where the jury acquit the prisoner." And acquit means "To release, absolve, or discharge one from an obligation or liability, or to legally certify the innocence of one charged with crime."
So, if Not Guilty = Acquitted, and Acquitted = Legally certified as innocent," how does not guilty != Innocent? Again, this is from Black's Law dictionary, which is one of the (maybe the) most widely used law dictionaries in the USA. By the definitions, I'm 100% correct, however, there is apparently some nuance in the language (undefined) that makes that not so. My point is that he's stupid because he's wrong, because (by definition) they mean the same thing. So far, no one has shown me that what I have said is false; they have, however, made unsubstantiated claims. I can't refute the claims very well, because he claims he's a lawyer (which could be true), and comes from a position of authority.
On July 06 2011 06:14 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: That's weird, Black's Law dictionary agrees with me:
Innocent: (somewhere around pg 485) Free from guilt; acting in good faith and without knowledge of incriminatory circumstances, or of defects or objection.
Not guilty (somewhere around pg 644) The form of the verdict in criminal cases where the jury acquit the prisoner.
Acquit (pg 18) To release, absolve, or discharge one from an obligation or liability, or to legally certify the innocence of one charged with crime.
You guys can manually search the terms here if you'd like.
BTW a legal certification of innocence is not the same as a verdict of not guilty. Judges issue certificates of innocence, and do so very rarely, as it is a pronouncement that the carrier could not have possibly committed the crime for which he is charged (e.g. if you were charged for the OJ Simpson murders, and it was discovered you were in France at the time of their deaths).
On July 06 2011 06:18 scorch- wrote: While Black's isn't the end-all/be-all of legal knowledge, it's pretty clear that what you're saying is the truth. The bias of our criminal justice system does not change these facts:
1. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. 2. Casey Anthony was declared not guilty by a jury of her peers in a court of criminal law on the charges of murder and manslaughter.
Pretty sure that means she was declared innocent, no matter how you define "innocent" and "not guilty."
No. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. That is, they assume you are innocent until proven otherwise. The jury then decides whether the proof exists of your guilt. either the proof is there (making you guilty), or the proof isn't there (making you not guilty). It is not a declaration of innocence, because the point of the trial isn't to decide on your innocence (the only way they could declare innocence). They are deciding on your guilt.
So, logically, how does this change the presumption of innocence by our system? She was not found guilty, so our criminal justice system still presumes her innocence, correct? Presumption of innocence is a legal idea, but it is also a fundamental idea of our justice system. How can you say that she is anything but innocent when they haven't found her guilty of the crime?
Are you talking legally or what? If you take every person in the world and put them on the same trial (including the murderer whoever it is) and they are all found not guilty, everyone is innocent even though someone actually did the crime? Saying someone is "not guilty" is simply saying "we can't prove you did it." Legally declaring ones innocents is "you did not commit this crime." There is a difference, legally or not.
There isn't a difference. If, for some reason, you tried every person in the world and they are all found not guilty, then they ARE ALL INNOCENT in the eyes of the state.
Exactly legally innocent, no one is arguing she isn't legally innocent. She is legally innocent, but that does not mean she did not do it. zzzz
You are presupposing the existence of an absolute truth which is unknown by anyone posting in this thread, but capable of discovery. The point is that you are part of a society which has decided that people will be presumed innocent unless proven guilty, yet now you want to say that you believe she is guilty although it could not be proven. You don't see what's wrong with this? There is a fundamental hypocrisy inherent to your statement.
No one can know for sure whether she did or did not do anything. Our society designed a system to determine whether she did or did not, and when that system spits out an answer we agree to go along with it because THAT'S THE BEST WE COULD DO. If there's a better system, get it put in place.
On July 06 2011 07:09 manawah wrote: This just shows that we still need a reliable method of detecting the truth.
Truth is relative.
thx philosophy 101 student for clearing everything up. Obviously since truth is relative you can't convict anyone of anything. She killed her baby, the jury should have seen the lies and known that she was hiding something.
On July 06 2011 06:32 staplestf2 wrote: am i the only one that is glad this is over? now when i turn on the news i might be able to watch real news that might effect more then a handful of people. sorry if i sound bitter but when i turn on news i want to see what is happening in the world NOT some trial that has zero meaning to 99.99% of people. this crap was like the royal wedding 2.0. i'm in the states why should i care about the wedding of a symbolic prince that holds less power then richard branson. The best part is i know i will be hearing about casey anthony for the rest of the week.
trust me everyone in orlando wants this over with already
On July 06 2011 06:32 staplestf2 wrote: am i the only one that is glad this is over? now when i turn on the news i might be able to watch real news that might effect more then a handful of people. sorry if i sound bitter but when i turn on news i want to see what is happening in the world NOT some trial that has zero meaning to 99.99% of people. this crap was like the royal wedding 2.0. i'm in the states why should i care about the wedding of a symbolic prince that holds less power then richard branson. The best part is i know i will be hearing about casey anthony for the rest of the week.
trust me everyone in orlando wants this over with already
Nancy Grace and the other idiots who run the MSM will find some other scandal pretty soon.
On July 06 2011 06:14 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: That's weird, Black's Law dictionary agrees with me:
Innocent: (somewhere around pg 485) Free from guilt; acting in good faith and without knowledge of incriminatory circumstances, or of defects or objection.
Not guilty (somewhere around pg 644) The form of the verdict in criminal cases where the jury acquit the prisoner.
Acquit (pg 18) To release, absolve, or discharge one from an obligation or liability, or to legally certify the innocence of one charged with crime.
You guys can manually search the terms here if you'd like.
BTW a legal certification of innocence is not the same as a verdict of not guilty. Judges issue certificates of innocence, and do so very rarely, as it is a pronouncement that the carrier could not have possibly committed the crime for which he is charged (e.g. if you were charged for the OJ Simpson murders, and it was discovered you were in France at the time of their deaths).
On July 06 2011 06:18 scorch- wrote: While Black's isn't the end-all/be-all of legal knowledge, it's pretty clear that what you're saying is the truth. The bias of our criminal justice system does not change these facts:
1. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. 2. Casey Anthony was declared not guilty by a jury of her peers in a court of criminal law on the charges of murder and manslaughter.
Pretty sure that means she was declared innocent, no matter how you define "innocent" and "not guilty."
No. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. That is, they assume you are innocent until proven otherwise. The jury then decides whether the proof exists of your guilt. either the proof is there (making you guilty), or the proof isn't there (making you not guilty). It is not a declaration of innocence, because the point of the trial isn't to decide on your innocence (the only way they could declare innocence). They are deciding on your guilt.
So, logically, how does this change the presumption of innocence by our system? She was not found guilty, so our criminal justice system still presumes her innocence, correct? Presumption of innocence is a legal idea, but it is also a fundamental idea of our justice system. How can you say that she is anything but innocent when they haven't found her guilty of the crime?
Are you talking legally or what? If you take every person in the world and put them on the same trial (including the murderer whoever it is) and they are all found not guilty, everyone is innocent even though someone actually did the crime? Saying someone is "not guilty" is simply saying "we can't prove you did it." Legally declaring ones innocents is "you did not commit this crime." There is a difference, legally or not.
There isn't a difference. If, for some reason, you tried every person in the world and they are all found not guilty, then they ARE ALL INNOCENT in the eyes of the state.
Exactly legally innocent, no one is arguing she isn't legally innocent. She is legally innocent, but that does not mean she did not do it. zzzz
You are presupposing the existence of an absolute truth which is unknown by anyone posting in this thread, but capable of discovery. The point is that you are part of a society which has decided that people will be presumed innocent unless proven guilty, yet now you want to say that you believe she is guilty although it could not be proven. You don't see what's wrong with this? There is a fundamental hypocrisy inherent to your statement.
No one can know for sure whether she did or did not do anything. Our society designed a system to determine whether she did or did not, and when that system spits out an answer we agree to go along with it because THAT'S THE BEST WE COULD DO. If there's a better system, get it put in place.
Yes I do believe she is guilty. There is no hypocrisy in my statement. In a legal case she was not declared guilty without a shadow of a doubt, again my opinions do not have to be the same as a courts. It's an opinion, it can be anything. There is no hypocrisy,
"Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have"
Again I believe our court system is not perfect, and again I believe she is guilty. There is no hypocrisy in this statement. When you say "part of a society" again you do realize not everyone in said society ever decided anything about the legal system, in fact it was in place a long time before I was even born.
"we agree to go along with it" is false. there is no law or agreement saying we must believe someone is innocent if proven not guilty in a court of law. We can agree obviously she has been declared not guilty in a court of law. This does not mean that she is innocent or we as individuals must believe she is innocent.
again
I think court system is flawed court system declares her not guilty
On July 06 2011 06:47 Saicam wrote: she will get hers soon
Statements like this make me glad we have a justice system that maintains the presumption of innocence. Mob justice is one of the worst tyrannies I could imagine.
She may very well murdered her child, or even more likely committed manslaughter, but from what I have seen, there was nothing but a mountain of circumstantial evidence, and irrational and bizarre behavior from Casey Anthony. Obviously the jury saw more then us, in greater detail, and saw nothing but circumstantial or dubious evidence also. That is not enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
"we agree to go along with it" is false. there is no law or agreement saying we must believe someone is innocent if proven not guilty in a court of law. We can agree obviously she has been declared not guilty in a court of law. This does not mean that she is innocent or we as individuals must believe she is innocent.
The supreme court defined that the, 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments establish the presumption of innocence. The justice system is flawed either way you define presumption of innocence or guilt, the question comes down to whether it is a greater evil for a guilty man to walk free, or an innocent man to rot in jail. We are not the only country to grant presumption of innocence, it is considered a universal human right in the developed world.
On July 06 2011 05:28 dacthehork wrote: It's simply an example courts are not right 100% and saying the court found her innocent so your opinion she is guilty is wrong does not work.
Aka courts are fallible If opinion differs from court it can still be valid
Hence it's valid to hold an opinion that differs from a criminal courts decision
No it isn't. Your opinion isn't based on anything, except for gut feelings and what you hear from the media. The jury's decision is based on everything presented at trial, and nothing else. Their determination is better than yours, and if we accept that your opinion is valid, their determination is MORE valid than yours.
Please prove without a reasonable doubt that they have more valid determinations than mine and they know more about the case than I do, and that they are much better able to determine if she was guilty than me. I mean without a single doubt. In my defense I will allege I watched the entire court case and never listened or read anything about the case besides what was shown in court. Hence my determination was also only based on what was presented in court.
So please prove their opinion was better than mine without a reasonable doubt otherwise I'm right.
I can provide at least one resonable doubt. You were not there in the courtrooms to see every single motion Casey made or did not made at crucial time during witness testimony. You need more?
-She abandoned her car which reeked of human decomposition -She did computer searches for many suspicious terms, the most suspicious including "neck breaking" "house hold weapons" "internal bleeding" and "how to make chloroform" -Traces of chloroform were found in the trunk of her car -She told her parents she was out of town in the month following the alleged accident that killed her daughter -parts of flies attracted to decomposition were found in her trunk -One of Caylee's hairs was found in her trunk, and the hair had traits that are only seen when the body is dead -She intentionally misled investigators after her daughter went missing, claiming her daughter had been kidnapped (she was convicted on this accusation) -She pulled her car backwards into the garage and borrowed a neighbor's shovel shortly after the alleged accident occurred -The body was found with duct tape on the mouth and nose. Duct tape that Casey had access to -The body was put in a laundry basket that Casey had access to.
The defense did a good job at convincing the jury the whole trial was a media circus that only existed to provide entertainment for people. He attacked the credibility of the Anthony Family and suggested that Casey had been framed. He planted the idea that the murder charges were unfounded and the only reason the death was ruled as a murder in the first place was to please the media and create hype for the story. Say what you want, at the end of the day it was an effective defense, and a very interesting case.
On July 06 2011 06:14 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: That's weird, Black's Law dictionary agrees with me:
Innocent: (somewhere around pg 485) Free from guilt; acting in good faith and without knowledge of incriminatory circumstances, or of defects or objection.
Not guilty (somewhere around pg 644) The form of the verdict in criminal cases where the jury acquit the prisoner.
Acquit (pg 18) To release, absolve, or discharge one from an obligation or liability, or to legally certify the innocence of one charged with crime.
You guys can manually search the terms here if you'd like.
BTW a legal certification of innocence is not the same as a verdict of not guilty. Judges issue certificates of innocence, and do so very rarely, as it is a pronouncement that the carrier could not have possibly committed the crime for which he is charged (e.g. if you were charged for the OJ Simpson murders, and it was discovered you were in France at the time of their deaths).
On July 06 2011 06:18 scorch- wrote: While Black's isn't the end-all/be-all of legal knowledge, it's pretty clear that what you're saying is the truth. The bias of our criminal justice system does not change these facts:
1. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. 2. Casey Anthony was declared not guilty by a jury of her peers in a court of criminal law on the charges of murder and manslaughter.
Pretty sure that means she was declared innocent, no matter how you define "innocent" and "not guilty."
No. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. That is, they assume you are innocent until proven otherwise. The jury then decides whether the proof exists of your guilt. either the proof is there (making you guilty), or the proof isn't there (making you not guilty). It is not a declaration of innocence, because the point of the trial isn't to decide on your innocence (the only way they could declare innocence). They are deciding on your guilt.
So, logically, how does this change the presumption of innocence by our system? She was not found guilty, so our criminal justice system still presumes her innocence, correct? Presumption of innocence is a legal idea, but it is also a fundamental idea of our justice system. How can you say that she is anything but innocent when they haven't found her guilty of the crime?
Are you talking legally or what? If you take every person in the world and put them on the same trial (including the murderer whoever it is) and they are all found not guilty, everyone is innocent even though someone actually did the crime? Saying someone is "not guilty" is simply saying "we can't prove you did it." Legally declaring ones innocents is "you did not commit this crime." There is a difference, legally or not.
There isn't a difference. If, for some reason, you tried every person in the world and they are all found not guilty, then they ARE ALL INNOCENT in the eyes of the state.
Exactly legally innocent, no one is arguing she isn't legally innocent. She is legally innocent, but that does not mean she did not do it. zzzz
You are presupposing the existence of an absolute truth which is unknown by anyone posting in this thread, but capable of discovery. The point is that you are part of a society which has decided that people will be presumed innocent unless proven guilty, yet now you want to say that you believe she is guilty although it could not be proven. You don't see what's wrong with this? There is a fundamental hypocrisy inherent to your statement.
No one can know for sure whether she did or did not do anything. Our society designed a system to determine whether she did or did not, and when that system spits out an answer we agree to go along with it because THAT'S THE BEST WE COULD DO. If there's a better system, get it put in place.
Yes I do believe she is guilty. There is no hypocrisy in my statement. In a legal case she was not declared guilty without a shadow of a doubt, again my opinions do not have to be the same as a courts. It's an opinion, it can be anything. There is no hypocrisy,
"Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have"
Again I believe our court system is not perfect, and again I believe she is guilty. There is no hypocrisy in this statement. When you say "part of a society" again you do realize not everyone in said society ever decided anything about the legal system, in fact it was in place a long time before I was even born.
"we agree to go along with it" is false. there is no law or agreement saying we must believe someone is innocent if proven not guilty in a court of law. We can agree obviously she has been declared not guilty in a court of law. This does not mean that she is innocent or we as individuals must believe she was in fact innocent.
It's hard to argue with someone who ignores the truths of his circumstance so long as they don't come to bear on his personal existence. If you truly believe something then act on it, instead of spouting your "beliefs" on a forum.
The woman is a psychopath. She feels no emotion over her dead daughter, only for herself for getting out of jail free. May the Devil have fun with her in hell.
On July 06 2011 07:46 PolSC2 wrote: The woman is a psychopath. She feels no emotion over her dead daughter, only for herself for getting out of jail free. May the Devil have fun with her in hell.
She is clearly severely mentally ill, and/or suffering from some sort of severe post traumatic stress. Does that make her guilty of murder?
On July 06 2011 07:46 PolSC2 wrote: The woman is a psychopath. She feels no emotion over her dead daughter, only for herself for getting out of jail free. May the Devil have fun with her in hell.
There's no evidence at that hell exists, how can you assume that it is?
On July 06 2011 07:46 PolSC2 wrote: The woman is a psychopath. She feels no emotion over her dead daughter, only for herself for getting out of jail free. May the Devil have fun with her in hell.
There's no evidence at that hell exists, how can you assume that it is?
This case is another reason that I really hope that it does exist
On July 06 2011 07:46 PolSC2 wrote: The woman is a psychopath. She feels no emotion over her dead daughter, only for herself for getting out of jail free. May the Devil have fun with her in hell.
There's no evidence at that hell exists, how can you assume that it is?
This case is another reason that I really hope that it does exist
Hell for a punishment is pretty harsh, I would just put her in a mental institution or a rehab correctional facility or something. Everyone deserve a second chance.
On July 06 2011 07:46 PolSC2 wrote: The woman is a psychopath. She feels no emotion over her dead daughter, only for herself for getting out of jail free. May the Devil have fun with her in hell.
She is clearly severely mentally ill, and/or suffering from some sort of severe post traumatic stress. Does that make her guilty of murder?
Of course not, but if you look at the concrete evidence of this case it appears she killed her child and stored the child in her trunk before dumping it in the swamp. Just because she has emotional problems doesn't instantly acquit her.
On July 06 2011 07:43 Tewks44 wrote: She is almost certainly guilty.
