Casey Anthony walks

[BJJ-Blue]

Not guilty of 1st or 2nd degree murder or child abuse.

She was conviced of a few counts of lying to police though.

[David Jamieson]

Here's me commenting , and yet not caring.

That's how the cookie crumbles.

moving on.

[Dragonzbane76]

just another example of our JS failing. Add her to the list of OJ and M. jackson. :rolleyes:

[BJJ-Blue]

just another example of our JS failing. Add her to the list of OJ and M. jackson. :rolleyes:

OJ was jury nullification and Jackson's accuser's family were professional plaintiffs with zero credibility. But I'm really surprised by this one. Just her partying for 31 days while her daughter was 'missing' was proof enough. I'm dying to see what the jurors say when they speak to the media and of course get their book deals.

[MasterKiller]

All the evidence was circumstantial. I'm saw this coming.

[BJJ-Blue]

All the evidence was circumstantial. I'm saw this coming.

You do realize that circumstantial evidence includes forensic (like DNA) evidence and ballisics evidence, right?

We've even executed people with just circumstantial evidence alone. Ted Bundy is a prime example.

[Dale Dugas]

who cares for a piece of trash.

she is yet another example of subhumans who exist in the world today.

nothing but a walking bag of trash.

[SoCo KungFu]

OJ was jury nullification and Jackson's accuser's family were professional plaintiffs with zero credibility. But I'm really surprised by this one. Just her partying for 31 days while her daughter was 'missing' was proof enough. I'm dying to see what the jurors say when they speak to the media and of course get their book deals.

Apparently it wasn't. This is the prosecution's fault for not putting together an adequate case. They decided to go through with circumstance. They had 3 years and yet still couldn't piece together proof of how she actually died. That ought to tell you something, like maybe everyone is wrong. That is called reasonable doubt. And that is all it takes. In this country you're innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around. Like the verdict or not, the system worked as intended.

This is why we have the system we do. None of us were in the courtroom so we don't know. If you left it to the mob mentality in this country she'd have been stoned to death. I'll take our system as is.

[BJJ-Blue]

I agree with you about our system SoCo. One of the Founders said something along the lines of, 'Its better for 100 guilty men to go free than 1 innocent man to be convicted'. So I agree that our "Innocent until proven guilty" system is the best in the world. I'm not questioning our system, I'm questioning the logic of those 12 people. I just can't fathom a parent not calling 911 for a whole month when their child is missing and 12 people saying that isn't proof of a crime. And I don't even have kids. It's just unfathomable to me.

[Drake]

Things that tripped up the jury:

-No cause of death

-Possibility that the death was accidental (That would explain a LOT, but this trial couldn't address that)

-No evidence of premeditation

And...

Spencer said she was not surprised by the verdict. She cited the lack of direct evidence, including any incriminating DNA found on tape attached to the little girl's skull. Forensics evidence, she said, "backfired" on prosecutors.

"I think that this verdict was the only logical verdict," prominent defense attorney Mark Geragos told CNN's Cooper. "The prosecution woefully fell flat in this case at all times. They're the ones who invested themselves in this guilt-by-character-assassination ... they didn't have actual evidence."



Something DOES smell rotten in the state of Denmark, but the evidence was crap, and they might have very well been chasing the wrong charges.

[BJJ-Blue]

-No evidence of premeditation

They actually had that one covered by presenting the Internet history, searches, etc. Those searches were done before the little girl disappeared.

I initially felt the mom was trying to put the kid to sleep with the chloroform so she could go out and party and she accidentally killed her. After the prosecution showed the Internet searches also had stuff like 'broken necks' and other similar terms, I then felt it was likely intentional.

[SimonM]

I'm not following the case, don't care about the case. She was found not-guilty, means she is not guilty. Simple as that.

[Drake]

They actually had that one covered by presenting the Internet history, searches, etc. Those searches were done before the little girl disappeared.

I initially felt the mom was trying to put the kid to sleep with the chloroform so she could go out and party and she accidentally killed her. After the prosecution showed the Internet searches also had stuff like 'broken necks' and other similar terms, I then felt it was likely intentional.

But wasn't she gone when those searches were conducted?

[Jimbo]

I wasn't big on following the case, so I wouldn't have been surprised if the verdict had gone either way.

I will say that the prosecution really screwed up when they put the death penalty on the table. It seemed pretty clear from the get-go that the chance of the DP for her was remote to begin with. I'm sure that was a big factor in finding her not guilty of murder.

[BJJ-Blue]

But wasn't she gone when those searches were conducted?

No. The mom claimed some were hers, but evidence (including a time card) and a computer expert showed she was working when she claimed to have made those searches.

[pateticorecords]

Ultimately justice will be served. -It may not be today or tomorrow or with the public watching but rest assured, justice will prevail. Karma, and the human conscience, has a way of coming full circle when one least expects it!

[Drake]

Ultimately justice will be served. -It may not be today or tomorrow or with the public watching but rest assured, justice will prevail. Karma, and the human conscience, has a way of coming full circle when one least expects it!

But justice served to whom? The person that the media convinced everyone of being guilty?

If it was so obvious, she would have been found guilty. Listen to the jurors... they were clearly not comfortable with the amount or credibility of the evidence.

[pateticorecords]

But justice served to whom? The person that the media convinced everyone of being guilty?

If it was so obvious, she would have been found guilty. Listen to the jurors... they were clearly not comfortable with the amount or credibility of the evidence.


I have children and if one of my children went missing I would have notified the authorities immediately (not wait 30 days to do so)... any normal parent would.

