McD5 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Of course we get to see much more than the jury. Did anyone even watch this case?How many times was the jury asked to leave, then the rest of the country got to see many things the jury didn't. Whether if was the judge going off on the lawyers, or tthe lawyers arguing with one another. Or the judge making rulings like they couldn't continue with the bs about George sexually abusing Casey. The jury sees none of that. And non of that was relevant to the jury in regards to this case when making a verdict. Absurd. Much of that concerned what the jury was even allowed to see--much less than us, by the way. Not sure who made the ridiculous comment that the jury saw more than we did. Honestly, someone here was on the jury, weren't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killerbee99 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 And non of that was relevant to the jury in regards to this case when making a verdict. Absurd. Much of that concerned what the jury was even allowed to see--much less than us, by the way. Not sure who made the ridiculous comment that the jury saw more than we did. Honestly, someone here was on the jury, weren't they? How about you let us know then genius? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Thank God the Law determines that to convict anyone on a charge there must be more than reasonable doubt...not some guy thinking his "common sense" gives a guilty verdict. Don't like it, change the law to convictions on "common sense".....like seriously Apparently you don't read very well, either. As I said before, I don't necessarily fault the jury for the verdict. But every bit of common sense tells you that Casey Anthony is responsible for the death of her daughter. There is simply no other reasonable explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killerbee99 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Ok fine then we agree then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gridiron Grunt Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 You don't know much about criminal trial procedure, do you?-- I don't necessarily fault the jury for the verdict. But every bit of common sense tells you that Casey Anthony is responsible for the death of her daughter. There is simply no other reasonable explanation. The irony in this post is you earlier chastised skinksfan13 for not seeing "the contradiction in your paragraph". You accuse me of not knowing much about the criminal procedure yet are ready to condemn the defendant simply because there is "no other reasonable explanation". Anyone with knowledge of the criminal system knows it's not what you know, it's what you can prove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killerbee99 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Well, gridiron...the one circumstansial evidence that was quite damning was not reporting her daughter missing for 30 days....wow! my daughter goes out of my sight for a couple of secs and I freak out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 The irony in this post is you earlier chastised skinksfan13 for not seeing "the contradiction in your paragraph". You accuse me of not knowing much about the criminal procedure yet are ready to condemn the defendant simply because there is "no other reasonable explanation".Anyone with knowledge of the criminal system knows it's not what you know, it's what you can prove. :doh: I'm not talking about the courtroom or the criminal justice system. I'm talking about real life. People do crimes and get away with it. It happens. Let's try this. Give me any reasonable scenario that she didn't do it that fits everything we know about the case. Casey Anthony was responsible for the death of her daughter. There was not enough evidence presented in court to convince 12 jurors that she did it. Thus she was legally declared "not guilty" in trial. Good for her. But she did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gridiron Grunt Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Well, gridiron...the one circumstansial evidence that was quite damning was not reporting her daughter missing for 30 days....wow! my daughter goes out of my sight for a couple of secs and I freak out. How can evidence be damning and circumstantial at the same time? It can't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killerbee99 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Well, it was damning...not reporting missing kid for 30 days ...there you go......but also people react differently to situations so its not slam dunk evidence as well that she did it.......hence circumstancial evidence......better explanantion , huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 :doh: I'm not talking about the courtroom or the criminal justice system. I'm talking about real life. People do crimes and get away with it. It happens. Let's try this. Give me any reasonable scenario that she didn't do it that fits everything we know about the case.Casey Anthony was responsible for the death of her daughter. There was not enough evidence presented in court to convince 12 jurors that she did it. Thus she was legally declared "not guilty" in trial. Good for her. But she did it. I agree. Up to the end, where I would insert the word "probably". She probably did it. I would also add that this doesn't mean the 'system is broken'. On the contrary, I think it is an example of our justice system working. We make it hard to prove guilt, and in this case, although she probably did it, the state didn't prove it. Although its not ideal to let probable killers go, it is worth it when you consider the alternative: a system where you don't get due process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD5 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 This is the worst court decision since allowing women the right to vote or drive cars.:pfft: Discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gridiron Grunt Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 :doh: I'm not talking about the courtroom or the criminal justice system. I'm talking about real life. People do crimes and get away with it. It happens. Let's try this. Give me any reasonable scenario that she didn't do it that fits everything we know about the case.Casey Anthony was responsible for the death of her daughter. There was not enough evidence presented in court to convince 12 jurors that she did it. Thus she was legally declared "not guilty" in trial. Good for her. But she did it. The courtroom is not real life??!! News to me... The reality is it's not up to the defense to offer a "reasonable scenario that she didn't do it". It's up to the prosecution to offer actual evidence of any specific theory that could be accepted with any modicum of assurance of fact beyond what the defense offered. They failed to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 The courtroom is not real life??!! News to me...The reality is it's not up to the defense to offer a "reasonable scenario that she didn't do it". It's up to the prosecution to offer actual evidence of any specific theory that could be accepted with any modicum of assurance of fact beyond what the defense offered. They failed to do that. I'll try one more time. I'm not talking about the criminal trial. Forget the criminal trial. **** the criminal trial. Somebody killed Cayley Anthony. Can we agree on that? Now, who do you suggest did it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gridiron Grunt Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Well, it was damning...not reporting missing kid for 30 days ...there you go......but also people react differently to situations so its not slam dunk evidence as well that she did it.......hence circumstancial evidence......better explanantion , huh? Not really. You defeated your own argument in the same sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killerbee99 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Yeah, the defense should have just gone for a lower charge first...not the first count on premeditated murder......becuase she wants to party...better have some good evidence linking her to the murder...even though I personally think she is guilty as hell...sigh this case sucks all around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gridiron Grunt Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Are you really as dense as your posts here make you out to be? We were having a nice discussion until the name calling starts. If you and I are arguing in a court room, I just beat you. Nice talking to you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killerbee99 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Yeah, I guess I did...I am tired man...to me its damning but to the jury it's circumstancial...there is that better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 We were having a nice discussion until the name calling starts. I edited my post. Please go back and read it. If you and I are arguing in a court room, I just beat you. Nice talking to you! And that's the part you aren't getting. We're not in the courtroom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gridiron Grunt Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Yeah, I guess I did...I am tired man...to me its damning but to the jury it's circumstancial...there is that better It's been a long day, and people are really emotionally charged about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeb Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I agree. Up to the end, where I would insert the word "probably". She probably did it.I would also add that this doesn't mean the 'system is broken'. On the contrary, I think it is an example of our justice system working. We make it hard to prove guilt, and in this case, although she probably did it, the state didn't prove it. Although its not ideal to let probable killers go, it is worth it when you consider the alternative: a system where you don't get due process. You are literally one of the two people who have not made my brain bleed today....thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 It's been a long day, and people are really emotionally charged about this. Somebody killed Cayley Anthony. Who do you suggest did it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I agree. Up to the end, where I would insert the word "probably". She probably did it.I would also add that this doesn't mean the 'system is broken'. On the contrary, I think it is an example of our justice system working. We make it hard to prove guilt, and in this case, although she probably did it, the state didn't prove it. Although its not ideal to let probable killers go, it is worth it when you consider the alternative: a system where you don't get due process. Completely agree. Do I think she did it? Yes I do. But, the prosecution couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did do it. I mean isn't this what the court system is in place for? So we don't wrongly persecute innocent people? If they found her guilty and we found out a few years later that she didn't do it, how would you all react? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Completely agree. Do I think she did it? Yes I do. But, the prosecution couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did do it. I mean isn't this what the court system is in place for? So we don't wrongly persecute innocent people? I agree with this, and with Stadium-Armory's earlier post regarding the criminal justice system. But let's not talk about "innocence" in this particular case. She was declared "not guilty" but she was not "innocent." She did it, but they couldn't prove it. Sucks, but it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I agree with this, and with Stadium-Armory's earlier post regarding the criminal justice system. But let's not talk about "innocence" in this particular case. She was declared "not guilty" but she was not "innocent." She did it, but they couldn't prove it. Sucks, but it happens. Yup, and if this were a civil case, I bet she'd be toast (like OJ was). What's the story with Caylee's father? I wonder if he could rightfully bring a civil suit against Casey like the Goldman's did against OJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I agree with this, and with Stadium-Armory's earlier post regarding the criminal justice system. But let's not talk about "innocence" in this particular case. She was declared "not guilty" but she was not "innocent." She did it, but they couldn't prove it. Sucks, but it happens. I agree with you that she did it, but yeah they did a crap job of proving it. There was evidence that definitely made it seem like she did it, but there were so many holes in that evidence that it was hard for the jury to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did do it. I believe in karma, so one day, she'll get her's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.