-She abandoned her car which reeked of human decomposition -She did computer searches for many suspicious terms, the most suspicious including "neck breaking" "house hold weapons" "internal bleeding" and "how to make chloroform" -Traces of chloroform were found in the trunk of her car -She told her parents she was out of town in the month following the alleged accident that killed her daughter -parts of flies attracted to decomposition were found in her trunk -One of Caylee's hairs was found in her trunk, and the hair had traits that are only seen when the body is dead -She intentionally misled investigators after her daughter went missing, claiming her daughter had been kidnapped (she was convicted on this accusation) -She pulled her car backwards into the garage and borrowed a neighbor's shovel shortly after the alleged accident occurred -The body was found with duct tape on the mouth and nose. Duct tape that Casey had access to -The body was put in a laundry basket that Casey had access to.
The defense did a good job at convincing the jury the whole trial was a media circus that only existed to provide entertainment for people. He attacked the credibility of the Anthony Family and suggested that Casey had been framed. He planted the idea that the murder charges were unfounded and the only reason the death was ruled as a murder in the first place was to please the media and create hype for the story. Say what you want, at the end of the day it was an effective defense, and a very interesting case.
The problem is that the evidence is not so clear cut.
-The trunk reeked of decomposition, but was full of trash. I don't think you can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the source of a foul odor would be one source or the other. -The computer searches are suspicious but are not evidence of anything more then prurient interest. There was no way to establish that she actually made those searches. -The defense provided scientific testimony that the amount of chloroform present was not abnormal given that it was full of trash. -Lieing about her whereabouts is not evidence of murder, this is evidence of a coverup and insane behavior.It is not evidence of what she specifically was covering up. -Intentionally misleading prosecutors is again not evidence for murder. She could have been covering up any number of possible things, from manslaughter to negligence, but there is not evidence for any particular thing occurring.
Of course not, but if you look at the concrete evidence of this case it appears she killed her child and stored the child in her trunk before dumping it in the swamp. Just because she has emotional problems doesn't instantly acquit her.
It sure appears that way, but there was apparently not enough evidence to establish so beyond a reasonable doubt, and I am inclined to side with the jurors from what I have seen.
Well, it certainly isn't surprising that so many people just blindly accuse her of having killed her child because they watched it on Fox News or whatever.
If a jury finds her innocent then that is what she is until the opposite is proven. How can anyone really argue differently?
The sad part about this is that her life is already destroyed since the act of going to court and becoming a part of the legal system is designed to degenerate our self-image as normal citizens and break us down only to cause a new identical realization that we are in fact scum or criminals.
The good part is that if she is actually guilty, this means her punishment has already been carried out. She will never have a normal life and will probably be persecuted and humiliated throughout the rest of her life.
On July 06 2011 07:53 Sideburn wrote: The law has to err on the side of caution. It's always better to let a guilty man walk free than incarcerate an innocent man.
At least some people are mature enough to under stand that. The US justice system is more inclined to let the guilty go free then to convict the innocent.
On July 06 2011 07:53 Sideburn wrote: The law has to err on the side of caution. It's always better to let a guilty man walk free than incarcerate an innocent man.
At least some people are mature enough to under stand that. The US justice system is more inclined to let the guilty go free then to convict the innocent.
It's just seems logical. It's just type I and type II errors.
If you convict the innocent, you are also letting someone guilty go free. So it's unequivocally better to presume innocence.
On July 06 2011 06:58 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: No, I said he was stupid because he incorrectly used semantics. I think that I am correctly using them, because Black's Law dictionary defines Not guilty as "The form of the verdict in criminal cases where the jury acquit the prisoner." And acquit means "To release, absolve, or discharge one from an obligation or liability, or to legally certify the innocence of one charged with crime."
So, if Not Guilty = Acquitted, and Acquitted = Legally certified as innocent," how does not guilty != Innocent? Again, this is from Black's Law dictionary, which is one of the (maybe the) most widely used law dictionaries in the USA. By the definitions, I'm 100% correct, however, there is apparently some nuance in the language (undefined) that makes that not so. My point is that he's stupid because he's wrong, because (by definition) they mean the same thing. So far, no one has shown me that what I have said is false; they have, however, made unsubstantiated claims. I can't refute the claims very well, because he claims he's a lawyer (which could be true), and comes from a position of authority.
Let me know if this venn diagram confuses you.
You're speaking of a legal certificate, which is not the same thing as certification. A certificate is a document. That does not say "certificate" it says "to certify." While a certificate certifies, you can be certified without a certificate.
cer·ti·fy/ˈsərtəˌfī/Verb (Not defined by Black's Law) 1. Attest or confirm in a formal statement. 2. Officially recognize (someone or something) as possessing certain qualifications or meeting certain standards.
Mr. Beaman's charges were dismissed, but he was not given an NG verdict. They dismissed the charges, and found neither in favor, nor against him (13 years into his sentence).
Dismiss: To send away; to discharge; to cause to be removed. To dismiss an action or suit is to send it out of the court without any further consideration or hearing. Bosley v Bruner, 24 Miss. 462; Taft v Northern Tranap Co. 56N. H. 517; Goldsmith v Smith (C. C.) 21 Fed 614.
Dismissal: The dismissal of an action, suit, motion, etc, is an order or judgement finally disposing of it by sending it out of court, though without trial of the issues involved.
Notice the need of prior conviction to obtain this certificate. Now, I know you will point to #3, which says "I was acquitted." But acquitted is specifically defined as the following: Acquitted: Release; absolved; purged of an accusation; judicially discharged from accusation; release from debt, etc. Includes both civil and criminal prosecutions.
So we see that "to acquit" is different than "being acquitted [by a judge]."
Acquittals in fact are those which take place when the jury, upon trial, finds a verdict of not guilty. (This would lead you back to the main definition of acquittal, or it should).
Acquittal: In Criminal practice: The legal and formal certification of the innocence of a person who has been charged with crime; a deliverence or setting free a person from a charge of guilt.
So, nice graph, but according to actual, verifiable sources (which I have listed, while you have failed to show a single source to prove me wrong (or even properly use mine against me), I'm failing to see how I am wrong. I guess "Acquittal in fact," and "Acquittal" were all I really needed. Looking at that graph again, you used the wrong word against me anyway. Legal dictionaries are very specific about the meanings of words. They intend to not leave room for debate.
If you still think I'm wrong, I'd like to be shown, in those definitions, how I am wrong, keeping this in mind "[w]hile a certificate certifies, you can be certified without a certificate."
From what I've heard of the case she's guilty as sin but I guess the jury thought irrefutable proof wasn't there. You need to be certain with the death penalty.
On July 06 2011 08:05 KwarK wrote: From what I've heard of the case she's guilty as sin but I guess the jury thought irrefutable proof wasn't there. You need to be certain with the death penalty.
That's part of the problem with this case, from day one the media portrayed her as guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, based on her behavior after the death, rather then on hard evidence. Literally no major media source that I saw in any way questioned the case made by the prosecution, they just painted her as guilty in a massive circus, and dismissed the claims made by the defense as nothing but dirty tricks.
The fault is with the prosecution I think. They went too far asking for death penalty, it's hard to convict someone to a death penalty, let alone one with full of reasonable doubt based on the evidences.
On July 06 2011 08:08 OooLong wrote: The fault is with the prosecution I think. They went too far asking for death penalty, it's hard to convict someone to a death penalty, let alone one with full of reasonable doubt based on the evidences.
The punishment is charged later. They tried on like five different types of murder, which all have a range of penalties associated. She was found not guilty on all charges, except lying to a police officer (during an investigation. I assume that's part of the charge).
On July 06 2011 08:04 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: You're speaking of a legal certificate, which is not the same thing as certification. A certificate is a document. That does not say "certificate" it says "to certify." While a certificate certifies, you can be certified without a certificate.
cer·ti·fy/ˈsərtəˌfī/Verb (Not defined by Black's Law) 1. Attest or confirm in a formal statement. 2. Officially recognize (someone or something) as possessing certain qualifications or meeting certain standards.
You're making distinctions I didn't care to make. To certify as innocent is a certification of innocence when the act is complete.
Mr. Beaman's charges were dismissed, but he was not given an NG verdict. They dismissed the charges, and found neither in favor, nor against him (13 years into his sentence).
Dismiss: To send away; to discharge; to cause to be removed. To dismiss an action or suit is to send it out of the court without any further consideration or hearing. Bosley v Bruner, 24 Miss. 462; Taft v Northern Tranap Co. 56N. H. 517; Goldsmith v Smith (C. C.) 21 Fed 614.
Dismissal: The dismissal of an action, suit, motion, etc, is an order or judgement finally disposing of it by sending it out of court, though without trial of the issues involved.
A dismissal is a dismissal. I'm not sure what bringing this up has to do with anything.
"Leiderman, one of his defense lawyers, thought it was not enough that the government dropped charges. He wanted the criminal justice system to recognize Gonzalez's innocence affirmatively.
There is such a thing as a declaration of factual innocence, he explained to Gonzalez. A judge can grant it. It is exceedingly rare — so rare that many cops and lawyers go a career without seeing one. It means not just that prosecutors couldn't make a case against you, but that you didn't do the crime....Gonzalez was soon holding a certified copy of the judge's order declaring him factually innocent."
Notice the need of prior conviction to obtain this certificate. Now, I know you will point to #3, which says "I was acquitted." But acquitted is specifically defined as the following: Acquitted: Release; absolved; purged of an accusation; judicially discharged from accusation; release from debt, etc. Includes both civil and criminal prosecutions.
So we see that "to acquit" is different than "being acquitted [by a judge]."
I'm not following the point you are making. There are many different types of acquittal? Ok?
Acquittals in fact are those which take place when the jury, upon trial, finds a verdict of not guilty. (This would lead you back to the main definition of acquittal, or it should).
Acquittal: In Criminal practice: The legal and formal certification of the innocence of a person who has been charged with crime; a deliverence or setting free a person from a charge of guilt. So, nice graph, but according to actual, verifiable sources (which I have listed, while you have failed to show a single source to prove me wrong (or even properly use mine against me), I'm failing to see how I am wrong. I guess "Acquittal in fact," and "Acquittal" were all I really needed. Looking at that graph again, you used the wrong word against me anyway.
No I didn't.
Legal dictionaries are very specific about the meanings of words. They intend to not leave room for debate.
Actually, you know, there are probably a total of 5 courts in this country that accept, without reservation, the definition in a legal dictionary on a point of law. Your point about the infallibility of legal dictionaries is not taken.
If you still think I'm wrong, I'd like to be shown, in those definitions, how I am wrong, keeping this in mind "[w]hile a certificate certifies, you can be certified without a certificate."
Black's Law dictionary (2009, 9th ed) defines 'not guilty' as "A jury verdict acquitting the defendant because the prosecution failed to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Notice how they don't use the word 'innocent' in this definition.
It defines 'innocent' as "Free from guilt; free from legal fault."
It defines "acquit" as "to clear a person of criminal charge."
I'm not sure where you're getting your information. I just looked it up on Westlaw.com with their Black's Law dictionary database. (I question as to how you 'looked up' terms in Black's Law dictionary for free online, as they most definitely do not offer such a service for free.)
Now, I am going to quote the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES to prove that you're wrong. Are you going to claim that your legal dictionary is more authoritative than the highest court in this country? That the Supreme Court is wrong on this point of law, that it is mistaken, and that the dictionary has it right? (even if so, the next day after the Supreme Court issues its new finding, the legal dictionary would be obligated to change its definition).
'We have explained that “acquittal on criminal charges does not prove that the defendant is innocent; it merely proves the existence of a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.”' United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 361 (1984). You are free to go to Google Scholar and read this court opinion if you so desire, simply put '465 US 354' into the search bar and select "Legal opinions". Enjoy.
Are you seriously going to continue arguing this point with me (and the other guy, who is a licensed attorney)? The Supreme Court is on our side, all you have is a erroneous interpretation of a legal dictionary's definition.
We also have a more recent Supreme Court decision, Kansas v. March, 548 U.S. 163, discussing an Illinois Court with approval, on page 194:
“While a not guilty finding is sometimes equated with a finding of innocence, that conclusion is erroneous.... A not guilty verdict expresses no view as to a defendant's innocence.” People v. Smith, 185 Ill.2d 532., at 545 (1999).
On July 06 2011 06:32 staplestf2 wrote: am i the only one that is glad this is over? now when i turn on the news i might be able to watch real news that might effect more then a handful of people. sorry if i sound bitter but when i turn on news i want to see what is happening in the world NOT some trial that has zero meaning to 99.99% of people. this crap was like the royal wedding 2.0. i'm in the states why should i care about the wedding of a symbolic prince that holds less power then richard branson. The best part is i know i will be hearing about casey anthony for the rest of the week.
trust me everyone in orlando wants this over with already
On July 06 2011 07:53 Sideburn wrote: The law has to err on the side of caution. It's always better to let a guilty man walk free than incarcerate an innocent man.
At least some people are mature enough to under stand that. The US justice system is more inclined to let the guilty go free then to convict the innocent.
the quote about "i'd rather let 100 criminals go free, than 1 innocent man be put in prison" (forgotten the direct quote) always strikes me as quite a win for the criminals.. statistically
I agree with it being the lesser of 2 evils, but it sure does work in favor of some crappy people!
Having only read this for the first time today, as this story hasn't made news in the UK (or at least not to my knowledge), the evidence does seem to strongly indicate that this has been an incorrect decision. As people have pointed out, the justice system requires irrefutable evidence to prove somebody guilty, and although it seems there is extremely strong evidence against Casey Anthony, it seems not to have been enough. This story deeply saddened me, I feel so much for the little girl and what she must have gone through. Hopefully this decision was infact the correct one, despite the evidence that seems to point the other way. Either way, my thoughts are with Caylee tonight
On July 06 2011 07:09 manawah wrote: This just shows that we still need a reliable method of detecting the truth.
Truth is relative.
thx philosophy 101 student for clearing everything up. Obviously since truth is relative you can't convict anyone of anything. She killed her baby, the jury should have seen the lies and known that she was hiding something.
What a freakout. Manawah was talking about a reliable method of detecting truth. I said truth is relative, therefore there is no such thing as a reliable method of detecting the truth. Material evidence is about as good as it gets. Nobody said anything about convictions, you nut.
On July 06 2011 07:53 Sideburn wrote: The law has to err on the side of caution. It's always better to let a guilty man walk free than incarcerate an innocent man.
At least some people are mature enough to under stand that. The US justice system is more inclined to let the guilty go free then to convict the innocent.
the quote about "i'd rather let 100 criminals go free, than 1 innocent man be put in prison" (forgotten the direct quote) always strikes me as quite a win for the criminals.. statistically
I agree with it being the lesser of 2 evils, but it sure does work in favor of some crappy people!
Believe that quote was originally attributed to Blackwell. Also, I believe it was "Better to let 10 guilty men go free than take away the liberties of one innocent man". Not completely posite on the quote but about 100% positive on the source.
On July 06 2011 07:56 TanX wrote: Well, it certainly isn't surprising that so many people just blindly accuse her of having killed her child because they watched it on Fox News or whatever.
If a jury finds her innocent then that is what she is until the opposite is proven. How can anyone really argue differently?
The sad part about this is that her life is already destroyed since the act of going to court and becoming a part of the legal system is designed to degenerate our self-image as normal citizens and break us down only to cause a new identical realization that we are in fact scum or criminals.
The good part is that if she is actually guilty, this means her punishment has already been carried out. She will never have a normal life and will probably be persecuted and humiliated throughout the rest of her life.
A jury finding her innocent does not mean she did not do it - it just means the state couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she DID do it. If I'm a juror in that case, without any hard, physical evidence linking her to the murder(the forensic evidence was based on legally fishy science) and considering just how dysfunctional the Anthony family is (with the exception of Lee, who seems like the only sane one) it would be very hard for me to say that the state proved Casey killed her daughter. I personally think she had a major role in her daughter's death but my duty as a juror is to put those to the side.
The court of public opinion has lower standards though, and that's why it's important to differentiate between arguing whether or not she's actually guilty and arguing whether or not she should have been found guilty in a court of law.
I'm going to assume she played a major role in her daughter's death.
Can she sleep well at night? It'll be tough to go out in public for quite some time. Her parents...have to know she's very likely guilty. Maybe not likely enough for the judicial system, but they must know.
What would truly fascinate me is if she finds joy again in life.
It was always going to turn out this way. There was no hard facts to state she had anything to do with the murder. All the evidence could have led to anyone doing it, it just didn't lead back to one person, or Casey.
I don't like the idea that Casey Anthony now has the opportunity to make millions on interviews, books etc all of the back of Caylee, but unfortunately that is the world.
I really want to see Caylee get the justice she deserves after being killed and then just dumped in some swamp area, but while saying that I want the person to be punished to be the guilty person. I don't think we are ever going to know what happened to Caylee or who did it, which is not right at all!
The fact of the matter is that she was found innocent. End of story. The legal system is designed to protect the innocent. Publicly harassing people even though they have been found innocent is disgusting.
Assume you are innocent, can you imagine being falsely accused of killing your own child? Can you then imagine being in the court system for years not knowing your fate. Can you then imagine finally being acquitted, but then despite the evidence (you know, the actual facts rather than people just going with their 'feelings' and shit) everyone just assumes you are guilty and harasses you and your life is destroyed anyway.
There is no point arguing from a public standpoint if she is guilty, because she has been found innocent to the best standards we can provide. Does this let some guilty people free? Yes. However, the system is designed to protect the innocent, and as someone who does not plan to commit any crimes, I am heavily favored to a system that presumes innocence. A system that presumes guilt is no better than the dark ages. If you cannot accept the verdict, then that is your own entirely biased opinion and you have no right to harass or otherwise harm other people based on your own opinion.