I am not saying she is or isn't guilty... what I am saying is that if she was involved somehow, she'll get hers eventually;)

[BJJ-Blue]

I have children and if one of my children went missing I would have notified the authorities immediately (not wait 30 days to do so)... any normal parent would.

As I've said, that's the part that convinced me.

I'd like any of you parents here to give me just one scenario where you would not report your 2 year old missing for 31 days. And I'm not trying to argue, I just cannot fathom a mother not reporting her 2 year old being missing for 31 days. And on top of that, she didn't even report the child being missing, the child's grandmother made the 911 call.

[pateticorecords]

As I've said, that's the part that convinced me.

I'd like any of you parents here to give me just one scenario where you would not report your 2 year old missing for 31 days. And I'm not trying to argue, I just cannot fathom a mother not reporting her 2 year old being missing for 31 days. And on top of that, she didn't even report the child being missing, the child's grandmother made the 911 call.

Exactly! See we agree on some things:D Have great one!

[Lucas]

looking at her face when the verdict was announced was appauling. any true loving parent would have still been mourning and having a finish to the ordeal would have brought it all back hard, she should have been crying not jumping for joy and looking like she just got off splash mountain.

some ninja needs to poison her beer.

[Lucas]

As I've said, that's the part that convinced me.

I'd like any of you parents here to give me just one scenario where you would not report your 2 year old missing for 31 days. And I'm not trying to argue, I just cannot fathom a mother not reporting her 2 year old being missing for 31 days. And on top of that, she didn't even report the child being missing, the child's grandmother made the 911 call.

you also dont duct tape an already dead bodies mouth. you just wouldnt.

[SoCo KungFu]

You are assuming she is a normally rationalizing individual. I don't buy into the crap about her father abusing her, but she still is quite bat sh!t crazy. Reactions for "normal" people run a pretty wide range. Not everyone shows grief in the same ways. Lots of women fall into denial of anything every happening. And its quite clear this girl is NOT normal. So really, who can say how she'd react. I've worked with a lot of psychiatric/behavioral patients before. They all react in some pretty abnormal ways. But that doesn't mean she killed her. She is the most logical target. But that's not how things work. Has to be beyond all reasonable doubt, which just isn't the case here. And it doesn't help that from out pov we have all the media frenzied BS. I like how Nancy Super**** was complaining about how the jury seemed to have already made up their minds, yet she's the moron that has been throwing gasoline on this forest fire from day 1.

[MasterKiller]

As I've said, that's the part that convinced me.

I'd like any of you parents here to give me just one scenario where you would not report your 2 year old missing for 31 days. And I'm not trying to argue, I just cannot fathom a mother not reporting her 2 year old being missing for 31 days. And on top of that, she didn't even report the child being missing, the child's grandmother made the 911 call.

I'm sure she did it. I just didn't think they had enough physical evidence linking her to the crime.

[Lucas]

You are assuming she is a normally rationalizing individual. I don't buy into the crap about her father abusing her, but she still is quite bat sh!t crazy. Reactions for "normal" people run a pretty wide range. Not everyone shows grief in the same ways. Lots of women fall into denial of anything every happening. And its quite clear this girl is NOT normal. So really, who can say how she'd react. I've worked with a lot of psychiatric/behavioral patients before. They all react in some pretty abnormal ways. But that doesn't mean she killed her. She is the most logical target. But that's not how things work. Has to be beyond all reasonable doubt, which just isn't the case here. And it doesn't help that from out pov we have all the media frenzied BS. I like how Nancy Super**** was complaining about how the jury seemed to have already made up their minds, yet she's the moron that has been throwing gasoline on this forest fire from day 1.

i totally get what you are saying...i did not follow this story at all, i learned about this yesterday and read the rundown of 'evidence' and all that so i dont really know all the details. but...I just feel any truly loving parent would react differently...perhaps she just did not really loved her child all that much. or she is 'nuts' like you are saying...idk, but my gut says she is involved in a bad way. i tend to trust my gut more than a court of law :eek:

the duct tape on the mouth really got in my head. you just wouldnt do that to a dead body, crazy or sane.

i getcha tho

[Syn7]

this isn't a suprise at all... all these fake lawyer wannabees on tv embarassing themselves...

the prosecution did not make their case... and even having watched a lil bit of the media circus, unavoidable since it was on every fukcing channel, didnt skew me... its very simple, the prosecution didnt answer any crucial questions... they tried a death penalty case to get a pro crime and punishment jury and that was the first huge mistake... you dont try(sp?) circumstancial death penalty cases... you just dont...

is casey anthony guilty of something? hell yeah... but there is more than reasonable doubt about weather she even killed her kid or just tarded out after an accident... nobody here can answer that question and its just that simple...

this is a win for the legal system and you people should be proud... coz whether shes guilty or not, the case wasnt made, character assasination is not equal to proving murder... clearly the whole fam are halfwitt retards, no questuion... but murderers? not shown beyond any definition of reasonable doubt...

if she had been convicted it would have been for the wrong reasons, even if she did really do it... and that would have been a gross miscarriage of justice. even worse than letting a murderer go... enough people already get railroaded by overzealous prosecutors and pi$$ed off overworked police, the court is supposed to protect them from that... if yall start convicting on hunches, feelings and other emotional responses you will have far worse happen... i mean, it already does happen... read grishams "the innocent man" and you will see a perfect example of what should never EVER happen... but it does, all the time... there are a ton of people who are in prison for crimes they didnt do... and thats wrong, even if they were bad people and the cops just did what they had to do to get em off the street... its wrong...

i would have been very dissapointed if she had been convicted of anything other than obstruction and the like...

what is most unfortunate is that the prosecution cant touch her now... and she is guilty of something... the state failed caylee, bottom line... its their job to find out what happened and they allowed outside interference to cloud the better judgement that i hope they posess...

