Casey Anthony Trial (merged)

[MassHavoc]

 

[supraman]

I haven't followed the case closely, snippets here and there even though it was local. From what I read, did the Casey do it? Her mom? her Dad? There was plenty of reasonable doubt.

 

[TSD]

Unethical is a personal feeling. Maybe to you it's unethical but to me it is. I personally would have no problem convicting her to death based on this circumstantial evidence. I believe it was a pretty strong case. You are dismissing circumstantital evidence as being absolutely baseless and not even worthy of consideration here.

Basically you are saying you are ok with sentencing someone to death when the evidence hasnt proven them guilty. Which it didnt. That is unethical.



You arent looking at the case objectively you are looking at it with the slant that you think she is guilty.

 

[Kerfuffle]

um, no you don't. You are mixing up what you think, with what you know. The fact is you do not know how that kid died, and neither did the jury. Therefore, they couldnt convict.

Nothing says that kid drowned in the pool. And if she did, why would she have duct tape on her mouth? That breaks the defense alibi right there. You are trying to latch onto any theory thrown out there and give it plausibility. Common sense would tell you otherwise.

 

[Kerfuffle]

Basically you are saying you are ok with sentencing someone to death when the evidence hasnt proven them guilty. Which it didnt. That is unethical.



You arent looking at the case objectively you are looking at it with the slant that you think she is guilty.

I believe the evidence proves she's guilty - even though circumstantial. And that is ethical to me. I have no problems convicting in this case.

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

Why hello, NHTA.

 

[TSD]

Nothing says that kid drowned in the pool. And if she did, why would she have duct tape on her mouth? That breaks the defense alibi right there. You are trying to latch onto any theory thrown out there and give it plausibility. Common sense would tell you otherwise.

Im pretty sure people can drown with or without duct tape on their mouth. I dont latch on to any theories, I have no idea what happened. I do think she is guilty, but the evidence does not prove it. End of story.





Common Sense told people the world was flat for quite a long time. Look how that worked out.

 

[TSD]

I believe the evidence proves she's guilty - even though circumstantial. And that is ethical to me. I have no problems convicting in this case.

You think shes guilty and theres enough evidence to satisfy you to put her away. Thats the problem, You arent being objective.

 

[genefoley]

Gotta love the news channels: "shocking verdict"



really? its not shocking at all. While I think she's guilty based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence, you simply cannot put someone to death because you "think" they did it.



Seeing this ***** smile makes me want to puke.

 

[genefoley]

I believe the evidence proves she's guilty - even though circumstantial. And that is ethical to me. I have no problems convicting in this case.

And that's why you wouldn't be on a jury.



Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the jury have to come to a unanimous decision?

 

[klemmer]

On my facebook page"



Disclaimer: I don't watch celebrity Court TV or TV news' sensationalism of those trials. Get it? I did not see one thing on this trial.

Now. I believe in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty."

In reading the comments, most of you are blasting the jury without having access to every second of testimony that is not tainted by Nancy Grace or any of the other talking heads. Nor do any of us have access to the deliberation room.

So, one of two things happened.

1. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond the shadow of a doubt in at least one of the jurors' minds.

2. The mob is wrong.

I don't claim to have any of the answers, none of them.

What I do know is that our justice system is the best in the world

 

[klemmer]

And that's why you wouldn't be on a jury.



Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the jury have to come to a unanimous decision?

I believe so in capital murder cases.

 

[BiscuitintheBasket]

Nothing says that kid drowned in the pool. And if she did, why would she have duct tape on her mouth? That breaks the defense alibi right there. You are trying to latch onto any theory thrown out there and give it plausibility. Common sense would tell you otherwise.

Perhaps an attempted Red Herring. Would not be the first time a body would be manipulated to make it appear that the death was by some other means...hell any of us probably tried a Red Herring at some point in our lives to try and hide our guilt for something.

 

[BiscuitintheBasket]

I believe the evidence proves she's guilty - even though circumstantial. And that is ethical to me. I have no problems convicting in this case.

Something does not seem quite justified....

 

[JOVE23]

One of the prosecutors is retiring effective Thursday.

 

[R K]

Something does not seem quite justified....

Shut up! Don't you have somewhere to mod or somethng like that.

 

[bubbleheadchief]

Simply put, if your defense lawyer is even semi-Special person, you should never be convictied in a capital murder case on "circumstamtial evidence". In capital murder cases there is that term Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and with purely circumstantial evidence, there will always be a doubt. And the whole common sense statement from the prosecutor, as soon as I heard that, I knew he had sunk his case, again, there has to be no doubt, the preponderonce of evidence has to be there to get a conviction in a capital muder case, and it wasnt there.



#1 There was no proven cause of death, so she could have drowned.

#2 There was no conclusive evidence, beyond a shadow of doubt, that an actual body was in that trunk.

#3 There is no proof that the tape was placed on that childs face before she was dead.



So sorry Fluff, you have let your emotions override your brain on this one.



I personally feel she did it, but even I, if i was sitting that jury, with the evidence that I saw presented through the online feed of the case, could not, with a clear conscience convict on the evidence as it was. Because the defense lawyer did his job, was able to cast doubt to the evidence as the prosecution team presented it.



The one part of this that pisses me off, there was enough evidence to get her for child abandonment, and the idiot prosecution team never even made an attempt to bolster a conviction with any of that.

 

[bubbleheadchief]

Nothing says that kid drowned in the pool. And if she did, why would she have duct tape on her mouth? That breaks the defense alibi right there. You are trying to latch onto any theory thrown out there and give it plausibility. Common sense would tell you otherwise.

And there is nothing saying she didnt. You are using what you term as common sense to make an assumption, that when you are first sworn in as a juror you are instructed that you can not do, you have to apply the evidence as it is shown to you.

 

[supraman]

Shut up! Don't you have somewhere to mod or somethng like that.

Hey where he mods they dont have good threads like this. They have trade toews threads

 

[supraman]

I dont know if she did it exactly but she knows what happened. The stories of her and her parents are so bizarre that I think they were in on it too