On July 06 2011 09:20 sAfuRos wrote: Wait what the hell? Last i checked this case was gg, Casey Anthony was totally boned? Joke witnesses, joke defense, joke Casey Anthony, etc
Did the prosecution totally fuck up or something?
All 3 were jokes. But it was all distracting enough to cause doubt.
Unexpected result but we got to respect the law...I guess. The jury only took 11 hours to come to a verdict so I guess the prosecution was not very convincing.
On July 06 2011 09:13 Kollapse wrote: I can't imagine where she goes from here.
I'm going to assume she played a major role in her daughter's death.
Can she sleep well at night? It'll be tough to go out in public for quite some time. Her parents...have to know she's very likely guilty. Maybe not likely enough for the judicial system, but they must know.
What would truly fascinate me is if she finds joy again in life.
Have you been keeping up with the case? This is the same woman who goes to a nightclub less than a week after she reports her kid "missing" and is photographed with a big ass grin on her face.
On July 06 2011 09:13 Kollapse wrote: I can't imagine where she goes from here.
I'm going to assume she played a major role in her daughter's death.
Can she sleep well at night? It'll be tough to go out in public for quite some time. Her parents...have to know she's very likely guilty. Maybe not likely enough for the judicial system, but they must know.
What would truly fascinate me is if she finds joy again in life.
Have you been keeping up with the case? This is the same woman who goes to a nightclub less than a week after she reports her kid "missing" and is photographed with a big ass grin on her face.
And by the way, a large portion of the Casey's defense relies on the jury believing she was physically and sexually abused by her father as a child, and essentially taught to lie. The defense also put her father in the spotlight, accusing him of doing most of the cover-up, as well as questioned his wellbeing (they insinuated that he was suicidal because of guilt).
So her life is pretty much fxed, lol. Everyone knows her picture, even her parents want nothing to do with her (they were quoted as not believing in Casey's story, but also not wanting her to go to jail), and she'll never have a quality job for the rest of her life.
She will not need to work again when she sells her exclusive story to the papers, does tv shows and then eventually sells her book! I don't think money is going to be a problem for her. Which is sad seeing as it is all from the death of her daughter!
On July 06 2011 09:20 Enzyme wrote: The fact of the matter is that she was found innocent. End of story. The legal system is designed to protect the innocent. Publicly harassing people even though they have been found innocent is disgusting.
Assume you are innocent, can you imagine being falsely accused of killing your own child? Can you then imagine being in the court system for years not knowing your fate. Can you then imagine finally being acquitted, but then despite the evidence (you know, the actual facts rather than people just going with their 'feelings' and shit) everyone just assumes you are guilty and harasses you and your life is destroyed anyway.
There is no point arguing from a public standpoint if she is guilty, because she has been found innocent to the best standards we can provide. Does this let some guilty people free? Yes. However, the system is designed to protect the innocent, and as someone who does not plan to commit any crimes, I am heavily favored to a system that presumes innocence. A system that presumes guilt is no better than the dark ages. If you cannot accept the verdict, then that is your own entirely biased opinion and you have no right to harass or otherwise harm other people based on your own opinion.
Partially true, except when you look at the evidence there is essentially no way she could've not killed her daughter. In cases like this the law system is flawed because the prosecution fucked up and a lack of "solid evidence", disgusting she can get away with this
Partially true, except when you look at the evidence there is essentially no way she could've not killed her daughter. In cases like this the law system is flawed because the prosecution fucked up and a lack of "solid evidence", disgusting she can get away with this
Would you like to explain your reasoning on " when you look at the evidence there is essentially no way she could've not killed her daughter."?
The prosecution didn't mess up, they presented all the facts of the case and how it could have implicated Casey in murder. Perhaps they could have presented it differently but they certainly didn't mess up. None of the evidence clearly beyond reasonable doubt determined Casey murdered her daughter.
Partially true, except when you look at the evidence there is essentially no way she could've not killed her daughter. In cases like this the law system is flawed because the prosecution fucked up and a lack of "solid evidence", disgusting she can get away with this
Would you like to explain your reasoning on " when you look at the evidence there is essentially no way she could've not killed her daughter."?
The prosecution didn't mess up, they presented all the facts of the case and how it could have implicated Casey in murder. Perhaps they could have presented it differently but they certainly didn't mess up. None of the evidence clearly beyond reasonable doubt determined Casey murdered her daughter.
When you read the entire story, there's essentially a 99.9% chance she killed her daughter.
All the lies she told police, the diary entry, the missing for 1 month and no report, the smell in the car + hair, the items found at the crime scene, the searches on her computer, etc... I know it's not enough in court but in my mind it adds up and there is no way for me to think she didn't kill her daughter.
I hate seeing someone lie so much to police trying to help her daughter, it makes no sense. And she goes partying when her girl is missing? Come on...
I understand how the court system works, but the fact that she was found not guilty is blasphemy IMO.
On July 06 2011 10:09 Kurr wrote:When you read the entire story, there's essentially a 99.9% chance she killed her daughter.
All the lies she told police, the diary entry, the missing for 1 month and no report, the smell in the car + hair, the items found at the crime scene, the searches on her computer, etc... I know it's not enough in court but in my mind it adds up and there is no way for me to think she didn't kill her daughter.
I hate seeing someone lie so much to police trying to help her daughter, it makes no sense. And she goes partying when her girl is missing? Come on...
I understand how the court system works, but the fact that she was found not guilty is blasphemy IMO.
A lot of circumstantial evidence doesn't equate to concrete proof of murder. It's pretty obvious she has something to do with her daughter's death, but the available evidence makes it impossible to prove what exactly that was.
Partially true, except when you look at the evidence there is essentially no way she could've not killed her daughter. In cases like this the law system is flawed because the prosecution fucked up and a lack of "solid evidence", disgusting she can get away with this
Would you like to explain your reasoning on " when you look at the evidence there is essentially no way she could've not killed her daughter."?
The prosecution didn't mess up, they presented all the facts of the case and how it could have implicated Casey in murder. Perhaps they could have presented it differently but they certainly didn't mess up. None of the evidence clearly beyond reasonable doubt determined Casey murdered her daughter.
When you read the entire story, there's essentially a 99.9% chance she killed her daughter.
All the lies she told police, the diary entry, the missing for 1 month and no report, the smell in the car + hair, the items found at the crime scene, the searches on her computer, etc... I know it's not enough in court but in my mind it adds up and there is no way for me to think she didn't kill her daughter.
I hate seeing someone lie so much to police trying to help her daughter, it makes no sense. And she goes partying when her girl is missing? Come on...
I understand how the court system works, but the fact that she was found not guilty is blasphemy IMO.
But what if that was you on trial for murder with all the same information going against you, but you and only you knew you didnt do it? Would you happily say give me the lethal injection as I can see things look really really bad against me even though I know didn't do it? Or would you hire a defense team who can pick holes in every part of the prosecutions case(not because the prosecution is bad just that there are a lot of holes in it) so that you don't get punished for something you didn't do? I love how some people just totally see one explanation and that is the end of it, that is why there is a jury who look at both sides and make a decision.
On July 06 2011 10:26 kpzd wrote: TIL people think feeling should dictate verdicts instead of facts. Holy shit. -.-
I'm not suggesting they should change the law system, but it's annoying how this woman can get away with so blatantly murdering her own daughter - there is no hard evidence but at the same time no feasable alternative.
In the justice system, you are innocent until proven guilty, plain and simple. There was no hard evidence that she murdered her daughter so there was no way to prove that she is guilty.
On July 06 2011 10:52 Cassel_Castle wrote: I guess we just have to hope that, like OJ, karma catches up to her and she goes to prison for something else.
Like I heard someone mention today:
If she's the pathological liar and malcontent the public believes her to be, and in many cases has proven herself to be, its only a matter of time before we see her again.
84 visits to a Chloroform creating website. Ya that's normal. Too bad you need hard evidence in today's court system. Such a crime that she was let off with such a weak sentence.
On July 06 2011 09:20 sAfuRos wrote: Wait what the hell? Last i checked this case was gg, Casey Anthony was totally boned? Joke witnesses, joke defense, joke Casey Anthony, etc
Did the prosecution totally fuck up or something?
the defense actually did very well for what they were given to defend. The prosecuters were going all the way for the murder charge and not much else. In the end there really wasn't enough solid evidence to get her for what they were charging her for. If they had gone for something like manslaughter then I think they could have had a better chance.
I don't give a fuck that she got away with murder (If I was her daughter i'd probably want to get killed too), but the fact that is going to be making millions and will never have to work another day in her life makes me utterly fucking sick. I hope some batshit crazy mom just fucking shoots her in the gut right outside her house :\
On July 06 2011 09:20 sAfuRos wrote: Wait what the hell? Last i checked this case was gg, Casey Anthony was totally boned? Joke witnesses, joke defense, joke Casey Anthony, etc
Did the prosecution totally fuck up or something?
the defense actually did very well for what they were given to defend. The prosecuters were going all the way for the murder charge and not much else. In the end there really wasn't enough solid evidence to get her for what they were charging her for. If they had gone for something like manslaughter then I think they could have had a better chance.
It's just like a scene from the movie "Law Abiding Citizen". When Gerard Butler's character first gets interrogated by Jaime Foxx, he appears guilty as shit, but then he goes on to point out that there is no evidence proving him guilty. Same crap in this case. The "evidence" makes her look AWFUL. She LOOKS as guilty as guilt can look. The only problem is that none of the evidence is actually incriminating in a charge of murder. Very unfortunate. Horrible decision to take it to trial with the lack of better evidence. Double jeopardy. Really unfortunate. We can now only hope that we have yet to find the true murderer......
On July 06 2011 11:17 zizou21 wrote: I don't give a fuck that she got away with murder (If I was her daughter i'd probably want to get killed too), but the fact that is going to be making millions and will never have to work another day in her life makes me utterly fucking sick. I hope some batshit crazy mom just fucking shoots her in the gut right outside her house :\
On July 06 2011 09:20 sAfuRos wrote: Wait what the hell? Last i checked this case was gg, Casey Anthony was totally boned? Joke witnesses, joke defense, joke Casey Anthony, etc
Did the prosecution totally fuck up or something?
the defense actually did very well for what they were given to defend. The prosecuters were going all the way for the murder charge and not much else. In the end there really wasn't enough solid evidence to get her for what they were charging her for. If they had gone for something like manslaughter then I think they could have had a better chance.
This case goes has been going on since 2008, including a seven week trial, and you can convict on like 3 minutes of audio? Holy shit man, I hope you never get called to juror duty.
lol at all the people who say there was doubt and so you must acquit. Yes, I know that they didn't catch the murderer on tape and in the act, but if you guys truly followed the case and collected all the known facts, you would be surprised as fuk that she got off...
this is why most of America is speechless as hell because a baby killer was found not guilty of murder.
For anyone who followed the case at all and knows any sort about the legal system should realize that the da's case was really really weak and pretty much everything was circumstantial. The deliberations should have not taken that long to get a not guilty on most of it. Now whether she did it or not is a completely different story.
This case goes has been going on since 2008, including a seven week trial, and you can convict on like 3 minutes of audio? Holy shit man, I hope you never get called to juror duty.
Not to mention the music to set the mood... lmao... fail
On July 06 2011 11:39 Golgotha wrote: lol at all the people who say there was doubt and so you must acquit. Yes, I know that they didn't catch the murderer on tape and in the act, but if you guys truly followed the case and collected all the known facts, you would be surprised as fuk that she got off...
this is why most of America is speechless as hell because a baby killer was found not guilty of murder.
There is a reason why Jury is not allowed to watch tv, listen to radio, read newspapers. Media loves crap like this! Little girl found dead (+), mysterious events (+), crap! mom might be a suspect(++++), omg she lied!(+++) it all ads up into one huge media event, they play on your sympathy, emotions and other crap, forming your opinion on facts they want you to see...
On July 06 2011 11:39 Golgotha wrote: lol at all the people who say there was doubt and so you must acquit. Yes, I know that they didn't catch the murderer on tape and in the act, but if you guys truly followed the case and collected all the known facts, you would be surprised as fuk that she got off...
this is why most of America is speechless as hell because a baby killer was found not guilty of murder.
There is a reason why Jury is not allowed to watch tv, listen to radio, read newspapers. Media loves crap like this! Little girl found dead (+), mysterious events (+), crap! mom might be a suspect(++++), omg she lied!(+++) it all ads up into one huge media event, they play on your sympathy, emotions and other crap, forming your opinion on facts they want you to see...
This exactly, most people talking about the case have only watched the media's representation.
Plus everyone likes to troll, IRL and on forums... and without clear evidence and rational thinking.
On July 06 2011 11:19 Mr Showtime wrote: It's just like a scene from the movie "Law Abiding Citizen". When Gerard Butler's character first gets interrogated by Jaime Foxx, he appears guilty as shit, but then he goes on to point out that there is no evidence proving him guilty. Same crap in this case. The "evidence" makes her look AWFUL. She LOOKS as guilty as guilt can look. The only problem is that none of the evidence is actually incriminating in a charge of murder. Very unfortunate. Horrible decision to take it to trial with the lack of better evidence. Double jeopardy. Really unfortunate. We can now only hope that we have yet to find the true murderer......
It's more her testimony and interrogation make her look guilty as shit. The hard evidence was highly in her favor.
On July 06 2011 11:39 Golgotha wrote: lol at all the people who say there was doubt and so you must acquit. Yes, I know that they didn't catch the murderer on tape and in the act, but if you guys truly followed the case and collected all the known facts, you would be surprised as fuk that she got off...
this is why most of America is speechless as hell because a baby killer was found not guilty of murder.
All circumstantial evidence tbh. That is why there is sequestering since the emotional and public opinion is that she is guilty but legal and public opinion is much different.
On July 06 2011 11:47 BloodDrunK wrote: you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that she is guilty. but she still manages to get away with it. this makes me sad.
yup. The defense argues that the baby drowned in a "horrible accident". Didn't know what to do with a drowned baby and so they got "scared" and thus commenced to tape up the body up and stick it in a trunk, and then let it decompose in the woods...
and then later she lies and lies and lies for 31 days acting as if nothing was wrong.
But now the defense are asking everyone to shut up and let this case go because "the family just made a mistake of dumping a body in the woods instead of reporting the death to the cops". Who the fuck hides a little girl's body in the woods if it was an accident? And Baez can't even prove how the girl died (he says drowned in pool) just like the prosecutors can't prove that Caylee was murdered, so this case should not be closed but undergo further investigation.
Both sides provided zero evidence rofl, and yet they want to close the case cuz the defense is so fking easy compared to prosecuting in a dry bones case.
On July 06 2011 11:47 BloodDrunK wrote: you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that she is guilty. but she still manages to get away with it. this makes me sad.
yup. The defense argues that the baby drowned in a "horrible accident". Didn't know what to do with a drowned baby and so they got "scared" and thus commenced to tape up the body up and stick it in a trunk, and then let it decompose in the woods...
and then later she lies and lies and lies for 31 days acting as if nothing was wrong.
But now the defense are asking everyone to shut up and let this case go because "the family just made a mistake of dumping a body in the woods instead of reporting the death to the cops". Who the fuck hides a little girl's body in the woods if it was an accident? And Baez can't even prove how the girl died (he says drowned in pool) just like the prosecutors can't prove that Caylee was murdered, so this case should not be closed but undergo further investigation.
Both sides provided zero evidence rofl, and yet they want to close the case cuz the defense is so fking easy compared to prosecuting in a dry bones case.
Yea, no shit defense is easier. The burden should be on prosecution, not the defense. Or were you wanting a guilty-until-innocent way of due process?
On July 06 2011 11:39 Golgotha wrote: lol at all the people who say there was doubt and so you must acquit. Yes, I know that they didn't catch the murderer on tape and in the act, but if you guys truly followed the case and collected all the known facts, you would be surprised as fuk that she got off...
this is why most of America is speechless as hell because a baby killer was found not guilty of murder.
There is a reason why Jury is not allowed to watch tv, listen to radio, read newspapers. Media loves crap like this! Little girl found dead (+), mysterious events (+), crap! mom might be a suspect(++++), omg she lied!(+++) it all ads up into one huge media event, they play on your sympathy, emotions and other crap, forming your opinion on facts they want you to see...
lol cut the emotional and media influence crap. not all of us are brainless lemmings.
You really think this was all just an accident? That Caylee drowned in the swimming pool? And then Casey freaks out and tapes up her daughter, throws her in the trunk, and then lets the body decompose in the woods? Mysterious events? These are facts except for the swimming pool part that has not been proven by Baez.
Come on guys...the defense claims that Casey just made a mistake in taping up her daughter and burying her body in the woods when she supposedly drowned in the pool......can't believe they are letting someone who would do this go.
On July 06 2011 11:39 Golgotha wrote: lol at all the people who say there was doubt and so you must acquit. Yes, I know that they didn't catch the murderer on tape and in the act, but if you guys truly followed the case and collected all the known facts, you would be surprised as fuk that she got off...
this is why most of America is speechless as hell because a baby killer was found not guilty of murder.
There is a reason why Jury is not allowed to watch tv, listen to radio, read newspapers. Media loves crap like this! Little girl found dead (+), mysterious events (+), crap! mom might be a suspect(++++), omg she lied!(+++) it all ads up into one huge media event, they play on your sympathy, emotions and other crap, forming your opinion on facts they want you to see...
lol cut the emotional and media influence crap. not all of us are brainless lemmings.