[BJJ-Blue]

is casey anthony guilty of something? hell yeah... but there is more than reasonable doubt about weather she even killed her kid or just tarded out after an accident... nobody here can answer that question and its just that simple...

Again, manslaughter was an option. She was charged with that, and child abuse, on top of murder.

[Syn7]

also, i think nancy grace is one of the worst influences on tv EVER... she is a joke... law and order my a$$, shes 100% emotional response... the best lawyers are robots that can act like they care about stuff, not the other way around...

im so tired of hearing broken down prosecutors claim these great records... since 99.9% of the folks in court are guilty, anything less than a 90 - 95 % success rate isnt that great IMO... she isnt special... find me a defence attorney with a record of even 50% and i'll show you a great lawyer...

also i feel women make better defence lawyers than men... by far... my lawyer almost went to jail for me once and not only did she win but the crown was reprimanded afterwards... it was tense tho... but they were over-reaching... i was guilty, but not of what they were saying... i did participate and finish a pretty brutal violent act, but i didnt start it and i didnt see any other way out alive... when somebody stabs you and you actually win the fight, its very dissapointing to get charged for it and be named as the instigator... now i can laugh about it, but back then it really pi$$ed me off... dude deserved what he got... not my fault he cant think the same anymore, shouldnt have cut me from behind...

[Syn7]

Again, manslaughter was an option. She was charged with that, and child abuse, on top of murder.

yeah i think thats the most likely charge... child abuse that is... but they didnt show one way or the other... there was no evidence to suggest it was murder or an accident, or anything for that matter... all they showed was that she had a crazy fam, she was a twiit and caylee died and was dumped by somebody... thatys not enough... you dont convict on hunches and feelings blue... even tho sometimes it feels unfair, its alot more unfair when you are actually inopcent and getting railroaded... you cant tell me you have those answers blue... we jjst dont know... not guilty... sucks, but better than the alternative... the jury system we use in canada is very similar and its our best choice under the circumstances...

you cannot convict of one or the other when you dunno if it was one or the other... or anything at all for that matter... im sure like everyone else, you have waaaaay more questions than answers....

[Syn7]

You do realize that circumstantial evidence includes forensic (like DNA) evidence and ballisics evidence, right?

We've even executed people with just circumstantial evidence alone. Ted Bundy is a prime example.

how bout ron williamson... justice??? i think not...

[Syn7]

I agree with you about our system SoCo. One of the Founders said something along the lines of, 'Its better for 100 guilty men to go free than 1 innocent man to be convicted'. So I agree that our "Innocent until proven guilty" system is the best in the world. I'm not questioning our system, I'm questioning the logic of those 12 people. I just can't fathom a parent not calling 911 for a whole month when their child is missing and 12 people saying that isn't proof of a crime. And I don't even have kids. It's just unfathomable to me.

doesnt prove murder in any way shape or form... you dont convict on hunches feelings and bad character... you just dont...

[Syn7]

As I've said, that's the part that convinced me.

I'd like any of you parents here to give me just one scenario where you would not report your 2 year old missing for 31 days. And I'm not trying to argue, I just cannot fathom a mother not reporting her 2 year old being missing for 31 days. And on top of that, she didn't even report the child being missing, the child's grandmother made the 911 call.

doesnt prove murder... doesnt prove anything other than some very fukced up priorities... as circumstantial evidence all that tells me is that she most likely does know what really happened... doesnt show murder tho...

[David Jamieson]

Nancy Grace tried and convicted the women before she even finished her trial.
People don't put any thought into who or what they choose to cast their negative energies upon.

that's a waste of good negative energy that could be cast in even more deserving places.

Nancy Grace is scum of the earth. You better believe it.

[BJJ-Blue]

doesnt prove murder in any way shape or form... you dont convict on hunches feelings and bad character... you just dont...

The fact that she didn't ever report her own 2-year old daughter missing for 31 days was admitted to by the defense. As I've said before, innocent people do not do that.

Also, an innocent person does not wait til they are on trial for murder to accuse their father and brother of molesting them.


how bout ron williamson... justice??? i think not...

I don't know about that case. Wanna fill me in?

[Syn7]

you also dont duct tape an already dead bodies mouth. you just wouldnt.

you'd be suprised at what some people will do... whether stupid, crazy or very smart and trying to skew facts, not everything is always as it seems... occams razor does not apply here...

[Syn7]

Nancy Grace tried and convicted the women before she even finished her trial.
People don't put any thought into who or what they choose to cast their negative energies upon.

that's a waste of good negative energy that could be cast in even more deserving places.

Nancy Grace is scum of the earth. You better believe it.

can i get a.............................................. WORD

[BJJ-Blue]

I'm not defending Nancy Grace, but there is a reason she takes these cases so personal and gets so emotional about them. She was going to major in English until her then fiance was murdered. She decided to become a lawyer and victim's rights advocate. So in my book she is one of the few people to go to law school for the right reasons.

[Syn7]

The fact that she didn't ever report her own 2-year old daughter missing for 31 days was admitted to by the defense. As I've said before, innocent people do not do that.

