- 21,947
- 1,374
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2003
Official Casey Anthony Trial - Walking Out of Jail a Free Woman @ 12:00am 07/17/2011
ghenges
Supporter
- 7,137
- 1,640
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2003
Originally Posted by 5am6oody72
Yea, but there were a LOT more links/circumstantial evidence in the case than there would be for your hypothetical one.
I hope I'm never on a jury and as many have said, the prosecution had a hard job. But to me, seeing the way she acted and how she covered everything up, lied multiple times, showed literally zero symptoms of somebody who had just lost a daughter, and in fact seemed to embrace her life without her daughter, all that coupled with the circumstantial evidence and no proof for any of the claims the defense made as to how the baby died, I'm voting her guilty if I'm on that jury.
To me, If I have an overwhelming sense from looking at the evidence that she's guilty, that's what I'm going with. Just because there is no smoking gun linking her to the killings, EVERY other piece of evidence points to her doing it, that's beyond a "reasonable doubt" for me. I would be kicking myself for the rest of my life if I had voted her not guilty in this case. It'd be one thing if she hadn't behaved the way she did or covered everything up and lied, then even if there was some circumstantial evidence I might feel hesitant about finding her guilty.
But if you were in the hot seat, would you want your life to depend on a stranger's "overwhelming sense" of you being guilty? If you are happy with someone else judging you in that way then I have no problems with your argument. If you are okay with YOUR fate being decided on circumstantial evidence alone, whether it be stealing a stick of gum or pre-meditated murder and you are willing to say "I didn't do it but all circumstantial evidence says I did it so I will accept the consequences" then I have not problems with your argument.
However, if it was MY life on the line, I wouldn't want anyone like that judging me. Might have, could have, most likely have is not enough.
- 14,358
- 3,015
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2003
- 427
- 162
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2010
The same people who try to avoid and/or complain about jury duty are the same people complaining about the jurors on the Casey Anthony trial and the fallacies of our judicial system...hmmm
- 3,130
- 10
- Joined
- May 21, 2005
Originally Posted by Ghenges
Originally Posted by 5am6oody72
Yea, but there were a LOT more links/circumstantial evidence in the case than there would be for your hypothetical one.
I hope I'm never on a jury and as many have said, the prosecution had a hard job. But to me, seeing the way she acted and how she covered everything up, lied multiple times, showed literally zero symptoms of somebody who had just lost a daughter, and in fact seemed to embrace her life without her daughter, all that coupled with the circumstantial evidence and no proof for any of the claims the defense made as to how the baby died, I'm voting her guilty if I'm on that jury.
To me, If I have an overwhelming sense from looking at the evidence that she's guilty, that's what I'm going with. Just because there is no smoking gun linking her to the killings, EVERY other piece of evidence points to her doing it, that's beyond a "reasonable doubt" for me. I would be kicking myself for the rest of my life if I had voted her not guilty in this case. It'd be one thing if she hadn't behaved the way she did or covered everything up and lied, then even if there was some circumstantial evidence I might feel hesitant about finding her guilty.
But if you were in the hot seat, would you want your life to depend on a stranger's "overwhelming sense" of you being guilty? If you are happy with someone else judging you in that way then I have no problems with your argument. If you are okay with YOUR fate being decided on circumstantial evidence alone, whether it be stealing a stick of gum or pre-meditated murder and you are willing to say "I didn't do it but all circumstantial evidence says I did it so I will accept the consequences" then I have not problems with your argument.
However, if it was MY life on the line, I wouldn't want anyone like that judging me. Might have, could have, most likely have is not enough.
I do agree with you and you need forensic evidence to point to a murder conviction. But, then where is the line crossed? Some murders there can be no forensic evidence. Also, forensic evidence does not always prove and link to the actual murderer. There are a lot of murder convictions based on circumstantial evidence.
I just keep thinking of Scott Peterson and how he is sitting on death row based on circumstantial evidence which linked him to the murders of Laci and the unborn baby. I am just wondering why Casey's case, they came to different conclusions. I guess it was because they had no known cause of death for Caylee.
- 1,807
- 94
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2007
Does she go back to jail tonight to await the sentencing? If so, she's in for a looooong few weeks in prison
- 714
- 16
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2001
Even if she gets the 4 she's coming up on 3 years in the pen sooooo.....
- 1,060
- 34
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2009
Quick question, i'm from Canada, I'm looking at a Nightline thing on ABC right now, and I was wondering if someone can tell me the whole story on this case? Like some quick cliffnotes cause I know nothing about that story (and it bothers me!!)
- 714
- 16
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2001
Definition of a man on the comeup.
- 2,098
- 116
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2006
Originally Posted by Brandon3000
- 4,666
- 11
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2007
People that want to see someone burn at the stake have personal issues. Not guilty means not guilty, everyone blames the justice system for people "getting off" "Oj did it" MJ did it" "R Kelly Did it" etc. you dudes arent happy unless someones being punished for something that they may or may have not done its sickening.
If casey really did it shes the only that can prove it either way, so stop trying to debunk the jury's decision with your degrees from youtube university.
its pathetic.