You really think this was all just an accident? That Caylee drowned in the swimming pool? And then Casey freaks out and tapes up her daughter, throws her in the trunk, and then lets the body decompose in the woods? Mysterious events? These are facts except for the swimming pool part that has not been proven by Baez.
Come on guys...the defense claims that Casey just made a mistake in taping up her daughter and burying her body in the woods when she supposedly drowned in the pool......can't believe they are letting someone who would do this go.
I agree. We should totally convict based upon suspicions, gut feelings, and completely disregard any sort of evidence or lack thereof.
They had an absolute slam-dunk case for child neglect, abuse, criminally negligent homicide, tampering with a corpse, the lying to the cops, etc. That's 20, 30 years with an appropriately outraged jury. Her entire defense was "it was an accident and we got scared and hid the body, we didn't kill her."
Instead, they went for first degree murder, which is so amazingly hard to prosecute based on circumstantial evidence and "she's a bitch."
The judge was an absolute joke allowing her lawyer to drag her father and brother through the mud with absolutely no evidence, and then again allowing her lawyer to bring up her father's suicide attempt in 2009. That was incredibly prejudicial and had absolutely no relevancy to the trial save for the defense's insane and totally unsupported theories.
Prosecutors were banking on the chain of logic "she's a bitch who doesn't care about anything but herself, she lied to the cops, she's lying about her dad, she must be guilty." Nowhere in that does evidence that she committed first-degree murder appear.
Reasonable doubt. Shitty prosecutors, shitty judge, and a slimeball defense lawyer who will throw out the most outrageous things possible to secure an acquittal = not guilty.
Casey Anthony will get what she deserves someday, she's too dumb to not go to jail (probably multiple times) in the future for petty offenses. Or she'll get involved in a meth ring or something, she's that dumb and conceited.
On July 06 2011 11:39 Golgotha wrote: lol at all the people who say there was doubt and so you must acquit. Yes, I know that they didn't catch the murderer on tape and in the act, but if you guys truly followed the case and collected all the known facts, you would be surprised as fuk that she got off...
this is why most of America is speechless as hell because a baby killer was found not guilty of murder.
There is a reason why Jury is not allowed to watch tv, listen to radio, read newspapers. Media loves crap like this! Little girl found dead (+), mysterious events (+), crap! mom might be a suspect(++++), omg she lied!(+++) it all ads up into one huge media event, they play on your sympathy, emotions and other crap, forming your opinion on facts they want you to see...
lol cut the emotional and media influence crap. not all of us are brainless lemmings.
You really think this was all just an accident? That Caylee drowned in the swimming pool? And then Casey freaks out and tapes up her daughter, throws her in the trunk, and then lets the body decompose in the woods? Mysterious events? These are facts except for the swimming pool part that has not been proven by Baez.
Come on guys...the defense claims that Casey just made a mistake in taping up her daughter and burying her body in the woods when she supposedly drowned in the pool......can't believe they are letting someone who would do this go.
I agree. We should totally convict based upon suspicions, gut feelings, and completely disregard any sort of evidence or lack thereof.
lol wtf? read again bro. the jury is VERY correct in having a reasonable doubt due to the lack of concrete evidence of murder. but the "daughter drowns, I freak out, I bury body, I did not kill her"... how can they just let her go?!
in the US you cannot be tried for the same thing twice...so now we have a woman who taped up her daughter and buried the body running around our country...
On July 06 2011 04:31 3clipse wrote: I think my friend said it well in his facebook post:
I am not gonna say what I think about Casey Anthony and whether she is guilty or not. I will say, it disgusts me that someone can go through every element of the justice system with the fiercest opposition, be found not guilty, and still be crucified by people who have no idea what the truth is. A trial is meant to be what determines guilt and innocence. If you just decide that someone must have gotten it wrong and so it's your right, power and privilege to act as though they are exactly what they were not found to be, you demean justice. Even if you are right. Even if they did it. The idea of a trial is to avoid you and people like you seeking villification and vindication for their own ends. Just so you know.
That guy is an idiot, a non guilty verdict does not mean innocent. OJ simpson was found not guilty in criminal court, but still guilty in civil court and forced to pay the families of the two people he killed for murder.
Public vilification does not a villain make.
Actually I would call her a villain or a psychopath. She was partying the entire time. Yes though you are right, I should not use my common sense on this case and instead defer to a legal system for determining my judgment. Again it just means the jurors, 12 people, decided it was not without a reasonable doubt, not that she did not do it.
She obviously did kill her child IMO. The justice system is wrong a lot of the time. they could not get a "smoking" gun, but it was pretty clear to most people.
There's nothing obvious about it and what you call her has nothing to do with what she is. The people with all the evidence and the express job of giving her a fair ruling without years of media exaggeration are the ones who made that decision, not just 12 random people asked on the street. Just because you think she did it doesn't mean you're qualified to make that decision.
Im not qualified to make an opinion? Nice point, I didn't say I'm going to execute her or something I just said imo she murdered her daughter. It's not like I believe my opinion will actually change anything.
your point is stupid, just because she was innocent in court doesn't mean it's wrong to still think she is a murderer. Not to mention having an freedom of opinion... honestly I don't understand how any normal person would think she isn't a murderer.
Good thing that's not my point, then. Good thing I didn't say you're not qualified to have an opinion. You're not qualified to make that decision, which means you have your rights to guess but you haven't earned the right to be taken seriously.
On July 06 2011 11:39 Golgotha wrote: lol at all the people who say there was doubt and so you must acquit. Yes, I know that they didn't catch the murderer on tape and in the act, but if you guys truly followed the case and collected all the known facts, you would be surprised as fuk that she got off...
this is why most of America is speechless as hell because a baby killer was found not guilty of murder.
There is a reason why Jury is not allowed to watch tv, listen to radio, read newspapers. Media loves crap like this! Little girl found dead (+), mysterious events (+), crap! mom might be a suspect(++++), omg she lied!(+++) it all ads up into one huge media event, they play on your sympathy, emotions and other crap, forming your opinion on facts they want you to see...
lol cut the emotional and media influence crap. not all of us are brainless lemmings.
You really think this was all just an accident? That Caylee drowned in the swimming pool? And then Casey freaks out and tapes up her daughter, throws her in the trunk, and then lets the body decompose in the woods? Mysterious events? These are facts except for the swimming pool part that has not been proven by Baez.
Come on guys...the defense claims that Casey just made a mistake in taping up her daughter and burying her body in the woods when she supposedly drowned in the pool......can't believe they are letting someone who would do this go.
I agree. We should totally convict based upon suspicions, gut feelings, and completely disregard any sort of evidence or lack thereof.
lol wtf? read again bro. the jury is VERY correct in having a reasonable doubt due to the lack of concrete evidence of murder. but the "daughter drowns, I freak out, I bury body, I did not kill her"... how can they just let her go?!
in the US you cannot be tried for the same thing twice...so now we have a woman who taped up her daughter and buried the body running around our country...
no one finds this bs?!
What is the alternative then? You said they are right in having reasonable doubt. But they shouldn't let her go? I'm just confused at how you see the justice system working ideally.
On July 06 2011 11:39 Golgotha wrote: lol at all the people who say there was doubt and so you must acquit. Yes, I know that they didn't catch the murderer on tape and in the act, but if you guys truly followed the case and collected all the known facts, you would be surprised as fuk that she got off...
this is why most of America is speechless as hell because a baby killer was found not guilty of murder.
There is a reason why Jury is not allowed to watch tv, listen to radio, read newspapers. Media loves crap like this! Little girl found dead (+), mysterious events (+), crap! mom might be a suspect(++++), omg she lied!(+++) it all ads up into one huge media event, they play on your sympathy, emotions and other crap, forming your opinion on facts they want you to see...
lol cut the emotional and media influence crap. not all of us are brainless lemmings.
You really think this was all just an accident? That Caylee drowned in the swimming pool? And then Casey freaks out and tapes up her daughter, throws her in the trunk, and then lets the body decompose in the woods? Mysterious events? These are facts except for the swimming pool part that has not been proven by Baez.
Come on guys...the defense claims that Casey just made a mistake in taping up her daughter and burying her body in the woods when she supposedly drowned in the pool......can't believe they are letting someone who would do this go.
I agree. We should totally convict based upon suspicions, gut feelings, and completely disregard any sort of evidence or lack thereof.
lol wtf? read again bro. the jury is VERY correct in having a reasonable doubt due to the lack of concrete evidence of murder. but the "daughter drowns, I freak out, I bury body, I did not kill her"... how can they just let her go?!
in the US you cannot be tried for the same thing twice...so now we have a woman who taped up her daughter and buried the body running around our country...
no one finds this bs?!
Though it may be more intuitive she drowned the baby this is a plausible scenario. If you dont think finding your baby dead would cause completely irrational emotional response you are incorrect. The way she reacted may have been deplorable, but she may not have been thinking straight. Partying and going on with life as normal is a decently observed response to tramatic events. If you can pretend that it did not happen by going through all other motions of life normally( add in drinking) some do. This is the way some people deal with tramatic situations. It may not be very likely this happened but it is possible. Although I take incredible issue with the legal system (private prison, mandatory minimums, etc.). Thank goodness this can still happen. Your intuition and feelings about events should not cloud concrete evidence.
edit: Also for those who have not seen this movie you should watch "12 angry men" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/ Older movie but deals with this same topic.
lol wtf? read again bro. the jury is VERY correct in having a reasonable doubt due to the lack of concrete evidence of murder. but the "daughter drowns, I freak out, I bury body, I did not kill her"... how can they just let her go?!
in the US you cannot be tried for the same thing twice...so now we have a woman who taped up her daughter and buried the body running around our country...
no one finds this bs?!
there are a lot of crazy people in otown so will see what happens when shes integrated back in society
On July 06 2011 11:39 Golgotha wrote: lol at all the people who say there was doubt and so you must acquit. Yes, I know that they didn't catch the murderer on tape and in the act, but if you guys truly followed the case and collected all the known facts, you would be surprised as fuk that she got off...
this is why most of America is speechless as hell because a baby killer was found not guilty of murder.
There is a reason why Jury is not allowed to watch tv, listen to radio, read newspapers. Media loves crap like this! Little girl found dead (+), mysterious events (+), crap! mom might be a suspect(++++), omg she lied!(+++) it all ads up into one huge media event, they play on your sympathy, emotions and other crap, forming your opinion on facts they want you to see...
lol cut the emotional and media influence crap. not all of us are brainless lemmings.
You really think this was all just an accident? That Caylee drowned in the swimming pool? And then Casey freaks out and tapes up her daughter, throws her in the trunk, and then lets the body decompose in the woods? Mysterious events? These are facts except for the swimming pool part that has not been proven by Baez.
Come on guys...the defense claims that Casey just made a mistake in taping up her daughter and burying her body in the woods when she supposedly drowned in the pool......can't believe they are letting someone who would do this go.
I agree. We should totally convict based upon suspicions, gut feelings, and completely disregard any sort of evidence or lack thereof.
lol wtf? read again bro. the jury is VERY correct in having a reasonable doubt due to the lack of concrete evidence of murder. but the "daughter drowns, I freak out, I bury body, I did not kill her"... how can they just let her go?!
in the US you cannot be tried for the same thing twice...so now we have a woman who taped up her daughter and buried the body running around our country...
no one finds this bs?!
Yes! Because lack of concrete evidence = reasonable doubt = let go. You said so yourself. The defense's proposition could be stupid as all hell; it doesn't matter. They don't have to prove anything. They could've said, "We have no alternative, but you have no concrete evidence," and if that were true, then it would have been an acquittal too.
On July 06 2011 11:39 Golgotha wrote: lol at all the people who say there was doubt and so you must acquit. Yes, I know that they didn't catch the murderer on tape and in the act, but if you guys truly followed the case and collected all the known facts, you would be surprised as fuk that she got off...
this is why most of America is speechless as hell because a baby killer was found not guilty of murder.
There is a reason why Jury is not allowed to watch tv, listen to radio, read newspapers. Media loves crap like this! Little girl found dead (+), mysterious events (+), crap! mom might be a suspect(++++), omg she lied!(+++) it all ads up into one huge media event, they play on your sympathy, emotions and other crap, forming your opinion on facts they want you to see...
lol cut the emotional and media influence crap. not all of us are brainless lemmings.
You really think this was all just an accident? That Caylee drowned in the swimming pool? And then Casey freaks out and tapes up her daughter, throws her in the trunk, and then lets the body decompose in the woods? Mysterious events? These are facts except for the swimming pool part that has not been proven by Baez.
Come on guys...the defense claims that Casey just made a mistake in taping up her daughter and burying her body in the woods when she supposedly drowned in the pool......can't believe they are letting someone who would do this go.
I agree. We should totally convict based upon suspicions, gut feelings, and completely disregard any sort of evidence or lack thereof.
lol wtf? read again bro. the jury is VERY correct in having a reasonable doubt due to the lack of concrete evidence of murder. but the "daughter drowns, I freak out, I bury body, I did not kill her"... how can they just let her go?!
in the US you cannot be tried for the same thing twice...so now we have a woman who taped up her daughter and buried the body running around our country...
no one finds this bs?!
Yes! Because lack of concrete evidence = reasonable doubt = let go. You said so yourself. The defense's proposition could be stupid as all hell; it doesn't matter. They don't have to prove anything. They could've said, "We have no alternative, but you have no concrete evidence," and if that were true, then it would have been an acquittal too.
What is "concrete evidence"? Her admitting that she taped up her daughter and buried her body? That's concrete enough for me.
The defense threw all these red herrings into the trial to confuse the jury like saying she was sexually abused by her father, and giving this ridiculous story that Casey had never told anyone up to that point. And look, the strategy worked.
On July 06 2011 12:58 happyness wrote: What is "concrete evidence"? Her admitting that she taped up her daughter and buried her body? That's concrete enough for me.
It's concrete evidence that she planned to kill her daughter and then did so, eh? Just because she buried the body afterwards? pro-level logical deductive reasoning there
On July 06 2011 11:39 Golgotha wrote: lol at all the people who say there was doubt and so you must acquit. Yes, I know that they didn't catch the murderer on tape and in the act, but if you guys truly followed the case and collected all the known facts, you would be surprised as fuk that she got off...
this is why most of America is speechless as hell because a baby killer was found not guilty of murder.
There is a reason why Jury is not allowed to watch tv, listen to radio, read newspapers. Media loves crap like this! Little girl found dead (+), mysterious events (+), crap! mom might be a suspect(++++), omg she lied!(+++) it all ads up into one huge media event, they play on your sympathy, emotions and other crap, forming your opinion on facts they want you to see...
lol cut the emotional and media influence crap. not all of us are brainless lemmings.
You really think this was all just an accident? That Caylee drowned in the swimming pool? And then Casey freaks out and tapes up her daughter, throws her in the trunk, and then lets the body decompose in the woods? Mysterious events? These are facts except for the swimming pool part that has not been proven by Baez.
Come on guys...the defense claims that Casey just made a mistake in taping up her daughter and burying her body in the woods when she supposedly drowned in the pool......can't believe they are letting someone who would do this go.
I agree. We should totally convict based upon suspicions, gut feelings, and completely disregard any sort of evidence or lack thereof.
lol wtf? read again bro. the jury is VERY correct in having a reasonable doubt due to the lack of concrete evidence of murder. but the "daughter drowns, I freak out, I bury body, I did not kill her"... how can they just let her go?!
in the US you cannot be tried for the same thing twice...so now we have a woman who taped up her daughter and buried the body running around our country...
no one finds this bs?!
Yes! Because lack of concrete evidence = reasonable doubt = let go. You said so yourself. The defense's proposition could be stupid as all hell; it doesn't matter. They don't have to prove anything. They could've said, "We have no alternative, but you have no concrete evidence," and if that were true, then it would have been an acquittal too.
What is "concrete evidence"? Her admitting that she taped up her daughter and buried her body? That's concrete enough for me.
The defense threw all these red herrings into the trial to confuse the jury like saying she was sexually abused by her father, and giving this ridiculous story that Casey had never told anyone up to that point. And look, the strategy worked.
Hard to define. Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt where all other possibilities are capricious and whimsical.
Reasonable doubt for your "concrete evidence:" Suppose she acts crazily after her daughter drowned. Is it reasonable to say people act crazily after a loved one dies? As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, yes.
Also, did she specifically admit that during testimony? I thought she never testified.
On July 06 2011 11:39 Golgotha wrote: lol at all the people who say there was doubt and so you must acquit. Yes, I know that they didn't catch the murderer on tape and in the act, but if you guys truly followed the case and collected all the known facts, you would be surprised as fuk that she got off...
this is why most of America is speechless as hell because a baby killer was found not guilty of murder.
There is a reason why Jury is not allowed to watch tv, listen to radio, read newspapers. Media loves crap like this! Little girl found dead (+), mysterious events (+), crap! mom might be a suspect(++++), omg she lied!(+++) it all ads up into one huge media event, they play on your sympathy, emotions and other crap, forming your opinion on facts they want you to see...
lol cut the emotional and media influence crap. not all of us are brainless lemmings.
You really think this was all just an accident? That Caylee drowned in the swimming pool? And then Casey freaks out and tapes up her daughter, throws her in the trunk, and then lets the body decompose in the woods? Mysterious events? These are facts except for the swimming pool part that has not been proven by Baez.
Come on guys...the defense claims that Casey just made a mistake in taping up her daughter and burying her body in the woods when she supposedly drowned in the pool......can't believe they are letting someone who would do this go.