Also, an innocent person does not wait til they are on trial for murder to accuse their father and brother of molesting them.


look, im not saying shes clean... im just saying the case wasnt proven beyond a reasonable doubt and the right verdict was reached... none of that tells us what happened... thats called reasonable doubt... by the letter, man...



I don't know about that case. Wanna fill me in?

not really... look it up... its a big story, grisham wrote a book about it... basically dude got railroaded and put on death row for being a drunk scummy guy... the cops and the DA did whatever they had to do, right or wrong, top convict him of a crime he very clearly did not commit... which was shown years later... but they btroke a man who was having trouble anyways... very sad story... wiki it, get the rundown...





edit: here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innocent_Man:_Murder_and_Injustice_in_a_Small_ Town

[Syn7]

I'm not defending Nancy Grace, but there is a reason she takes these cases so personal and gets so emotional about them. She was going to major in English until her then fiance was murdered. She decided to become a lawyer and victim's rights advocate. So in my book she is one of the few people to go to law school for the right reasons.

actually i believe the opposite... the less emotion in law, the better... we have enough zealots running around as it is... one more and i may start hurting people... ;)

she never gets tired of exploiting that story either... anger is no reason to be a prosecutor... it leads to injustice EVERY SINGLE TIME in some way or another... true justice is balanced and emotionless...

[BJJ-Blue]

actually i believe the opposite... the less emotion in law, the better... we have enough zealots running around as it is... one more and i may start hurting people... ;)

Depends. The Innocence Project is staffed by emotional people and they do alot of good. Jerry Spence is also very emotional, and he saved Randy Weaver from being railroaded.


she never gets tired of exploiting that story either... anger is no reason to be a prosecutor... it leads to injustice EVERY SINGLE TIME in some way or another... true justice is balanced and emotionless...

Again, I'm not defending her. I'm just giving her credit for having a good reason to become a lawyer. I'd rather have more lawyers like her than John Edwards types who just entered law to get rich and have a career in politics or those ambulance chasing injury lawyer types who advertise on tv. I believe people who bring passion into their work are better than those who dont.

[Syn7]

Depends. The Innocence Project is staffed by emotional people and they do alot of good. Jerry Spence is also very emotional, and he saved Randy Weaver from being railroaded.



Again, I'm not defending her. I'm just giving her credit for having a good reason to become a lawyer. I'd rather have more lawyers like her than John Edwards types who just entered law to get rich and have a career in politics or those ambulance chasing injury lawyer types who advertise on tv. I believe people who bring passion into their work are better than those who dont.

a defence attourney with a ton of cash is a good sign man... as a defendant who cares whether you have a rtighteous trial or not, as long as you get off... feel me???
my lawyer was fresh coz she was about winning... she got me off charges i was guilty of but she did also get me off charges i wasnt guilty of... love that woman...

yeah, i should re-phrase my other comment... emotion in law is actually very important... i just dont feel it actually belongs in the courtroom or during the investigative process... if you can use emotion to get strength to do rigteous trhings, cool. just dont let it cloud your judgement around the facts... and most often it does just that... nancy grace does let it infect her judgements... clearly...


the prosecution dropped the ball on this one, bottom line... the justice system worked exactly how it was supposed to, they jjust went at the case in a dumb way... guilty or not, she didnt deserve to be convicted of anything they brought foreward... they simply did not make their case...

and now you hear hopw pi$$ed off the jurors are at the prosecution... that one juror says she was sick to her stomach that she couldnt convict casey of more than just lying... and i agree... booo on the state, massive fail... get better at your job and murderers wont get off with book deals...

and that comes baxck to money and emotion again... cochrane was after dollars, the DA was after justice... in this instance greed is the more powerful of the two, OJ got off... as far as MJ is concerned, i dont think he did anything wrong INTENTIONALLY... i think the duder just really likes kids. in a way that is scary to parents in this fear mongering world... if you are different and have a huge love for kids, people look at you funny... i think he juist re-lives his cghildhood that was raped from him thru these kids... very sad actually, but not criminal...

[BJJ-Blue]

as far as MJ is concerned, i dont think he did anything wrong INTENTIONALLY... i think the duder just really likes kids. in a way that is scary to parents in this fear mongering world... if you are different and have a huge love for kids, people look at you funny... i think he juist re-lives his cghildhood that was raped from him thru these kids... very sad actually, but not criminal...

Totally agree 100%. I just cant imagine him doing that. He had such a horrid childhood that he wanted to help as many other kids have a great childhood they could always remember fondly.

And you're right, people do look at you funny. True story: Back when I had my '65, I was doing some work on it quite a bit. There was a kid who lived down the street, he was around 13. His parents were, to put it nicely, not the best parents. They both drank, fought like cats and dogs, and worked irregularly. But the kid loved cars. So when I worked on it he would often come over and help me with it. I was really nice to him because I knew he had a pretty sad life. I'm nice, but I have common sense. He NEVER went into our house, and I made sure after the first time he came over to have his parents come by and meet me and my wife.

So one day after we finished working on it I went and got him a Coke and we were chillin by the car. The neighbor nextdoor to me (whose house I was facing) actually came over and asked me why I was looking at his house. I was confused. I said I was just watching cars go by and happened to be facing his house. I then asked if there was a problem. He just walked off. A few months later he moved. So one day another neighbor was talking to me and he mentioned the old neighbor. I told him the story of that odd day. He says, 'Well he thought you were a child molester because the neighbor kid came by alot.' I just laughed and said how ridiculous that was and how his parents knew he came by cause he liked my car and that he's never even been in our house. The neighbor said he of course didn't believe it, but he just wanted to explain me why the guy was like that to me that day.