- 88,331
- 47,367
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2000
if this girl was ugly and fat 100% of niketalk would want her to burn at the stake
- 20,013
- 9,741
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2001
She's not really attractive in the first place, so that's clearly not it.Originally Posted by NobleKane
if this girl was ugly and fat 100% of niketalk would want her to burn at the stake
- 214
- 10
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
Originally Posted by NuMba1KiCkrocka
People that want to see someone burn at the stake have personal issues. Not guilty means not guilty, everyone blames the justice system for people "getting off" "Oj did it" MJ did it" "R Kelly Did it" etc. you dudes arent happy unless someones being punished for something that they may or may have not done its sickening.If casey really did it shes the only that can prove it either way, so stop trying to debunk the jury's decision with your degrees from youtube university.its pathetic.
QFT. prosecutor didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And no one sat through the whole trial like the jury did, unanimous decisions were made, respect it.
- 21,589
- 10,204
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2007
Some really good points in this thread.
I think there is a difference between "she did it" vs "guilty"
From a legal standpoint as a juror don't you need to prove guilt? This can only be done by hard evidence. Which they didn't really have. So just from a legal standpoint i feel that the verdict was correct.
Do i think she did it of course. But like others have said they probably could have got her on a lesser charge but went for it all and lost. This is the way the justice system works and in all honesty if i were on trial for murder i would want the jury to do the same thing for me. Only put me away for life if it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that i did it.
I think there is a difference between "she did it" vs "guilty"
From a legal standpoint as a juror don't you need to prove guilt? This can only be done by hard evidence. Which they didn't really have. So just from a legal standpoint i feel that the verdict was correct.
Do i think she did it of course. But like others have said they probably could have got her on a lesser charge but went for it all and lost. This is the way the justice system works and in all honesty if i were on trial for murder i would want the jury to do the same thing for me. Only put me away for life if it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that i did it.
- 18,903
- 1,184
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2004
Originally Posted by dmbrhs
She's not really attractive in the first place, so that's clearly not it.Originally Posted by NobleKane
if this girl was ugly and fat 100% of niketalk would want her to burn at the stake
i think she's alright. she got a big A!! forehead but than can be covered.
Not guilty does not mean innocent. All it means is that it wasn't beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial. OJ lost the civil trial. (HE DID IT)Originally Posted by fresh prince of Sactown
Originally Posted by NuMba1KiCkrocka
People that want to see someone burn at the stake have personal issues. Not guilty means not guilty, everyone blames the justice system for people "getting off" "Oj did it" MJ did it" "R Kelly Did it" etc. you dudes arent happy unless someones being punished for something that they may or may have not done its sickening.If casey really did it shes the only that can prove it either way, so stop trying to debunk the jury's decision with your degrees from youtube university.its pathetic.
QFT. prosecutor didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And no one sat through the whole trial like the jury did, unanimous decisions were made, respect it.
- 214
- 10
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
If there Is any doubt at all, why convict. They were asking for the death penalty, what IF she didn't do it, and they killed her. No one will really know the truth behind her innocence, ergo, innocent until proven guilty and she couldn't be proven guilty, no matter what anyone says, the right verdict was made, don't let media corrupt you, look at the facts of the trial, and be unbiased.
I would've voted not guilty too if I was a juror. Based on evidence alone.
That is all.
I would've voted not guilty too if I was a juror. Based on evidence alone.
That is all.
- 9,501
- 419
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2003
Originally Posted by ThunderChunk69
no,
she would have reported the wallet missing
- 6,401
- 4,160
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
BTW...YOU WANT SOME SPAM DOC?Originally Posted by Da Doc03
Originally Posted by ThunderChunk69
no,
she would have reported the wallet missing
furrell
Banned
- 3,104
- 10
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2011
What facts of the trial? Even her lawyer couldn't build a proper defense. This was an entire cluster**** caused by the OC police department. If they would have brought in the body while it was in early stages of decomp it would have been a wrap. Everyone involved down there needs to hand in their badge.
There will be a ton of civil suits especially if she chooses to profit off of this with one of them being from her imaginary friend Zenida Gonzalez.
- 2,950
- 10
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2008
Ding, ding ding, we have a winner. Everyone at our firm saw this coming. And some people I know from the public defenders office back home said the same thing.
Look at the hard evidence the prosecution had, it was next to nothing.
If people want someone to blame, blame the OC PD. This is really on them.
- 30,498
- 5,958
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2011
Feeling guilt is far worse than being not guilty IMO.
If she truly did it she will have to live the rest of her life knowing she ended her daughters life.
If she truly did it she will have to live the rest of her life knowing she ended her daughters life.
- 1,781
- 10
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2007
It will be interesting to see what moves this mentally stunted person makes when she's free. She was quoting Shinedown lyrics in her jail letters and writing about traveling the country as part of some "RV Ministry." It would all be kind of funny if it weren't for the very real possibility she killed her kid. Not guilty, but not innocent. I hope whatever dudes choose to be around her double up and sleep with a knife under the pillow.
- 6,401
- 4,160
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006