I agree. We should totally convict based upon suspicions, gut feelings, and completely disregard any sort of evidence or lack thereof.
lol wtf? read again bro. the jury is VERY correct in having a reasonable doubt due to the lack of concrete evidence of murder. but the "daughter drowns, I freak out, I bury body, I did not kill her"... how can they just let her go?!
in the US you cannot be tried for the same thing twice...so now we have a woman who taped up her daughter and buried the body running around our country...
no one finds this bs?!
Yes! Because lack of concrete evidence = reasonable doubt = let go. You said so yourself. The defense's proposition could be stupid as all hell; it doesn't matter. They don't have to prove anything. They could've said, "We have no alternative, but you have no concrete evidence," and if that were true, then it would have been an acquittal too.
What is "concrete evidence"? Her admitting that she taped up her daughter and buried her body? That's concrete enough for me.
The defense threw all these red herrings into the trial to confuse the jury like saying she was sexually abused by her father, and giving this ridiculous story that Casey had never told anyone up to that point. And look, the strategy worked.
I'm surprised the prosecution isn't going to bring her up on child negligence charges or something. It'll get her some jail time, not as much, but it's something.
I'd rather a million evil bitches go free than a single innocent woman go to jail. When someone is found not guilty by reasonable doubt and that person is obviously guilty, there's 5 that really are innocent that get acquitted as well somewhere else.
On July 06 2011 11:39 Golgotha wrote: lol at all the people who say there was doubt and so you must acquit. Yes, I know that they didn't catch the murderer on tape and in the act, but if you guys truly followed the case and collected all the known facts, you would be surprised as fuk that she got off...
this is why most of America is speechless as hell because a baby killer was found not guilty of murder.
There is a reason why Jury is not allowed to watch tv, listen to radio, read newspapers. Media loves crap like this! Little girl found dead (+), mysterious events (+), crap! mom might be a suspect(++++), omg she lied!(+++) it all ads up into one huge media event, they play on your sympathy, emotions and other crap, forming your opinion on facts they want you to see...
lol cut the emotional and media influence crap. not all of us are brainless lemmings.
You really think this was all just an accident? That Caylee drowned in the swimming pool? And then Casey freaks out and tapes up her daughter, throws her in the trunk, and then lets the body decompose in the woods? Mysterious events? These are facts except for the swimming pool part that has not been proven by Baez.
Come on guys...the defense claims that Casey just made a mistake in taping up her daughter and burying her body in the woods when she supposedly drowned in the pool......can't believe they are letting someone who would do this go.
I agree. We should totally convict based upon suspicions, gut feelings, and completely disregard any sort of evidence or lack thereof.
lol wtf? read again bro. the jury is VERY correct in having a reasonable doubt due to the lack of concrete evidence of murder. but the "daughter drowns, I freak out, I bury body, I did not kill her"... how can they just let her go?!
in the US you cannot be tried for the same thing twice...so now we have a woman who taped up her daughter and buried the body running around our country...
no one finds this bs?!
Yes! Because lack of concrete evidence = reasonable doubt = let go. You said so yourself. The defense's proposition could be stupid as all hell; it doesn't matter. They don't have to prove anything. They could've said, "We have no alternative, but you have no concrete evidence," and if that were true, then it would have been an acquittal too.
What is "concrete evidence"? Her admitting that she taped up her daughter and buried her body? That's concrete enough for me.
The defense threw all these red herrings into the trial to confuse the jury like saying she was sexually abused by her father, and giving this ridiculous story that Casey had never told anyone up to that point. And look, the strategy worked.
I'm surprised the prosecution isn't going to bring her up on child negligence charges or something. It'll get her some jail time, not as much, but it's something.
You can't just bring new charges mid trial and it's not the prosecution's job to enforce anything that might be pulled forward after the trial. You're surprised because you have no clue how the justice system works, but you would bet your life that you do.
Casey's parents looking unhappy for some reason. Shouldn't they be celebrating their kid's life?
Casey's gonna be earning some cash from the book and movie deals. How much do you think she'll get? up to $ 300k?
Also, I wonder if Caylee is going to haunt Casey. Hopefully Casey was truly innocent. I'm beginning to have some doubts because of the media hysteria. How can a normal person murder a baby? Hmm is she as cold-blooded as the media says? That would mean she'll kill again? oh shit.
EDIT: I also don't get why so many people are only focusing on Casey. The victim here is Caylee. The jury basically decided that Caylee was not murdered and died on accident. Probably true, but I kinda want to read the logic behind the jury's choice.
EDIT 2: It's sad how easily I get influenced sometimes by the mob. I started out thinking Casey is for sure innocent, as she had been a consistent good mother. Caylee had no scars or bruises or any evidence of mistreatment by Casey before the pool incident. Casey had no motive to kill Caylee: Caylee was her daughter and she always had the option to give her up for adoption.
On July 06 2011 16:28 IzieBoy wrote: EDIT: I also don't get why so many people are only focusing on Casey. The victim here is Caylee. The jury basically decided that Caylee was not murdered and died on accident. Probably true, but I kinda want to read the logic behind the jury's choice.
The jury did not decide that. They decided that there is insufficient evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee was murdered by Casey.
On July 06 2011 16:28 IzieBoy wrote: EDIT: I also don't get why so many people are only focusing on Casey. The victim here is Caylee. The jury basically decided that Caylee was not murdered and died on accident. Probably true, but I kinda want to read the logic behind the jury's choice.
The jury did not decide that. They decided that there is insufficient evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee was murdered by Casey.
So what besides their verdict, what does the jury actually believe? Could it be that they gave her a not guilty verdict but think there's a high likelihood still that she murdered her daughter?
So the "not guilty verdict" means "not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt"
Anyways I think she's innocent. She probably should go live in a non-English speaking country now though.
On July 06 2011 16:28 IzieBoy wrote: EDIT: I also don't get why so many people are only focusing on Casey. The victim here is Caylee. The jury basically decided that Caylee was not murdered and died on accident. Probably true, but I kinda want to read the logic behind the jury's choice.
The jury did not decide that. They decided that there is insufficient evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee was murdered by Casey.
So what besides their verdict, what does the jury actually believe? Could it be that they gave her a not guilty verdict but think there's a high likelihood still that she murdered her daughter?
Yes that is most likely the case I think, but ultimately there just wasn't enough evidence to completely prove it and that's all they are supposed to make the judgement on.
On July 06 2011 16:28 IzieBoy wrote: EDIT: I also don't get why so many people are only focusing on Casey. The victim here is Caylee. The jury basically decided that Caylee was not murdered and died on accident. Probably true, but I kinda want to read the logic behind the jury's choice.
The jury did not decide that. They decided that there is insufficient evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee was murdered by Casey.
So what besides their verdict, what does the jury actually believe? Could it be that they gave her a not guilty verdict but think there's a high likelihood still that she murdered her daughter?
Yes, as they can only convict if the state has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that she did. Circumstantial evidence, mountains of it or not, is just that - circumstantial.
So the "not guilty verdict" means "not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt"
Yep. It does not mean that jury believe her to be "Innocent."
On July 06 2011 07:46 PolSC2 wrote: The woman is a psychopath. She feels no emotion over her dead daughter, only for herself for getting out of jail free. May the Devil have fun with her in hell.
There's no evidence at that hell exists, how can you assume that it is?
This case is another reason that I really hope that it does exist
Hell for a punishment is pretty harsh, I would just put her in a mental institution or a rehab correctional facility or something. Everyone deserve a second chance.
I just wanted to quote this as it made me laugh.
Let's suppose that Casey is guilty. You say that everyone deserves a second chance. Where is the daughter's second chance? Nope. No second chance for murder in my opinion.
I don't get why everyone is so shocked that she was found not guilty. There was zero evidence that she murdered her daughter. There was only suspicion. The prosecution never proved without reasonable doubt that she committed the crime.
- no witnesses - no murder weapon - no case
They didn't know how or what was used to kill the girl. They lacked major evidence and their case was based on her actions of Casey after the death/dissapearence.
That's how it goes. Get over it.
Everyone complaining, needs to realize the justice system worked as intended in this case. I only followed this because nothing is on tv in the morning when I get home from work.
Do I think she killed her daughter? Probably, but there isnt actual evidence proving it. The jury did what they should have done and it's a shame that people are bad mouthing the jurors. They upheld the womans constitutional rights. If anyone is mad over the case. They should be mad at the prosecutors and no one else.
On July 06 2011 18:17 icemanzdoinwork wrote: I don't get why everyone is so shocked that she was found not guilty. There was zero evidence that she murdered her daughter. There was only suspicion. The prosecution never proved without reasonable doubt that she committed the crime.
- no witnesses - no murder weapon - no case
They didn't know how or what was used to kill the girl. They lacked major evidence and their case was based on her actions of Casey after the death/dissapearence.
That's how it goes. Get over it.
Everyone complaining, needs to realize the justice system worked as intended in this case. I only followed this because nothing is on tv in the morning when I get home from work.
Do I think she killed her daughter? Probably, but there isnt actual evidence proving it. The jury did what they should have done and it's a shame that people are bad mouthing the jurors. They upheld the womans constitutional rights. If anyone is mad over the case. They should be mad at the prosecutors and no one else.
Agreed completely.
"I think she did it" isn't sufficient in a court of law. The prosecution needed to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, and they failed to do so because their evidence (or lack thereof) was embarrassingly shoddy,
On July 06 2011 10:26 kpzd wrote: TIL people think feeling should dictate verdicts instead of facts. Holy shit. -.-
I'm not suggesting they should change the law system, but it's annoying how this woman can get away with so blatantly murdering her own daughter - there is no hard evidence but at the same time no feasable alternative.
If it was so blatant why didn't the jury find proof beyond all reasonable doubt?
The defense did put up a feasible alternative, that Caylee drowned in a pool and Casey's father covered up the accident.
While it wasn't proven that this was indeed what happened, it's not the function of the defense to prove their theory, but rather the job of the prosecution to prove guilt, and they couldn't do that because they didn't have the evidence.
On July 06 2011 12:25 DeepElemBlues wrote: Prosecutors' fault.
They had an absolute slam-dunk case for child neglect, abuse, criminally negligent homicide, tampering with a corpse, the lying to the cops, etc. That's 20, 30 years with an appropriately outraged jury. Her entire defense was "it was an accident and we got scared and hid the body, we didn't kill her."
Instead, they went for first degree murder, which is so amazingly hard to prosecute based on circumstantial evidence and "she's a bitch."
The judge was an absolute joke allowing her lawyer to drag her father and brother through the mud with absolutely no evidence, and then again allowing her lawyer to bring up her father's suicide attempt in 2009. That was incredibly prejudicial and had absolutely no relevancy to the trial save for the defense's insane and totally unsupported theories.
Prosecutors were banking on the chain of logic "she's a bitch who doesn't care about anything but herself, she lied to the cops, she's lying about her dad, she must be guilty." Nowhere in that does evidence that she committed first-degree murder appear.
Reasonable doubt. Shitty prosecutors, shitty judge, and a slimeball defense lawyer who will throw out the most outrageous things possible to secure an acquittal = not guilty.
Casey Anthony will get what she deserves someday, she's too dumb to not go to jail (probably multiple times) in the future for petty offenses. Or she'll get involved in a meth ring or something, she's that dumb and conceited.
Imo that's exactly why legal system is kinda fucked up. It's about what prosecution attempts to 'try' the defendant for, not about the facts what defendant did. In the end if prosecution sets the bar "too high", defendant can get away unscratched completely.. Just depressing.
It's kind of funny. Cold blooded murderers can dispose of evidence quite easily. The lesson to be learned here is this - if you kill someone or just had a fatal accident at home just calmly cover it up and you'll walk.
Report to the authorities (aka "doing the right thing") will lead to actual jail time.
On July 06 2011 11:19 Mr Showtime wrote: It's just like a scene from the movie "Law Abiding Citizen". When Gerard Butler's character first gets interrogated by Jaime Foxx, he appears guilty as shit, but then he goes on to point out that there is no evidence proving him guilty. Same crap in this case. The "evidence" makes her look AWFUL. She LOOKS as guilty as guilt can look. The only problem is that none of the evidence is actually incriminating in a charge of murder. Very unfortunate. Horrible decision to take it to trial with the lack of better evidence. Double jeopardy. Really unfortunate. We can now only hope that we have yet to find the true murderer......
It's more her testimony and interrogation make her look guilty as shit. The hard evidence was highly in her favor.
Exactly. And more or less what I was trying to say. The "evidence" was in her favor. I'm not sure where the prosecutor got off believing that it was enough to convict a murderer. For example, google searches for "chloroform" make someone look very suspicious/guilty, but it means nothing in convicting a murderer, and therefore not really evidence. So yes, what there was for hard evidence was indeed in her favor.
I was living in Fla very near where this happened at the time. The amount of evidence that she was involved was overwhelming. I find myself both shocked and unsurprised at the verdict.
Shocked? The woman was involved in the killing of her child. There is zero reasonable doubt about that.
Unsurprised? There is no proof that she did it and as such the prosecution utterly and completely failed. They provided a winnable scenario for the defense and the jury did the "Right" thing and found her not guilty of the things there was no undeniable proof of. The real failure here is the investigators and the prosecution. They could have nailed her for involuntary manslaughter easily, but they decided to try and ride the "hype" wave and go for a murder conviction so they could open the death penalty door. This tactic ended up blowing up in their face and now the bitch walks free. How long that will last though is hard to say, there are A LOT of extremely angry people in Fla and she doesn't have the celebrity hiding power of OJ.
The reality is like it or not. The Jury did their job correctly. The prosecution completely dropped the ball and failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt because they got greedy.
I couldn't even follow the trial at all. I have 2 children myself and it was so heartbreaking that watching anything related to that case put me on RL tilt. I do know one thing though, not reporting your child missing after 30 days is suspect enough for me to say she was guilty of being an awful parent and should be punished beyond imagination.
On July 06 2011 23:23 RaFeStaR wrote: I couldn't even follow the trial at all. I have 2 children myself and it was so heartbreaking that watching anything related to that case put me on RL tilt. I do know one thing though, not reporting your child missing after 30 days is suspect enough for me to say she was guilty of being an awful parent and should be punished beyond imagination.
Plenty of awful parents around; they aren't put on trial for their lives.
On July 06 2011 03:43 RoosterSamurai wrote: I'd like to hear your guys' theories as to what happened to the baby, if you think Casey Anthony didn't kill her? I didn't follow the trial, but my parents did, so I ended up hearing a lot about it.
I mean....Whether she did it or not, the baby died somehow.
Our justice system is so fucked up it doesnt matter. All that matters is there was no physical evidence despite all the lying and bullshit. Anyone who has followed this with common sense would say she killed her daughter.
The problem with common sence is that it tends to change with times. If this had happen in the 20s if there was black guy within 10 miles common sence would have said he did it. Thankfully our justice system requires evidence. Its not perfect but its better than the alternatives.
This doesnt mean she wins, now that our justice system has made a mistake it is up to the rest of the country to put her to justice, do not let live a normal life, shun her from society for the rest of her life!
On July 06 2011 23:53 Cold-Blood wrote: This doesnt mean she wins, now that our justice system has made a mistake it is up to the rest of the country to put her to justice, do not let live a normal life, shun her from society for the rest of her life!
The justice system is fine, you need evidence to convict someone, not popular opinion. and ROFL on ruining her life, just wait till she releases the book and movie deal worth millions. If you want to blame someone, blame the shitty police investigation or the lackluster prosecution that relied on character assassination rather than actual forensics
There was no evidence of murder 1, but she is so guilty it's not even funny.
I honestly found myself wishing she'd get murdered too. Not just for killing a child, but how she behaved afterwards. It was so blatantly obvious that she did it, despite a lack of concrete evidence, but that she was extremely happy about it and pleased with herself for it - going out of her way to party every night.
I followed a good amount of the live feeds, however, and it's safe to say the prosecution was absolutely awful at getting their job done. I suppose neither the system nor a child murderer can be blamed for that.
Edit: Although, I'd like for any American to give me one reason why a jury "of your peers" is in any way a good idea. Wouldn't you want the people who find you guilty or innocent to be far more intelligent than the average person/yourself, especially on the subject in question(i.e. a judge on laws). Why on earth would anyone decide this is a better system than having the judge decide on a verdict?
On July 06 2011 14:12 Microchaton wrote: Just as a distraction, would you please direct me to the american websites with the more crazy comments about that story ? :D Glad someone mentionned 12 Angry men, every jury member should be forced to watch that movie.
The fark?
NO. That is about the worst possible movie anyone that is going to be a juror should watch. Conducting your own private investigation (illegal) and biasing a jury based on said private investigation (illegal) is definitely not what we need to have going on in our courtrooms.
On July 06 2011 23:53 Cold-Blood wrote: This doesnt mean she wins, now that our justice system has made a mistake it is up to the rest of the country to put her to justice, do not let live a normal life, shun her from society for the rest of her life!
I believe you are referring to the mistake as declaring her to be not guilty, but that's not true. However there was one mistake, and that was taking this to trial before enough hard and incriminating evidence was found. The "evidence" brought up made Anthony look guilty as shit, but it wasn't anything that meant she must have committed the murder. So again, the mistake was taking it to trial before acquiring better evidence. The laws of Double Jeopardy will now see it that she never goes to jail on this charge of murder. Very unfortunate, and now we can only hope the murderer was someone else, and is still out there.
On July 07 2011 00:27 HoldenR wrote: Edit: Although, I'd like for any American to give me one reason why a jury "of your peers" is in any way a good idea. Wouldn't you want the people who find you guilty or innocent to be far more intelligent than the average person/yourself, especially on the subject in question(i.e. a judge on laws). Why on earth would anyone decide this is a better system than having the judge decide on a verdict?