I'm alot of things ;), but I'm not a child molester. It's just sad in this day and age if you do do something nice for a kid, some people actually look at that as a sinister thing. Sadly, I think it's one of the reasons people just arent as nice to others anymore. No good deed goes unpunished.

[Syn7]

yeah its very unfortunate, but we live in a society that is far more concerned with selfish desire and judging others to make ourselves feel less fukced up than with actually getting to know people for who they really are... i would say on average, regular folks miss out on 95% of the opportunities that fall in their laps cause they are too busy pre-judging and deciding where we personally fit in any given equation, rather than actually seeing it for what it is...

and im totally guilty of it too, even tho i try not to.... im fighting 20 years of bad learning, bad habits and bad role models with like 10 years of forweward thinking... mos def causes some nice conflict within... like everyone else with a bit of foresight, im working on it :D

[bawang]

the general idea seems to be she seemed guilty, but there was not enough evidence.

shes a high school dropout that went partying and gets a tatoo when her daughter goes missing. even if shes innocent, shes a dumb slat.

[Lee Chiang Po]

The next time she appeared in court after the verdict, she had shed the school marm look and had her party face on. She has had many death threats so far, and is quite likely to suffer a sudden lose of friends over this. Her life is never going to be the party it once was. Oh, guys will still want to bang her, but then they will just want to drain their bladders on her.

[David Jamieson]

Sure you do. It's the human element , beyond the lawyers, the robots , the technicalities and the blah blah

It's the insurance for justice for absurd situations such as this.

If the jury had been allowed to convict on feeling the case would be over, really over and justice served.

Actually, I thought they were allowed to convict if they thought the person guilty on circumstantial evidence I guess not.

This is the problem then, in the injustice system.

--->

Ah... so Jameson watches Nancy Grace and CNN Headline news .. after telling everyone he only watches the beaver channels.


nope

something is emotionally broken with you too.

my comment about nancy grace had to do with the news around her and how she was fueling the witch hunt on what is otherwise just some dumb broad who is careless and doesn't give a crap.

why the heck would I watch that stupid vapid vaccuous twat? lol :p

right up there with other American female favs like "the view" or any number of other lamo "emotional intelligence" crap. :D

[David Jamieson]

Sure you do. It's the human element , beyond the lawyers, the robots , the technicalities and the blah blah

It's the insurance for justice for absurd situations such as this.

If the jury had been allowed to convict on feeling the case would be over, really over and justice served.

Actually, I thought they were allowed to convict if they thought the person guilty on circumstantial evidence I guess not.

This is the problem then, in the injustice system.

--->

Ah... so Jameson watches Nancy Grace and CNN Headline news .. after telling everyone he only watches the beaver channels.


nope

something is mentally and emotionally broken with you too.

my comment about nancy grace had to do with the news around her and how she was fueling the witch hunt on what is otherwise just some dumb broad who is careless and doesn't give a crap.

why the heck would I watch that stupid vapid vaccuous twat? lol :p

right up there with other American female favs like "the view" or any number of other lamo "emotional intelligence" crap. :D

[BJJ-Blue]

If the jury had been allowed to convict on feeling the case would be over, really over and justice served.

Actually, I thought they were allowed to convict if they thought the person guilty on circumstantial evidence I guess not.

They are allowed to do just that. Of course if there is really no or slim evidence or they disregard the judge's instructions to them, that's what we have the appeals process for.

I look at it this way, since no one can come up with a logical REASON why she did not report the child missing for 31 days, and even then she never did make a report (the grandmother did), there is no REASONABLE DOUBT she didn't know the child was dead and didn't have a hand in it. Sure, the State likely did not prove murder, but they proved manslaughter and child abuse imo.

[David Jamieson]

They are allowed to do just that. Of course if there is really no or slim evidence or they disregard the judge's instructions to them, that's what we have the appeals process for.

I look at it this way, since no one can come up with a logical REASON why she did not report the child missing for 31 days, and even then she never did make a report (the grandmother did), there is no REASONABLE DOUBT she didn't know the child was dead and didn't have a hand in it. Sure, the State likely did not prove murder, but they proved manslaughter and child abuse imo.

How about embarrassment for her own negligence?
denial? drug stupor? Just a dumb beeotch?

I'm not surprised by how self serving and stupid people are. It seems pretty obvious to me.

what's not obvious is whether or not she killed the tot and the judgment reflects that there was no evidence that was solid to convict.

You can't convict someone of being a crappy parent.

[KC Elbows]

The prosecution is at fault, period. They couldn't prove the case, they could've pursued charges they could prove, but didn't.

As for basing analysis of Casey Anthony on what sane people do, that's a dead end. She's a nutbag.

[David Jamieson]

The prosecution is at fault, period. They couldn't prove the case, they could've pursued charges they could prove, but didn't.

As for basing analysis of Casey Anthony on what sane people do, that's a dead end. She's a nutbag.

She's weird for sure.

the prosecution had 3 years to get it together and couldn't.

I don't know about you, but she doesn't strike me as a homicide department of justice foiling murderous mastermind. Just some idiocratic chick who uses less brains that god gave her.

[David Jamieson]

@Jameison "twat"? I thought Canadians were disinfected for sexism? Aren't you in a state of political incorrectness with the established doctrine of your national image? They had better not let you on the stage at the rallies.

Does hating Americans make you feel more Canadian? Prejudice is a form of artificial identity empowerment, The more you pump it the less real it is and it always needs to be fed. Culture that is not benign is dysfunctional and needs to be abandoned.

hating americans? bwahahaha.

meds. they're your friend, take them now.

wolfpup, you got some growin up to do boy.