Juries don't make decisions based on laws. Why are you asking Americans to justify it? Why don't you ask your northern neighbors across the sea who came up with the idea
On July 07 2011 00:27 HoldenR wrote: There was no evidence of murder 1, but she is so guilty it's not even funny.
I honestly found myself wishing she'd get murdered too. Not just for killing a child, but how she behaved afterwards. It was so blatantly obvious that she did it, despite a lack of concrete evidence, but that she was extremely happy about it and pleased with herself for it - going out of her way to party every night.
I followed a good amount of the live feeds, however, and it's safe to say the prosecution was absolutely awful at getting their job done. I suppose neither the system nor a child murderer can be blamed for that.
Edit: Although, I'd like for any American to give me one reason why a jury "of your peers" is in any way a good idea. Wouldn't you want the people who find you guilty or innocent to be far more intelligent than the average person/yourself, especially on the subject in question(i.e. a judge on laws). Why on earth would anyone decide this is a better system than having the judge decide on a verdict?
I think that's a little unfair. That this particular group was able to look past their personal feelings and come to a not-guilty verdict in light of only circumstantial evidence says a lot about how effective this jury was. You can't blame the jury for this verdict. Blame the prosecution.
On July 07 2011 00:27 HoldenR wrote: There was no evidence of murder 1, but she is so guilty it's not even funny.
I honestly found myself wishing she'd get murdered too. Not just for killing a child, but how she behaved afterwards. It was so blatantly obvious that she did it, despite a lack of concrete evidence, but that she was extremely happy about it and pleased with herself for it - going out of her way to party every night.
I followed a good amount of the live feeds, however, and it's safe to say the prosecution was absolutely awful at getting their job done. I suppose neither the system nor a child murderer can be blamed for that.
Edit: Although, I'd like for any American to give me one reason why a jury "of your peers" is in any way a good idea. Wouldn't you want the people who find you guilty or innocent to be far more intelligent than the average person/yourself, especially on the subject in question(i.e. a judge on laws). Why on earth would anyone decide this is a better system than having the judge decide on a verdict?
I think that's a little unfair. That this particular group was able to look past their personal feelings and come to a not-guilty verdict in light of only circumstantial evidence says a lot about how effective this jury was. You can't blame the jury for this verdict. Blame the prosecution.
Pretty much this. I'm rather proud of the fact that the jury didn't let feelings get in the way of cold hard facts. Is she guilty? Probably. But there just wasn't enough evidence to prove it. Innocent until proven guilty.
On July 07 2011 00:27 HoldenR wrote: There was no evidence of murder 1, but she is so guilty it's not even funny.
I honestly found myself wishing she'd get murdered too. Not just for killing a child, but how she behaved afterwards. It was so blatantly obvious that she did it, despite a lack of concrete evidence, but that she was extremely happy about it and pleased with herself for it - going out of her way to party every night.
I followed a good amount of the live feeds, however, and it's safe to say the prosecution was absolutely awful at getting their job done. I suppose neither the system nor a child murderer can be blamed for that.
Edit: Although, I'd like for any American to give me one reason why a jury "of your peers" is in any way a good idea. Wouldn't you want the people who find you guilty or innocent to be far more intelligent than the average person/yourself, especially on the subject in question(i.e. a judge on laws). Why on earth would anyone decide this is a better system than having the judge decide on a verdict?
They don't exactly let anyone get on the jury for a trial like this. There is a long process where the lawyers can nearly pick and choose which make it on and which don't.
On July 07 2011 00:27 HoldenR wrote: There was no evidence of murder 1, but she is so guilty it's not even funny.
I honestly found myself wishing she'd get murdered too. Not just for killing a child, but how she behaved afterwards. It was so blatantly obvious that she did it, despite a lack of concrete evidence, but that she was extremely happy about it and pleased with herself for it - going out of her way to party every night.
I followed a good amount of the live feeds, however, and it's safe to say the prosecution was absolutely awful at getting their job done. I suppose neither the system nor a child murderer can be blamed for that.
Edit: Although, I'd like for any American to give me one reason why a jury "of your peers" is in any way a good idea. Wouldn't you want the people who find you guilty or innocent to be far more intelligent than the average person/yourself, especially on the subject in question(i.e. a judge on laws). Why on earth would anyone decide this is a better system than having the judge decide on a verdict?
I think that's a little unfair. That this particular group was able to look past their personal feelings and come to a not-guilty verdict in light of only circumstantial evidence says a lot about how effective this jury was. You can't blame the jury for this verdict. Blame the prosecution.
Pretty much this. I'm rather proud of the fact that the jury didn't let feelings get in the way of cold hard facts. Is she guilty? Probably. But there just wasn't enough evidence to prove it. Innocent until proven guilty.
Agreed. This verdict is a victory of logic and reason over irrational emotions. Juries can convict based on circumstantial evidence. However, circumstantial evidence is weaker and can be interpreted different ways.
On July 06 2011 23:23 RaFeStaR wrote: I couldn't even follow the trial at all. I have 2 children myself and it was so heartbreaking that watching anything related to that case put me on RL tilt. I do know one thing though, not reporting your child missing after 30 days is suspect enough for me to say she was guilty of being an awful parent and should be punished beyond imagination.
Plenty of awful parents around; they aren't put on trial for their lives.
Yeah, not reporting your child missing after 30 days isn't the most suspect thing I've ever heard in my life.
Awful parent =/= Bad parent
I think it's safe to say if she wasn't so awful her beautiful would be 5 year old would still be here. k?
Meh, I personally think she did it, and she probably did. But if I was on that jury I still would've voted not guildy, theres a difference in believing someone is guilty, and knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty, enough so to put them in jail for life.
On July 06 2011 23:23 RaFeStaR wrote: I couldn't even follow the trial at all. I have 2 children myself and it was so heartbreaking that watching anything related to that case put me on RL tilt. I do know one thing though, not reporting your child missing after 30 days is suspect enough for me to say she was guilty of being an awful parent and should be punished beyond imagination.
Plenty of awful parents around; they aren't put on trial for their lives.
Yeah, not reporting your child missing after 30 days isn't the most suspect thing I've ever heard in my life.
Awful parent =/= Bad parent
I think it's safe to say if she wasn't so awful her beautiful would be 5 year old would still be here. k?
Being an awful parent isn't enough grounds for the death penalty or life imprisonment. Murder one isn't the type of charge people should be tossing lightly around just based on gut instincts and suspicions. There's a reason our justice system sets a very high bar for murder one and provides numerous lesser charges that prosecutors can use.
On July 07 2011 00:27 HoldenR wrote:Although, I'd like for any American to give me one reason why a jury "of your peers" is in any way a good idea. Wouldn't you want the people who find you guilty or innocent to be far more intelligent than the average person/yourself, especially on the subject in question(i.e. a judge on laws). Why on earth would anyone decide this is a better system than having the judge decide on a verdict?
This case is upsetting all around. The police were told about the remains in august and they dont ever go. The guy who found them had already called 3 times and checked again 4 months later and they were still there. The state says not finding the body for so long really hurt their case and they let it sit there for 4 months!
The girl is so guilty is not even funny but there isn't hard evidence there. It is all circumstantial but her actions are so ridiculous you know she did it. The only way I get any kind of solace out of this is to really hope that she drowned accidentally and was not murdered. The chloroform searches and the body shown in the trunk of the car really dilute that though.
I will not read her book, i will not watch her show ever and I hope you people do the same. We should not make criminals into celebrities. So many lies. How could they not even get her on child abuse?
I have no sympathy for people. I wish we had stricter laws like in China. I honestly believe murderers should just be murdered. Not in this case but if its so obvious someone committed murder and no way to say they didn't, they should just be killed and be done with.
On July 07 2011 03:12 TheResidentEvil wrote: This case is upsetting all around. The police were told about the remains in august and they dont ever go. The guy who found them had already called 3 times and checked again 4 months later and they were still there. The state says not finding the body for so long really hurt their case and they let it sit there for 4 months!
The girl is so guilty is not even funny but there isn't hard evidence there. It is all circumstantial but her actions are so ridiculous you know she did it. The only way I get any kind of solace out of this is to really hope that she drowned accidentally and was not murdered. The chloroform searches and the body shown in the trunk of the car really dilute that though.
I will not read her book, i will not watch her show ever and I hope you people do the same. We should not make criminals into celebrities. So many lies. How could they not even get her on child abuse?
I have no sympathy for people. I wish we had stricter laws like in China. I honestly believe murderers should just be murdered. Not in this case but if its so obvious someone committed murder and no way to say they didn't, they should just be killed and be done with.
Go have fun being the only country in the world more obnoxiously patriotic and abusive than America then. If you really don't understand how she wasn't convicted, you really have no right to claim that anyone should or shouldn't do anything about this case. it is blatantly obvious and directly stated why she was not convicted. if the state could just murder anyone who "everybody knows is a murderer anyway" without enough evidence They could just falsify a lot of circumstancial evidence against literally everyone and anyone and convict them of anything.
but i guess you DO want to go live in china, so maybe you would enjoy that.
I agree that there was not enough evidence to specifically reach the guilty verdict for murder.
However, my problem with the trial is this:
We all know that Casey was lying to law enforcement, to her parents, to the legal system. But once it's found out that your testimony is a lie, and you're being accused of murder shouldn't you be FORCED to come out with a new testimony that isn't a "lie"? Why the fuck is the accused just allowed to lie about everything, but not actually have to present their version of the "truth"? I mean eventually, if you dug deep enough and she was the murderer, all of her "stories" would've fell apart.
This is just mind-boggling to me. Why wasn't she forced to explain to detectives during earlier investigations exactly how Caylee went missing once it was clear that her stories were complete bullshit? If she doesn't even need a reasonable story to be deemed not guilty of murder, what the fuck is wrong with this legal system?
after reading most of the responses I changed my mind since making this thread. I think our justice system is good and that public opinion should not be the deciding factor in a case, I think the verdict was correct and although when we think about it something is definitely up there is nothing you can really do about it. I think the biggest thing we can learn from this is how manipulating the media can be, people just blindly watch it and believe she should be guilty. they dont know how the justice system works but just because the whole situation is whacky they think she should be thrown in jail.
its also upsetting how this terrible person has a good chance to be set for life.
I didn't follow the trial at all, but I just wanted to say I'm always a bit cautious when people are assumed guilty as soon as they're brought to trial for something. What ever happened to, "innocent until proven guilty"? I mean, it's completely possible she did it, but that's the job of the state to wait until they have enough evidence to move forward and prove their case. It's not like they have a statute of limitations in the case of murder.
On July 07 2011 03:12 TheResidentEvil wrote: This case is upsetting all around. The police were told about the remains in august and they dont ever go. The guy who found them had already called 3 times and checked again 4 months later and they were still there. The state says not finding the body for so long really hurt their case and they let it sit there for 4 months!
The girl is so guilty is not even funny but there isn't hard evidence there. It is all circumstantial but her actions are so ridiculous you know she did it. The only way I get any kind of solace out of this is to really hope that she drowned accidentally and was not murdered. The chloroform searches and the body shown in the trunk of the car really dilute that though.
I will not read her book, i will not watch her show ever and I hope you people do the same. We should not make criminals into celebrities. So many lies. How could they not even get her on child abuse?
I have no sympathy for people. I wish we had stricter laws like in China. I honestly believe murderers should just be murdered. Not in this case but if its so obvious someone committed murder and no way to say they didn't, they should just be killed and be done with.
Go have fun being the only country in the world more obnoxiously patriotic and abusive than America then. If you really don't understand how she wasn't convicted, you really have no right to claim that anyone should or shouldn't do anything about this case. it is blatantly obvious and directly stated why she was not convicted. if the state could just murder anyone who "everybody knows is a murderer anyway" without enough evidence They could just falsify a lot of circumstancial evidence against literally everyone and anyone and convict them of anything.
but i guess you DO want to go live in china, so maybe you would enjoy that.
maybe you should read the next line after what you bolded where i said, NOT IN THIS CASE. Thanks crusader
On July 07 2011 04:21 teamsolid wrote:We all know that Casey was lying to law enforcement, to her parents, to the legal system. But once it's found out that your testimony is a lie, and you're being accused of murder shouldn't you be FORCED to come out with a new testimony that isn't a "lie"? Why the fuck is the accused just allowed to lie about everything, but not actually have to present their version of the "truth"? I mean eventually, if you dug deep enough and she was the murderer, all of her "stories" would've fell apart.
This is just mind-boggling to me. Why wasn't she forced to explain to detectives during earlier investigations exactly how Caylee went missing once it was clear that her stories were complete bullshit? If she doesn't even need a reasonable story to be deemed not guilty of murder, what the fuck is wrong with this legal system?
I read the full recap of it. Prosecutors and defense. Some justice when your only defense is to say "Well I probably got off work early," "lots of people search 'chloroform' and 'how to make chloroform'", "plenty of cars smell like decomposing flesh," "I didn't report my child's death because my dad molestered me," etc., etc.
I'm sorry but just being a month late in reporting that your child is missing should count for something.
On July 07 2011 04:54 Shamrock_ wrote:I'm sorry but just being a month late in reporting that your child is missing should count for something.
Sure, but that would be gross parental negligence, which is not the crime being prosecuted for here.
It will be the crime soon enough. They are gonna try to pin her on everything possible now that murder has been eliminated from the list of opportunities. And rightfully so.
On July 06 2011 14:12 Microchaton wrote: Just as a distraction, would you please direct me to the american websites with the more crazy comments about that story ? :D Glad someone mentionned 12 Angry men, every jury member should be forced to watch that movie.
The fark?
NO. That is about the worst possible movie anyone that is going to be a juror should watch. Conducting your own private investigation (illegal) and biasing a jury based on said private investigation (illegal) is definitely not what we need to have going on in our courtrooms.
What movie are you talking about? In 12 angry men there is no private investigation going on. It's the jury looking at the evidence one more time and reaching the right verdict.
And fyi, private investigation is not illegal. Either that or someone forgot to tell this to all the private investigators that are doing business in your country.
12 angry men should definitely be a movie to watch if you're going to be in a jury.
On July 06 2011 14:12 Microchaton wrote: Just as a distraction, would you please direct me to the american websites with the more crazy comments about that story ? :D Glad someone mentionned 12 Angry men, every jury member should be forced to watch that movie.
The fark?
NO. That is about the worst possible movie anyone that is going to be a juror should watch. Conducting your own private investigation (illegal) and biasing a jury based on said private investigation (illegal) is definitely not what we need to have going on in our courtrooms.
What movie are you talking about? In 12 angry men there is no private investigation going on. It's the jury looking at the evidence one more time and reaching the right verdict.
And fyi, private investigation is not illegal. Either that or someone forgot to tell this to all the private investigators that are doing business in your country.
12 angry men should definitely be a movie to watch if you're going to be in a jury.
I don't know about the truth to his statement, but I don't think he meant private investigation overall, he was talking about privately investigating into a case for which you are a juror.
Also, that did happen in the movie, the part where the guy pulls out his own rendition of the pocket knife that the boy was accused of using to kill his father, he then affirms that he went and bought it after conducting some investigation into the commonality of such a knife, that consists a private investigation.
Also, I don't think 12 Angry Men is the greatest film to watch if you're going to in a jury.
On July 07 2011 04:22 mewby wrote: after reading most of the responses I changed my mind since making this thread. I think our justice system is good and that public opinion should not be the deciding factor in a case, I think the verdict was correct and although when we think about it something is definitely up there is nothing you can really do about it. I think the biggest thing we can learn from this is how manipulating the media can be, people just blindly watch it and believe she should be guilty. they dont know how the justice system works but just because the whole situation is whacky they think she should be thrown in jail.
its also upsetting how this terrible person has a good chance to be set for life.
Set for life? Financially, maybe. I look at it like this; anywhere she goes in North America, most people are going to recognize and instinctively hate her. I don't think she's going to have it too easy, tbh.
On July 07 2011 04:22 mewby wrote: after reading most of the responses I changed my mind since making this thread. I think our justice system is good and that public opinion should not be the deciding factor in a case, I think the verdict was correct and although when we think about it something is definitely up there is nothing you can really do about it. I think the biggest thing we can learn from this is how manipulating the media can be, people just blindly watch it and believe she should be guilty. they dont know how the justice system works but just because the whole situation is whacky they think she should be thrown in jail.
its also upsetting how this terrible person has a good chance to be set for life.
Set for life? Financially, maybe. I look at it like this; anywhere she goes in North America, most people are going to recognize and instinctively hate her. I don't think she's going to have it too easy, tbh.
A lot easier than being in prison for the rest of her life.
On July 07 2011 04:22 mewby wrote: after reading most of the responses I changed my mind since making this thread. I think our justice system is good and that public opinion should not be the deciding factor in a case, I think the verdict was correct and although when we think about it something is definitely up there is nothing you can really do about it. I think the biggest thing we can learn from this is how manipulating the media can be, people just blindly watch it and believe she should be guilty. they dont know how the justice system works but just because the whole situation is whacky they think she should be thrown in jail.
its also upsetting how this terrible person has a good chance to be set for life.
Set for life? Financially, maybe. I look at it like this; anywhere she goes in North America, most people are going to recognize and instinctively hate her. I don't think she's going to have it too easy, tbh.
A lot easier than being in prison for the rest of her life.
True, unless someone decides to extract vigilante justice and kill her. That's easier on the outside.
On July 07 2011 05:02 Mr Showtime wrote: It will be the crime soon enough. They are gonna try to pin her on everything possible now that murder has been eliminated from the list of opportunities. And rightfully so.
It looks like they already pursued the other charges that they thought they could get a conviction for, given that she was found guilty of lying to the police.
I'm confused, If Casey was proven guilty of lying to investigators, wouldn't that be evidence that she was trying to cover up the death of her daughter?
Also the evidence are so stacked against Casey, I can't believe she walked away with only 4 charges of what is equivalent to a misdemeanor. I expected she be charged with murder, if not then negligent manslaughter.
On July 07 2011 06:09 MetalLobster wrote: I'm confused, If Casey was proven guilty of lying to investigators, wouldn't that be evidence that she was trying to cover up the death of her daughter?
On July 07 2011 06:09 MetalLobster wrote: I'm confused, If Casey was proven guilty of lying to investigators, wouldn't that be evidence that she was trying to cover up the death of her daughter?
Also the evidence are so stacked against Casey, I can't believe she walked away with only 4 charges of what is equivalent to a misdemeanor. I expected she be charged with murder, if not then negligent manslaughter.
Correct on the first point. Show was covering up the death. But that still doesn't mean she murdered her with regard to that particular bit of evidence.
Sad case. She lied, got away with lying and can keep lying all she wants because she doesn't have to prove anything.
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.
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.
The reason this case really angers me is the whole profile we're given of Casey Anthony. "A good liar" who is highly manipulative and shows no guilt or worry when her daughter are missing are a good indicator that she did something pretty bad to her daughter.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On July 07 2011 04:22 mewby wrote: after reading most of the responses I changed my mind since making this thread. I think our justice system is good and that public opinion should not be the deciding factor in a case, I think the verdict was correct and although when we think about it something is definitely up there is nothing you can really do about it. I think the biggest thing we can learn from this is how manipulating the media can be, people just blindly watch it and believe she should be guilty. they dont know how the justice system works but just because the whole situation is whacky they think she should be thrown in jail.
its also upsetting how this terrible person has a good chance to be set for life.
Set for life? Financially, maybe. I look at it like this; anywhere she goes in North America, most people are going to recognize and instinctively hate her. I don't think she's going to have it too easy, tbh.
A lot easier than being in prison for the rest of her life.
True, unless someone decides to extract vigilante justice and kill her. That's easier on the outside.
On July 07 2011 04:22 mewby wrote: after reading most of the responses I changed my mind since making this thread. I think our justice system is good and that public opinion should not be the deciding factor in a case, I think the verdict was correct and although when we think about it something is definitely up there is nothing you can really do about it. I think the biggest thing we can learn from this is how manipulating the media can be, people just blindly watch it and believe she should be guilty. they dont know how the justice system works but just because the whole situation is whacky they think she should be thrown in jail.
its also upsetting how this terrible person has a good chance to be set for life.
Set for life? Financially, maybe. I look at it like this; anywhere she goes in North America, most people are going to recognize and instinctively hate her. I don't think she's going to have it too easy, tbh.
A lot easier than being in prison for the rest of her life.
True, unless someone decides to extract vigilante justice and kill her. That's easier on the outside.
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.
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).
The prosecution didn't have a reasonable "why" (going to parties even though the parents looked after her?) or even "how" (duct tape was involved....).
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.
Why is it that the media always presumes someone is guilty in these high profile cases? I haven't been following this case much so it could very well be possible that she's guilty but what little I've seen the media has been blaming the mother since the beginning. Obviously the case wasn't as strong as the media wanted people to think if the jurors could all agree unanimously to clear her of all major charges.
Maybe the media should just stop reporting on trials until an actual verdict gets out?
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.
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.
Why was she found not guilty? The prosection could not definetively state how the baby died. In our system you are innocent until proven guilty. She said the baby died in the pool, the prosecution could not prove that did not happen, that is reasonable doubt-she is aquitted. They also could not establish a proper timeline of death, nor could they establish that her car was actually at the scene. Do I think she did it, yeh, do I think the prosecution proved their case-NO!
On July 07 2011 10:50 cfoy3 wrote: Why was she found not guilty? The prosection could not definetively state how the baby died. In our system you are innocent until proven guilty. She said the baby died in the pool, the prosecution could not prove that did not happen, that is reasonable doubt-she is aquitted. They also could not establish a proper timeline of death, nor could they establish that her car was actually at the scene. Do I think she did it, yeh, do I think the prosecution proved their case-NO!
Actually, she still hasn't said shit about what happened aside from the lies about the babysitter. It was her lawyer that made up the pool story to show an alternative "possibility" of what happened, as well as the molestation accusations against her father and brother.
I really do hope they at least end up charging her with criminal negligence for her child or something. This is pretty disgusting that she's just allowed to walk free.
On July 07 2011 11:00 teamsolid wrote:I really do hope they at least end up charging her with criminal negligence for her child or something. This is pretty disgusting that she's just allowed to walk free.
Child abuse charges were included in the trial, and she was unanimously found innocent of them as well. I find this to be the most questionable part, but there you have it.
On July 07 2011 11:00 teamsolid wrote:I really do hope they at least end up charging her with criminal negligence for her child or something. This is pretty disgusting that she's just allowed to walk free.
Child abuse charges were included in the trial, and she was unanimously found innocent of them as well. I find this to be the most questionable part, but there you have it.
Because the prosecution didn't care. They wanted the first degree murder charge. if she was guilty of murder, 1st, then she would have automatically been guilty of child abuse. I promise you they probably spent a total of 5 minutes talking about child abuse to the jury.
On July 07 2011 11:11 MozzarellaL wrote:Because the prosecution didn't care. They wanted the first degree murder charge. if she was guilty of murder, 1st, then she would have automatically been guilty of child abuse. I promise you they probably spent a total of 5 minutes talking about child abuse to the jury.
I agree. The point, however, is that they have already attempted those charges and cannot do so again due to double jeapordy rules.
On July 07 2011 11:00 teamsolid wrote:I really do hope they at least end up charging her with criminal negligence for her child or something. This is pretty disgusting that she's just allowed to walk free.
Child abuse charges were included in the trial, and she was unanimously found innocent of them as well. I find this to be the most questionable part, but there you have it.
She was found "not guilty," not "innocent". Though it can happen, courts very, very rarely declare someone to be innocent, and when it does happen it usually (always?) results from a proceeding taking place after a criminal trial.
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.
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.
This entire post really underscores how morons can make wild speculative conclusions based on events without conducting research into how the event took place, why it happened, or the use of definitive evidence to establish support for the conclusion. It's almost as if this poster decided a defendant was guilty just because he wanted her to be guilty, and didn't even bother to consult the evidence, instead relying on a random hypothesis he didn't bother to test.
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.
This entire post really underscores how morons can make wild speculative conclusions based on events without conducting research into how the event took place, why it happened, or the use of definitive evidence to establish support for the conclusion. It's almost as if this poster decided a defendant was guilty just because he wanted her to be guilty, and didn't even bother to consult the evidence, instead relying on a random hypothesis he didn't bother to test.
You have a really disrespectful attitude, disparraging people by quoting them in one post prior to yours without having the common decency to actually refer to them, instead of demeaning and undermining them based on conclusions you draw without even bothering to actually talk to the person that your casting such negative judgement on.
I guess what I am trying to say, is that if you are attempting to claim the intellectual high ground you would do better to not simultaneously act in a a way befitting a petulant child
On July 07 2011 11:56 XeliN wrote: You have a really disrespectful attitude, disparraging people by quoting them in one post prior to yours without having the common decency to actually refer to them, instead of demeaning and undermining them based on conclusions you draw without even bothering to actually talk to the person that your casting such negative judgement on.
People earn respect, one way to not gain respect is to make wild unsubstantiated assumptions and present them as fact.
I guess what I am trying to say, is that if you are attempting to claim the intellectual high ground you would do better to not simultaneously act in a a way befitting a petulant child
I'm doing no such thing. If I wanted to claim the intellectual high ground, I would have been more direct and less incisively mocking.
Personally, I don't feel this case deserves the attention it is currently receiving. I am especially dismayed by the comments suggesting that the legal system has failed on the basis that a single person was not convicted. Simply because one individual failed to be convicted does not signal a systematic failure of the system. If someone could tie the analysis utilized in this case to thousands of other cases to demonstrate how faulty reasoning pervades the decision-making of juries, I would be interested.
In terms of legal or political significance, this case had little to no significance at all. Rather, it was simply grounds for tabloid fodder and mock outrage. I don't think we should be making any assumptions off a case that was hyped out of control and had a jury that was probably influenced by the significant media coverage of the case.
On July 07 2011 12:11 TranceStorm wrote: Personally, I don't feel this case deserves the attention it is currently receiving. I am especially dismayed by the comments suggesting that the legal system has failed on the basis that a single person was not convicted. Simply because one individual failed to be convicted does not signal a systematic failure of the system. If someone could tie the analysis utilized in this case to thousands of other cases to demonstrate how faulty reasoning pervades the decision-making of juries, I would be interested.
In terms of legal or political significance, this case had little to no significance at all. Rather, it was simply grounds for tabloid fodder and mock outrage. I don't think we should be making any assumptions off a case that was hyped out of control and had a jury that was probably influenced by the significant media coverage of the case.
the system is always right. Highest incarceration rate in the world CANT BE WRONG!
On July 07 2011 12:11 TranceStorm wrote: Personally, I don't feel this case deserves the attention it is currently receiving. I am especially dismayed by the comments suggesting that the legal system has failed on the basis that a single person was not convicted. Simply because one individual failed to be convicted does not signal a systematic failure of the system. If someone could tie the analysis utilized in this case to thousands of other cases to demonstrate how faulty reasoning pervades the decision-making of juries, I would be interested.
In terms of legal or political significance, this case had little to no significance at all. Rather, it was simply grounds for tabloid fodder and mock outrage. I don't think we should be making any assumptions off a case that was hyped out of control and had a jury that was probably influenced by the significant media coverage of the case.
the system is always right. Highest incarceration rate in the world CANT BE WRONG!
Sure thats a criticism that you can make of the American justice system, but did the Casey Anthony case do anything to help reveal that? No.
On July 06 2011 03:45 Dalguno wrote: Whaaat? I thought she had absolutely no supportive evidence and a guilty verdict was pretty much guaranteed ?
You don't know much about how a trial works do you. She doesn't need to have any evidence at all. The only thing that matters is the complete lack of substantial evidence produced by the prosecution to get a guilty verdict on the charges they laid.
Can someone that knows something about the trial law explain if there was something the prosecution could have done differently with the evidence they had?
On July 07 2011 12:41 Defacer wrote: Can someone that knows something about the trial law explain if there was something the prosecution could have done differently with the evidence they had?
On July 07 2011 12:41 Defacer wrote: Can someone that knows something about the trial law explain if there was something the prosecution could have done differently with the evidence they had?
wtf is 'trial law'?
Okaaaaay.
Is there a trial lawyer, or someone else that knows a lot about the case, jury trials and how this was prosecuted, that can explain if there was something the prosecution could have done differently?
Is there fault with the prosecution, or was the sheer lack of evidence too much to overcome?
On July 07 2011 12:41 Defacer wrote: Can someone that knows something about the trial law explain if there was something the prosecution could have done differently with the evidence they had?
They should not have dropped the child neglect charge, nor should they have pushed for the a murder charge (with death penalty, no less), on the basis of mere circumstantial evidence.
By focusing on aggravated child neglect and the four counts of providing false information to police officers, she would have much more likely to have been found guilty of all five counts, resulting in up to 19 years under Florida law. More likely, her attorney would have agreed to a plea bargain for some lesser amount in that case, perhaps 7 years (leaving her 4 to serve given that she's spent almost 3 years awaiting trial).
However, the highly publicized nature of the case incentivizes the State Attorney's Office to try to make an example out of her, partially to minimize backlash for 'going easy' on her that can result from media frenzies like this one. There's extreme political pressure on Attorney Generals (which, lest we forget, are elected officials) to appear 'tough on crime', particularly in Republican-dominated states such as current Florida.
On July 07 2011 12:49 Defacer wrote: Is there a trial lawyer, or someone else that knows a lot about the case, jury trials and how this was prosecuted, that can explain if there was something the prosecution could have done differently?
Focus their attentions on proving 2nd degree murder, or manslaughter, instead of wasting weeks trying to establish premeditation.
Is there fault with the prosecution, or was the sheer lack of evidence too much to overcome?
On July 07 2011 12:41 Defacer wrote: Can someone that knows something about the trial law explain if there was something the prosecution could have done differently with the evidence they had?
They should not have dropped the child neglect charge, nor should they have pushed for the a murder charge (with death penalty, no less), on the basis of mere circumstantial evidence.
By focusing on aggravated child neglect and the four counts of providing false information to police officers, she would have much more likely to have been found guilty, and would face up to 19 years in prison for all five counts under Florida law. More likely, her attorney would have agreed to a plea bargain for some lesser amount, perhaps 7 years (leaving her 4 to serve given that she's spent almost 3 years awaiting trial).
However, the highly publicized nature of the case incentivizes the State Attorney's office to try to make an example out of her, both to minimize backlash for 'going easy' on her and to potentially score political points for attorney general Pam Bondi as this is the first media-scrutinized case she's faced since her election in January.
Thank you sir for putting the situation in context. To be perfectly honest, I just heard about this case a few days ago. For whatever reason, not many people in Vancouver have been talking about it.
On July 07 2011 12:41 Defacer wrote: Can someone that knows something about the trial law explain if there was something the prosecution could have done differently with the evidence they had?
They should not have dropped the child neglect charge, nor should they have pushed for the a murder charge (with death penalty, no less), on the basis of mere circumstantial evidence.
By focusing on aggravated child neglect and the four counts of providing false information to police officers, she would have much more likely to have been found guilty, and would face up to 19 years in prison for all five counts under Florida law. More likely, her attorney would have agreed to a plea bargain for some lesser amount, perhaps 7 years (leaving her 4 to serve given that she's spent almost 3 years awaiting trial).
However, the highly publicized nature of the case incentivizes the State Attorney's office to try to make an example out of her, both to minimize backlash for 'going easy' on her and to potentially score political points for attorney general Pam Bondi as this is the first media-scrutinized case she's faced since her election in January.
Thank you sir for putting the situation in context. To be perfectly honest, I just heard about this case a few days ago. For whatever reason, not many people in Vancouver have been talking about it.
Yeah UK didn't really know about it either. Only found out when one afternoon I decided to watch fox news.
On July 07 2011 12:56 MozzarellaL wrote: I am still wondering what 'trial law' is.
Trial law is the concentration of law concerned with litigation at the trial court level, the lowest level of the judiciary and the level with original jurisdiction, which means that it establishes the facts of the case. Above the trial courts are the appellate (appeals) courts, in which litigants can dispute the legal decisions made at trial court, but not the facts of the case.
On July 07 2011 12:59 Defacer wrote: Thank you sir for putting the situation in context. To be perfectly honest, I just heard about this case a few days ago. For whatever reason, not many people in Vancouver have been talking about it.
On July 07 2011 13:06 sunprince wrote: Trial law is the concentration of law concerned with litigation at the trial court level, the lowest level of the judiciary and the level with original jurisdiction, which means that it establishes the facts of the case. Above the trial courts are the appellate (appeals) courts, in which litigants can dispute the legal decisions made at trial court, but not the facts of the case.
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.
This entire post really underscores how morons can make wild speculative conclusions based on events without conducting research into how the event took place, why it happened, or the use of definitive evidence to establish support for the conclusion. It's almost as if this poster decided a defendant was guilty just because he wanted her to be guilty, and didn't even bother to consult the evidence, instead relying on a random hypothesis he didn't bother to test
LOL the verbiage of your writing, it reeks of smug pseudo-intellectual posturing that is barely worthy of a response.. but I'm glad I struck a nerve. People like you need to have their cage rattled.
There are many reasons why one might think that this trial was a failure of the justice system, or at the least a complete circus. You're not up for that debate because you'd lose. You were smart to go with ad hominem attacks like "moron" and left-field assumptions like "didn't even bother to consult the evidence." That way, you can sound intelligent without really saying anything.
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 $$.
On July 07 2011 13:12 Rybka wrote: LOL the verbiage of your writing, it reeks of smug pseudo-intellectual posturing that is barely worthy of a response.. but I'm glad I struck a nerve. People like you need to have their cage rattled.
There are many reasons why one might think that this trial was a failure of the justice system, or at the least a complete circus. You're not up for that debate because you'd lose. You were smart to go with ad hominem attacks like "moron" and left-field assumptions like "didn't even bother to consult the evidence." That way, you can sound intelligent without really saying anything.
Better than making wild, unsubstantiated assumptions and presenting them as fact. This completely detracts whatever credibility you might have. I don't care whether or not you actually have a point to make, or what that point is. The fact that you make conclusions and don't bother to support them is enough for me to disregard anything you have to say. I don't even need to debate you, because there's nothing to debate. You have not presented a single iota of evidence to support your argument. Do you have a link to any juror interview where the juror implies or suggests he is influenced by CSI? Do you have any kind of study that compares rates of juror conviction in trials before and after CSI became mainstream television? No, you don't. How does one argue against someone who makes conclusory statements?
You don't, and that's why you deserve to be mocked.
On July 07 2011 13:11 MozzarellaL wrote: That's not trial law.
That's civil or criminal procedure.
Criminal procedure refers to the process of criminal trials, while civil procedure refers to the process of civil trials.
'Trial law', on the other hand, refers to the specialty of law practiced by trial lawyers. Trial law does include a knowledge of criminal procedure, but is not the same thing.