[Drake]

The prosecution is at fault, period. They couldn't prove the case, they could've pursued charges they could prove, but didn't.

As for basing analysis of Casey Anthony on what sane people do, that's a dead end. She's a nutbag.

That's basically it. They had nothing to prove their case, and went for it anyway. She could have easily been convicted of other charges, but they dropped the ball on that.

It's such a mess now, I doubt we'll ever know who actually did it.

[David Jamieson]

Avoiding the questions. denial and personal attack. Not much substance in the world you live in.
So how about that sexism of yours. Don't you people have to take community service courses for that?
Juries are supposed to be able to convict without absolute proof, that is supposed to be the human safeguard to absurd situations. If they don't have that , that is what has gone wrong.


That's a busted system.

yap yap yap- you don't know crap about the justice system in your country I guess.
Juries convict when evidence presented is "beyond reasonable doubt". THey couldn't even get beyond reasonable doubt.

Dude you're a troll, you say I'm sexist, but it's just you being an idiot about some little thing said.

you have zero substance whatsoever, just an anonymous 14 year old being an internet troll.

:p

loser.

[KC Elbows]

I doubt we'll ever know who actually did it.

It was Jon Benet Ramsey.

[BJJ-Blue]

That's basically it. They had nothing to prove their case, and went for it anyway. She could have easily been convicted of other charges, but they dropped the ball on that.

It's such a mess now, I doubt we'll ever know who actually did it.

They had alot of evidence. The fact Casey did not report her 2 year old missing, the fact that her trunk smelled like human decomposition was testified to by at least 2 witnesses, including a retired cop. Traces of chloroform were found in the trunk. They showed her partying while she claimed to be looking for her kid. She lied to police about alot of things, her employment status, she said that Caylee called her on like the 30th day, and she lied about Zanaida Gonzalez (sp?) having Caylee. Then we have the searches for chloroform made when only Casey had access to that computer. Innocent people do not tell lie after lie after lie.

And remember, saying they had no cause of death is not a 'get out of jail card free'. We've seen people convicted when no body is even ever found.

[KC Elbows]

Other cases aren't this one. They dropped the ball, period, end of story. Hell, it was a death penalty case, which tends to mean more hardline juries, and they still couldn't do it.

No one's fault but the prosecutors'.

[David Jamieson]

And remember, saying they had no cause of death is not a 'get out of jail card free'. We've seen people convicted when no body is even ever found.

You've seen innocent people executed too and black men lynched for being black men.

this is less than 50 years ago!

Seriously dude, what sort of deluded rose painted view do you have of your country?

yeesh. :rolleyes::p

[BJJ-Blue]

Other cases aren't this one. They dropped the ball, period, end of story. Hell, it was a death penalty case, which tends to mean more hardline juries, and they still couldn't do it.

No one's fault but the prosecutors'.

My point was we've seen convictions with alot less evidence. FYI, most legal experts are saying the prosecution did fine, they just got stuck with a bad jury. As to a death penalty case having hardline juries, that's not the case anymore than any other jury. The defense gets to strike plenty of potential jurors without any reason, and you can bet they strike the hardline types most of all. Hell, they even had a juror who admitted she doesn't like to judge people. How you can anyone say she is a hardline, and how did she even make it on to the jury?

[KC Elbows]

My point was we've seen convictions with alot less evidence. FYI, most legal experts are saying the prosecution did fine, they just got stuck with a bad jury.

No.


As to a death penalty case having hardline juries, that's not the case anymore than any other jury.

Wrong.


The defense gets to strike plenty of potential jurors without any reason, and you can bet they strike the hardline types most of all.

Death penalty juries almost to a person are made up of people who don't oppose the death penalty, a demographic that is more hardline than other juries, by definition.


Hell, they even had a juror who admitted she doesn't like to judge people. How you can anyone say she is a hardline, and how did she even make it on to the jury?

Ever hear of trial by a jury of your peers. One juror hardly makes your argument.

[BJJ-Blue]

I can't keep arguing with you KC. You have an opinion, and you have facts. So do I. And I respect yours. I'll close by saying in MY opinion, manslaughter, child abuse, and lying to police were proven, murder was not. Obviously 12 jurors and a minority of Americans disagree. But again, I respect your opinion and you for presenting facts to back it up.

[SimonM]

Really?? Joe Hill would have been surprised to hear that.


WTF Does Stephen King's son have to do with anything?

[SimonM]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hill


A martyr who helped bring freedom to America before the New Age Fascists took it away.


I guess that's what they call the dominance of celebrity culture replacing law, history, education , reason etc.

Who's Stephen King's son?
Don't tell me, I don't want, to know that was only rhetorical.

Stephen King's son is named Joe Hill King, his pen name is Joe Hill. It was a writer joke. I do sometimes like to crack wise.

As for the Joe Hill you are referring to - he was a union organizer. Probably nearly as much of a leftist as me.

But I wouldn't expect an anarchist to be aware of something as unimportant as facts when ideology was on the line.

[KC Elbows]

Stephen King's son was named after the Joe Hill we're discussing.

[SimonM]

Stephen King's son was named after the Joe Hill we're discussing.

I actually didn't know that. But it makes the joke all the better. :D

[KC Elbows]

I think it unfair that you are equating anarchists with the mentally ill. You are clearly thinking Chaotic Neutral.

[Syn7]

Sure you do. It's the human element , beyond the lawyers, the robots , the technicalities and the blah blah

It's the insurance for justice for absurd situations such as this.

If the jury had been allowed to convict on feeling the case would be over, really over and justice served.

Actually, I thought they were allowed to convict if they thought the person guilty on circumstantial evidence I guess not.

This is the problem then, in the injustice system.

--->

Ah... so Jameson watches Nancy Grace and CNN Headline news .. after telling everyone he only watches the beaver channels.

a conviction based on anything other than the evidence presented is against the judges instructions... that just isnt how the system is supposed to work... its one of the more fair systems BECAUSE it does all it can to eliminate that situation...

emotions hurt us far more than they help us...

they can convict on circumstantial evidence, biut only if they have no reasonable doubt... and the fact that nobody can say how, when or where this crime happened, there is tons of reasonable doubt... thats how your system works... love it or hate it, the rest of your options are far worse...

my issue is with the definition of "peer"... we are not all equal, we will never all be equal and i would hate to be judged by people i consider beneath me... on the flip side, i would rather be judged by those that i consider above me... its all so subjective tho... so what is in place now is the best choice i can think of...

[KC Elbows]

A conviction on this case would be overturned. A jury arbitrarily deciding despite the case presented does nothing for justice in our system.

[Lucas]

get ready to hate and flame me lol - in defense of being sexist!

many women i know are sexist. unfortunately only men recieve a negative correlation to that type of behavior. for some unknown reason its perfectly acceptable for women to be sexist and not men.

now, just to be clear, i do not discriminate based on sex. to many i would be considered 'sexist', but i merely feel i am 'old fashioned' ;):p:D

i think everyone is 'sexist' to an extent. not necessarily to the degree of discrimination, but in regards to believing that ones gender effects ones ability to do or perform certain things to a degree that differs from the opposite gender. this works both ways. do i truly believe the genders are equal? no way. not even a chance that men and women are truly equal in every way. its not possible. do i view women as inferior? no. as a fairer sex? yes. on average yes women are much more fair than men in many ways. there are many things women are much better at than men, and vise versa. so you see, i am equal in that i do believe women and men have seperate strengths in many many areas.

i hate the overly pc world we live in today. when the boat starts to sink who gets to leave first? women and children. you'll never hear a woman ***** about being equal under circumstances like that.

its all good and well until being the fairer sex works in favor then its back to not being entirely equal.

/flameon

where is my sword....

[Syn7]

@Jameison "twat"? I thought Canadians were disinfected for sexism? Aren't you in a state of political incorrectness with the established doctrine of your national image? They had better not let you on the stage at the rallies.

Does hating Americans make you feel more Canadian? Prejudice is a form of artificial identity empowerment, The more you pump it the less real it is and it always needs to be fed. Culture that is not benign is dysfunctional and needs to be abandoned.

the fact that you think canada has any sort of national identity we all posses shows just how little you actually understand your closest and longest standing ally...

are you really slow enough to believe that "Canadians were disinfected for sexism"??? you dont seem like a moron... say it aint so!!!

PC is for idiots that cant rise above the artificial reality pumped in our faces day in and day out... reasonably polite is more than enough...


oh, and she is a twat... why deny such a simple truth... she is a waste of skin, doing very real harm to her "followers"... shes dangerous... many of her persuits are blind, and blind anything is pure ignorance... whether its blind justice, blind faith, whatever...

[Syn7]

It was Jon Benet Ramsey.

hey, werent they vindicated in the last few years??? or am i thinking of someone else???

those two were absolutely crucified by the press...

[Syn7]

They had alot of evidence. The fact Casey did not report her 2 year old missing, the fact that her trunk smelled like human decomposition was testified to by at least 2 witnesses, including a retired cop. Traces of chloroform were found in the trunk. They showed her partying while she claimed to be looking for her kid. She lied to police about alot of things, her employment status, she said that Caylee called her on like the 30th day, and she lied about Zanaida Gonzalez (sp?) having Caylee. Then we have the searches for chloroform made when only Casey had access to that computer. Innocent people do not tell lie after lie after lie.

And remember, saying they had no cause of death is not a 'get out of jail card free'. We've seen people convicted when no body is even ever found.

yeah, and they shouldnt have been convicted, and people should have cared... its just that the average cat doesnt really understand how the legal system works...

none of that proves murder? i could frame somebody easy, and leave far more d@mning evidence... they will look guilty, but they arent... should we convict coz they seemed odd?
man, i hope i never end up in front of a jury with you on it...

[Lucas]

so which one of you losers is sending that kunt all your money while she sits in jail?

[Syn7]

My point was we've seen convictions with alot less evidence. FYI, most legal experts are saying the prosecution did fine, they just got stuck with a bad jury. As to a death penalty case having hardline juries, that's not the case anymore than any other jury. The defense gets to strike plenty of potential jurors without any reason, and you can bet they strike the hardline types most of all. Hell, they even had a juror who admitted she doesn't like to judge people. How you can anyone say she is a hardline, and how did she even make it on to the jury?

yes but in a death penalty case all jurors who dont agree with DP are released and only pro DP are left... how many pro DP cats do you know who arent law and order pro conviction type of people??? personally, i never met one... i doubt you have either... but i do know a ton of hardline law and order anti DP kinds of people...

if you can't convince 12 people who believe she is guilty and approve of the death penalty, then you done fukced up real bad... not one juror has since said they thought she was innoscent...