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.
On July 07 2011 13:23 Achille5 wrote: Innocent until proven guilty.
Was she proven guilty in court?
Or just in the media since day 1?
I'm always willing to think along those lines but there is a long list of rather undeniable events where she lied to the police. I still can't pass a final judgment, naturally, but I'm pretty sure people will be keeping their distance from her.
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 $$.
On July 07 2011 13:20 sunprince wrote: You have no idea what you're talking about.
Criminal procedure refers to the process of criminal trials, while civil law refers to the process of civil trials.
I have no idea what I'm talking about? If trial law is a real thing, please go to amazon and find me a treatise on trial law. Also, lol @ 'trial lawyer'. Any lawyer can be go into court and represent his client and magically turn into trial lawyer without having to a single bit of 'lawyering' once there.
Appellate law is a real thing because there are lawyers who 'specialize' in the fields of standard of review, and knowing what things can be reviewed on the appellate level.
So unless you're referring to the types of questions one can ask a witness, or when counsel can object to opposing counsel's questions (which falls under the Law of Evidence), I still have no idea what you're talking about.
On July 07 2011 13:32 MozzarellaL wrote:If trial law is a real thing, please go to amazon and find me a treatise on trial law. Also, lol @ 'trial lawyer'. Any lawyer can be go into court and represent his client and magically turn into trial lawyer without having to a single bit of 'lawyering' once there.
Any lawyer can represent their clients outside of their own specialities. Nevertheless, there are lawyers who specialize in litigation and trial practice.
The American Bar Association has a group specifically for such lawyers, there's another resource center here, and I'm sure if you were capable of using Google correctly you can find many instances of lawyers who self-idenitfy as trial lawyers/attorneys/specialists or litigation lawyers/attorneys/specialists.
You can also find trial law firms, e.g. law firms which specialize in, you guessed it, trial law.
On July 07 2011 13:40 sunprince wrote: Any lawyer can represent their clients outside of their own specialities. Nevertheless, there are lawyers who specialize in litigation and trial practice.
The American Bar Association has a group specifically for such lawyers, there's another resource center here, and I'm sure if you were capable of using Google correctly you can find many instances of lawyers who self-idenitfy as trial lawyers/attorneys/specialists or litigation lawyers/attorneys/specialists.
A litigation attorney is not a 'trial attorney'. Many litigation attorneys never step foot into a court room their entire careers.
You can also find trial law firms, e.g. law firms which specialize in, you guessed it, trial law.
http://www.martindale.com/ That's a real directory of lawyers. It basically lists every lawyer who is practicing nationwide. You can find lawyers or law firms based on practice and field of law. Let's look for 'trial law', shall we? Oh, it doesn't exist, who would have thought.
You can also find trial law firms, e.g. law firms which specialize in, you guessed it, trial law.
http://www.martindale.com/ That's a real directory of lawyers. You can find lawyers or law firms based on practice and field of law. Let's look for 'trial law', shall we? Oh, it doesn't exist, who would have thought.
Try actually searching for 'trial law' or 'trial lawyer' on martindale.
Click on 'litigation', followed by 'trial practice'. When you look through the results, you'll notice terms such as 'trial law', 'civil trial law', 'criminal trial law', etc., included as practice areas.
And my previous point still stands, as you get over 12,000 results when you actually just do a simple search for 'trial law'.
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.
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 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 14:00 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.
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 14:00 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:
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 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:
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 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:
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.
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
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 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:
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 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:
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.
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).
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 ?
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
Politically correct eh? Everyone with common sense realizes she did it. She's a dumb bitch who didn't consider things like that googling 'how to make chloroform' WILL indeed be discovered (wonders of technology, hell yeah). Yeah, she just happened to panic after her daughter accidentally drowned and decided to bury her in the woods. I mean..
While I'm glad justice system is very thorough when it comes down to blaming something for a murder, this politically correct BS pisses me off.
On July 07 2011 13:46 MozzarellaL wrote: A litigation attorney is not a 'trial attorney'. Many litigation attorneys never step foot into a court room their entire careers.
It's pretty much unheard of for a litigator to never step foot into a court room. Maybe never participate in a trial, but that's pretty rare, too, over an entire career.
But regardless, there certainly are attorneys who specialize in trial practice (though yes, there is often a distinction between civil and criminal trial attorneys). Some attorneys and firms are specifically hired because of their trial experience and there is anticipation the case will head to trial. One famous example is E.B. Williams. Another is Clarence Darrow, of Scopes trial fame. A more recent example is the pairing of David Boies (a well-experienced trial lawyer) and Ted Olsen (a well-experience appellate lawyer) to litigate the Prop 8 constitutional fight.
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:
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.
I'm not gonna post you studies, but I can tell you that I have met at least a dozen Crown Prosecutors that have unanimously echoed the chorus that the CSI effect has made their job a lot more difficult (it was, and is, my go-to discussion topic when i'm trying to make conversation with criminal lawyers I meet at all these events I have to go to). We even did a section in my Criminal Law course that, although not a particularly huge part of the curriculum, dealt with it and the increased difficulty it provides to prosecutors. (my professor is known as one of the best crown prosecutors in Alberta - I've even heard multiple judges speak praises of him, and he believes its a benefit to the accused)
For whatever reason I haven't met with many defense lawyers...
But at any rate there is little doubt in my mind, and I believe there is little doubt in the mind of any of the prosecutors I've talked to, that this effect benefits the accused the vast majority of the time.
While there may be an instance where it biases the jury in favour of the prosecutors, the impression I've gotten is usually that is not the case.
Not that that's a bad thing, necessarily, if you believe it is better to let 100 criminals go free than to lock up 1 innocent person.
I think that it's sad that people are looking upon this case and saying it's a joke that she got off, and that she should have been jailed. People are looking at this like the problem was the verdict, when indeed it is not. There was reasonable doubt that she committed the murder, and thus she got off. The US legal system played exactly how it should, and this is the result that should not only have been expected, but it is the most plausible. People shouldn't be angry about the verdict, they should be angry about the legal system once again and its failure.
The fact that it is obvious that ONE of the members of that family clearly knew what happened, and yet they all got off free, shows that our legal system is completely fucked in some regard. In the US, whoever has the most money to spend on lawyers can get away with murder. Someone who gets fucked on a defense attorney can be put to death and be completely innocent of a crime. This a symptom of the US legal system, not poor jury decisions.
When I turn on the television and I see things like CNN or Nancy Grace or whoever the fuck attempt to try to turn things like this into some kind of reality television sitcom, it fucking sickens me. America is so dead in the way of culture and is so apathetic and ignorant in the way of real issues that it's almost heartbreaking. God damn I really wish I can one day move to somewhere nice in Europe if things continue this way.
On July 08 2011 06:22 Gnial wrote:I'm not gonna post you studies, but I can tell you that I have met at least a dozen Crown Prosecutors that have unanimously echoed the chorus that the CSI effect has made their job a lot more difficult (it was, and is, my go-to discussion topic when i'm trying to make conversation with criminal lawyers I meet at all these events I have to go to). We even did a section in my Criminal Law course that, although not a particularly huge part of the curriculum, dealt with it and the increased difficulty it provides to prosecutors. (my professor is known as one of the best crown prosecutors in Alberta - I've even heard multiple judges speak praises of him, and he believes its a benefit to the accused)
I'm sure I don't need to point out the inherent biases of anecdotal evidence from prosecutors only.
On July 08 2011 08:51 -Trippin- wrote: The fact that it is obvious that ONE of the members of that family clearly knew what happened, and yet they all got off free, shows that our legal system is completely fucked in some regard.
And what would you have the system do? Divide up a life sentence among three people since one of them is covering up? Torture them until they talk? -_-
You can't complain about a legal system that does the best that it possibly can.
On July 08 2011 08:51 -Trippin- wrote: In the US, whoever has the most money to spend on lawyers can get away with murder. Someone who gets fucked on a defense attorney can be put to death and be completely innocent of a crime.
You may not be aware of this, but Casey Anthony's family isn't wealthy.
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.
Politically correct eh? Everyone with common sense realizes she did it. She's a dumb bitch who didn't consider things like that googling 'how to make chloroform' WILL indeed be discovered (wonders of technology, hell yeah). Yeah, she just happened to panic after her daughter accidentally drowned and decided to bury her in the woods. I mean..
While I'm glad justice system is very thorough when it comes down to blaming something for a murder, this politically correct BS pisses me off.
If being "politically correct" means following the core guidelines and princples of our justice system, then I would hope all jurors would be "politically correct" for the sake of our court system. Are you suggesting the jurors should just ignore the guidelines of our justice system and just render verdicts based on their gut feelings? Sorry but that undermines everything our justice system is based on, and if all jurors rendered verdicts this way our justice system would be even worse off than it is now. You obviously missed the entire point of my post..
Sweet, now we just need a serial rapist to get off scott-free from a high-profile case due to lack of substantial evidence, despite overwhelming public opinion of their guilt, and we complete the meme trifecta!
On July 09 2011 03:04 Bibdy wrote: Sweet, now we just need a serial rapist to get off scott-free from a high-profile case due to lack of substantial evidence, despite overwhelming public opinion of their guilt, and we complete the meme trifecta!
For whatever reason reading this post reminded me of that movie Tom Cruise was in, where he is coaching a woman who claims to have an affair with her boss, and he asks her "How long is his penis?" and she doesn't know how to answer the question because she is lying about fucking her boss.
On July 09 2011 03:04 Bibdy wrote: Sweet, now we just need a serial rapist to get off scott-free from a high-profile case due to lack of substantial evidence, despite overwhelming public opinion of their guilt, and we complete the meme trifecta!
For whatever reason reading this post reminded me of that movie Tom Cruise was in, where he is coaching a woman who claims to have an affair with her boss, and he asks her "How long is his penis?" and she doesn't know how to answer the question because she is lying about fucking her boss.
I read an article on tmz that there have been talks about Casey Anthony getting into the porn business lol MILF now has a new definition: Murderer I'd Like to Fuck
I think some people in this thread are being ridiculous. NO ONE wants to let guilty people go. That's stupid. Remember, this is not some compassionate bureaucratic or some out of touch politician, these are people!!! The founding fathers explicitly expressed that common people would decide. They would be the best at lending compassion to the system while simultaneous upholding the principals that our justice system is based on. Do you think they wanted to let her go-many have said no, but it was not proven. Someone told me that to clear up confusion they should change it from guilty/not guilty to proven/not proven. That would really underscore the guiding philosophies of the system. You need proof!! Many of you claim that it was because she got an expansive lawyer and that this shows that you can get off with money. This is wrong, she didn't have an expensive lawyer she had a lawyer who went to a local community college near my house. He wasn't some expensive big shot. There may be cases where the rich get away with crimes, but this wasn't it. It was a case where a panel of jurios, 7 of which where woman and 5 mothers. Had to do something they didn't want to, because as badly as they wanted to send her to jail, they could not risk the possibility of sentencing someone to death who may be Innocent. I want everyone in this thread to step back and seriously think about that. You are sentencing some TO DEATH! there is no going back and you have to be sure. Absolutely sure. Their was insufficient evidence. They could not say how the baby died, when the baby died, connect her car to the location of the scene, or even show that Casey Anthony actually wanted to kill the baby. Those are some serious holes, and you can argue some stuff about the CSI effect and forensic evidence all you want, but if your gonna send some one to death you better damn be sure. I know of the serious problems in concerning the witness process and how "flexible" our memories can be. I would want the strictest of standards be held if I was in the defense chair, because believe it or not-SHIT HAPPENS. there are coincidences and I would not want to be sent to jail if I was innocent. WOULD YOU? This case says much about us, about what kind of people we Americans are. That is it teaches the prosecution a lesson, that we are not mindless idiots. That it will take a lot more than outrage for us to sentence someone to death. That we are not brainwashed idiots of the media. It speaks to the world that we the people are willing to make unpopular decisions, and possibly face the wrath of our communities in the defense of the rights of a person that you don't even like. It speaks volumes of the greatness of our system that an individual will be judged based on the merits of evidence. So please you can be outraged by the decision, and you should be. I know I am. But direct your anger at the appropriate source. Not the juriors, not the defense lawyer. But the prosecution, who so completely failed at their job. At the police who messed up in several ways.
On July 10 2011 14:44 cfoy3 wrote: I think some people in this thread are being ridiculous. NO ONE wants to let guilty people go. That's stupid. Remember, this is not some compassionate bureaucratic or some out of touch politician, these are people!!! The founding fathers explicitly expressed that common people would decide. They would be the best at lending compassion to the system while simultaneous upholding the principals that our justice system is based on. Do you think they wanted to let her go-many have said no, but it was not proven. Someone told me that to clear up confusion they should change it from guilty/not guilty to proven/not proven. That would really underscore the guiding philosophies of the system. You need proof!! Many of you claim that it was because she got an expansive lawyer and that this shows that you can get off with money. This is wrong, she didn't have an expensive lawyer she had a lawyer who went to a local community college near my house. He wasn't some expensive big shot. There may be cases where the rich get away with crimes, but this wasn't it. It was a case where a panel of jurios, 7 of which where woman and 5 mothers. Had to do something they didn't want to, because as badly as they wanted to send her to jail, they could not risk the possibility of sentencing someone to death who may be Innocent. I want everyone in this thread to step back and seriously think about that. You are sentencing some TO DEATH! there is no going back and you have to be sure. Absolutely sure. Their was insufficient evidence. They could not say how the baby died, when the baby died, connect her car to the location of the scene, or even show that Casey Anthony actually wanted to kill the baby. Those are some serious holes, and you can argue some stuff about the CSI effect and forensic evidence all you want, but if your gonna send some one to death you better damn be sure. I know of the serious problems in concerning the witness process and how "flexible" our memories can be. I would want the strictest of standards be held if I was in the defense chair, because believe it or not-SHIT HAPPENS. there are coincidences and I would not want to be sent to jail if I was innocent. WOULD YOU? This case says much about us, about what kind of people we Americans are. That is it teaches the prosecution a lesson, that we are not mindless idiots. That it will take a lot more than outrage for us to sentence someone to death. That we are not brainwashed idiots of the media. It speaks to the world that we the people are willing to make unpopular decisions, and possibly face the wrath of our communities in the defense of the rights of a person that you don't even like. It speaks volumes of the greatness of our system that an individual will be judged based on the merits of evidence.Please you can be outraged by the decision, and you should be. I know I am. But direct your anger at the appropriate source. Not the juriors, not the defense lawyer. But the prosecution, who so completely failed at their job. At the police who messed up in several ways.
Please put some paragraphs in, or at least make the effort to organize your writing somehow. I'm not sure anyone can feasibly read and discern what you clearly just spent a great deal of time writing.
can you please link to an article? It was my understanding that baez was just a lucky attorney who was only barely competant. He has filed for bankruptcy before and has had to file for bankruptcy.
On July 09 2011 03:04 Bibdy wrote: Sweet, now we just need a serial rapist to get off scott-free from a high-profile case due to lack of substantial evidence, despite overwhelming public opinion of their guilt, and we complete the meme trifecta!
Public opinion does not matter at all. Do I think that she was guilty? Doesn't matter at all. The US media gets people so emotional over something that doesn't matter to drive up their ratings. Everyone gets so involved in things and angry because the way the media portrays the situation in a certain way. Evidence is what drives our courts, if public opinion mattered any high profile case would be found guilty no matter how innocent somebody was. + Show Spoiler +
Hopefully I didn't come off as one of those people who sit in their basement searching for conspiracies, but me and my dad were just talking about this.
In my opinion weather a child was murdered (by her mother or not) years ago does not deserve to be the spotlight of our news. I know that it deserves mentioning but why is her case so important?
can you please link to an article? It was my understanding that baez was just a lucky attorney who was only barely competant. He has filed for bankruptcy before and has had to file for bankruptcy.
Yep he has. Don't have an article unfortunately. Heard it said multiple times on multiple news channels, odd though how I can't find an article supporting it. I'll withdraw it for the time being.
Casey got paid $200,000 through a deal made by Baez with ABC for licensing of photos. Safe to say most of that went to her defense, since she didn't work at all for two years, and probably will go to paying the State for leading them on a wild goose chase.
On July 06 2011 04:59 dacthehork wrote: Actually I believe in guilt regardless of intention. Also the whole going out that same night and participating in a show off your rack contest etc. A normal person would have called the police/ambulance, and even in that case it's the parents responsibility to protect their children from drowning, and In my opinion a murder charge would be fine.
Do you understand that people's opinions do not have to match the legal systems in the country they are born? For instance I am very in favor of punishments like giving murder charges for DUI/car accidents/negligence/manslaughter/having a very young child drown while watching them / leaving a baby in a car in summer etc.
What you describe is the difference between a country governed by law, and a country governed by despotism. Do you understand what murder is defined as? It isn't what you want it to be, it is what is written down in the fucking book of statutes.
Holy crap you don't understand, It's my personal opinion NOTHING MORE. I'm allowed to have that opinion, I do not think they will change the laws on murders because of my opinions. What it is defined as legally in America does not effect my opinion.
Ok but stating some thing with out proof is bad even its an opinion which u do have the right to make but just remember that what u think isn't what can be held in court its what u can prove
Lol at all the people shocked by this. Maybe some of could read up on all the trials of let's say Silvio Berlusconi and stop living in an imaginary world where all is fair and US represents world's good guys and similar fairy tails...
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aBVT4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AkoTK.png)
![[image loading]](http://tosh.comedycentral.com/blog/files/2011/07/casey-and-oj.jpg)