[Lucas]

... not one juror has since said they thought she was innoscent...

i havnt followed this much, are you saying post trial all the jurors on that trial said they thought she was not innocent but they found her innocent anyway?:confused:

[Syn7]

The point is not that you are a sexist in your manner, but your manner itself, which is impaired critical thinking expressing ebullience with little or no actual content. You end your thought processes with no possibility of further development. "Twat" does not convey information.

really??? i knew exactly where he was going with that... and she is, after all, a massive twat... so.............. yeah. :rolleyes:

personally, i hope we never get to the point to where we're sanitized and so PC that we have no flavor left... as far as im concerned, there's no problem with speaking the truth... no matter how unpleasant that may be to the weaker of our species...

its that attitude that is sinking the US... the average westerner just isnt as strong as they were 100 years ago... survival of the fittest... and those who struggle and succeeed are far mor fit than those who live off past success and milk it to the point of delusion in identifying ones own worth...

handouts create weakness... and the whole western way of life is like one big fukced up handout... thankfully that isnt the case for all westerners, just most...

[KC Elbows]

Social darwinism is cr@p. When you can't even grasp the definition of "Fit": that Darwin was using, you're not it.

If the strongest bring the race to a point they cannot sustain, they do not fulfill Darwin's definition of "fittest".

As for Casey Anthony, uneducated white trash drinks gutter alcohol while baby dies, film at 11.

[Syn7]

i havnt followed this much, are you saying post trial all the jurors on that trial said they thought she was not innocent but they found her innocent anyway?:confused:

yes... the first one i heard said they were sick to their stomach that the prosecution didnt give them anything to convict her of... they all believe in one way or another that she had done wrong... the problem is with what she did that was wrong... nobody knows, hence the whole reasonable doubt thang...

[Syn7]

Social darwinism is cr@p. When you can't even grasp the definition of "Fit": that Darwin was using, you're not it.

If the strongest bring the race to a point they cannot sustain, they do not fulfill Darwin's definition of "fittest".

As for Casey Anthony, uneducated white trash drinks gutter alcohol while baby dies, film at 11.

fit can be interpreted in a few diff ways... brains, brawn, as a collective or as an individual etc etc...

my point is that complacency creates unacceptable weakness... so, unless you were talking to somebody else, i think we probably agree more than we disagree...


if a percieved strength creates an instability then it was hardly a styrength to begin with... many weaknesses are confused with strength...

[KC Elbows]

fit can be interpreted in a few diff ways... brains, brawn, as a collective or as an individual etc etc...

my point is that complacency creates unacceptable weakness... so, unless you were talking to somebody else, i think we probably agree more than we disagree...


if a percieved strength creates an instability then it was hardly a styrength to begin with... many weaknesses are confused with strength...

Darwin's definition of fit has to do with fitting in the ecosystem they live in. Social Darwinists, being utter morons trying to capitalize off of Darwinism to justify their economic situation, went with a different definition.

Darwin's theory has nothing to do with the strength of the individual or race, but it's ability to fit a place in its environment. Fit, as in fit in a place, not fit like, does a lot of push ups.

Sorry, I despise Social Darwinism, wasn't railing at you.

[Syn7]

i wasnt really talking about darwin... i meant it in a more general way... you know what i mean?

on average, the strongest will win out against the weak most times... in anything...

i meant it in the way that the more complacent your life is and the more you rely on the hard work of those before you without adding to it significantly the weaker you become... theres a reason why alot 3rd world countries are gonna be passing us by soon... as they catch up technologically, they have an egde we dont have.... hardship on a massive scale... it breeds a kind of drive you just wont have if everything is handed to you... a lack of regulation and the like is the least of the causes...


before when i said survival of the fittest i wasnt really intending to reference darwin... i meant it in another light... maybe i should have said stregth will usually win out against weakness... do you know what im saying???

[KC Elbows]

Are you suggesting I'm mentally unfit?:D

[Syn7]

lol

we all are to an extent...

if i was pefectly sane, life would be so boring...

[David Jamieson]

And as we can all see this idea of these and other "judges' instructions interfering with the common sense of a group of human peers Doesn't work. The affairs of humans are imprecise everything can be doubted that's why the reliance on the judgment of a group of peers without the interference is best. The application of certain instructions themselves create the outcome and prevent the human element from making the final decision - which despite it's flaws is the best method - actual interfered with humans in charge of human affairs.

You miss the point of judges. If they weren't required to give instruction in rule of law to juries then they wouldn't be there. Would they now.

RULE OF LAW creates an outcome that is preferable to anything else at this time.

Particularly Western Liberal Democratic rule of law mostly based out of Le code Napoleon and British common law.

You didn't get what you wanted. It has nothing to do with the truth of what she did. You already have deemed her guilty DESPITE your own rule of law!

What's your solution wolf pup?

[Syn7]

the judges instructions to the jury are pretty basic, actually. the big one, in this case, is that they cannot let anything that wasnt presented in that courtroom affect their judgement of the facts presented. its also why people can never show aproval or disaproval to anyone or anything said or done in that court room. lawyers manipulate emotions all the time, but the jurors are instructed to be immune to that. they are very specific and direct when they say that you must make all decisions based ONLY on the evidence presented.


the prosecution could have made other charges stick, but they didnt bother to cover their a$$es, they figured this one was in the bag. lying and erractic behaviour are what cops look for when solving these kinds of crimes. but once it hits the court room, all that maybe, and what if bullsh1t is out the door. why is it so tough for some folks to understand this? dont let your emotions overcome your common sense. its better that she goes free than a ton of people who didnt do anything wrong get railroaded by an unfair system.