Casey Anthony Trial (merged)

[TSD]

answers in blue

Kerfluffle you keep putting words in my mouth. I never said she was innocent, I said your line of thinking will put innocent people in jail. At no point in any of my posts will you see "I think Casey Anthony is innocent" except right there.



You keep going back to the pool drowning, i have no idea if the kid drowned in a pool. You still cant show me evidence the grandma didnt do it. Because "the mom didnt turn her in" isnt evidence of that. Thats why you suck at being objective. To you there is no such thing as a coincidence, ever, apparently.



You are completely and utterly incapable of rational thought.





Also, you said I was "assuming shes innocent" I dont think she is no. But you just pissed on the whole "Innocent until PROVEN guilty" thing.





You asked what kind of evidence I would need to convict in this case. I dont need a video tape of the murder. The whole point was that the girl was on trial for murder, can you tell me the babies death wasnt accidental and they just tried to cover it up? Can you? No. They had not done their job in providing any evidence that in any way proved homicide.



There are alot of things I would convict on without a damn video tape, you are just sensationalizing things as per usual. They proved she was a shitty mother, thats about it. Neglect charge I agree she should have gotten, Her actions alone prove that, but they dont prove she killed the kid.

 

[Kerfuffle]

Kerfluffle you keep putting words in my mouth. I never said she was innocent, I said your line of thinking will put innocent people in jail. At no point in any of my posts will you see "I think Casey Anthony is innocent" except right there.



You keep going back to the pool drowning, i have no idea if the kid drowned in a pool. You still cant show me evidence the grandma didnt do it. Because "the mom didnt turn her in" isnt evidence of that. Thats why you suck at being objective. To you there is no such thing as a coincidence, ever, apparently.



You are completely and utterly incapable of rational thought.





Also, you said I was "assuming shes innocent" I dont think she is no. But you just pissed on the whole "Innocent until PROVEN guilty" thing.

I don't believe all these events were pure coincidences and I don't think you do either. Let's look at Common Sense here. A mother has a baby who is out of her sight for 2 minutes and she doesn't know where the kid is. 99% of mothers would be frantically trying to find their kid. If that time extended to say an hour then those mothers would be on the phone to 9-1-1 to get help. Casey's daughter was gone an entire month! During that time she went out and partied. There was no staying home crying, no candlelight vigils with volunteers scouring the area for her baby. Rather she was boozing it up, got a tattoo, and having sex. How do you account for that? WHERE WAS THE CHILD? You think that's just bad parenting? Like the kid is going to walk up and knock on the door after a month of being gone. How do explain the dead body smell in the car, the borrowing a shovel from the neighbor. All this is still just coincidence? Please, have some common sense.

 

[R K]

 

[supraman]

 

[TSD]

I don't believe all these events were pure coincidences and I don't think you do either. Let's look at Common Sense here. A mother has a baby who is out of her sight for 2 minutes and she doesn't know where the kid is. 99% of mothers would be frantically trying to find their kid. If that time extended to say an hour then those mothers would be on the phone to 9-1-1 to get help. Casey's daughter was gone an entire month! During that time she went out and partied. There was no staying home crying, no candlelight vigils with volunteers scouring the area for her baby. Rather she was boozing it up, got a tattoo, and having sex. How do you account for that? WHERE WAS THE CHILD? You think that's just bad parenting? Like the kid is going to walk up and knock on the door after a month of being gone. How do explain the dead body smell in the car, the borrowing a shovel from the neighbor. All this is still just coincidence? Please, have some common sense.

Again they proved she was a shitty mother. Do I think in this case it was coincidence? I doubt it. Is it possible a case will come along where it is? you bet your ass. and it does not help that the media paints every defendant as guilty as hell every single time theres a big trial and again kerfluffle I THINK SHE IS GUILTY AS SIN. But what I think is irrelevant, it is what the evidence has actually proven and thats how i have to convict, not on "common sense" or what "my gut" tells me.



Its not about casey anthony for me, its about every possible scenario. The potential exists for innocent people to be put in jail for crimes they didnt commit, when people convict on circumstance. Letting guilty people off is the better option to me than letting forcing someone who is just a victim of circumstance, to die or serve a life term for something they didnt do.



Anyway what do you care. Shes going to burn in hell right?

 

[supraman]

Again they proved she was a shitty mother. Do I think in this case it was coincidence? I doubt it. Is it possible a case will come along where it is? you bet your ass. and it does not help that the media paints every defendant as guilty as hell every single time theres a big trial and again kerfluffle I THINK SHE IS GUILTY AS SIN. But what I think is irrelevant, it is what the evidence has actually proven and thats how i have to convict, not on "common sense" or what "my gut" tells me.



Its not about casey anthony for me, its about every possible scenario. The potential exists for innocent people to be put in jail for crimes they didnt commit, when people convict on circumstance. Letting guilty people off is the better option to me than letting forcing someone who is just a victim of circumstance, to die or serve a life term for something they didnt do.



Anyway what do you care. Shes going to burn in hell right?

Using fluff logic:



My gut tells me the hawks are going to win the cup. So i called bettman he said I must be right and cancelled next season and awarded the cup to chicago for the 2011-2012 season. Congrats we won again.

 

[Kerfuffle]

Again they proved she was a shitty mother. Do I think in this case it was coincidence? I doubt it. Is it possible a case will come along where it is? you bet your ass. and it does not help that the media paints every defendant as guilty as hell every single time theres a big trial and again kerfluffle I THINK SHE IS GUILTY AS SIN. But what I think is irrelevant, it is what the evidence has actually proven and thats how i have to convict, not on "common sense" or what "my gut" tells me.



Its not about casey anthony for me, its about every possible scenario. The potential exists for innocent people to be put in jail for crimes they didnt commit, when people convict on circumstance. Letting guilty people off is the better option to me than letting forcing someone who is just a victim of circumstance, to die or serve a life term for something they didnt do.



Anyway what do you care. Shes going to burn in hell right?

But you can NEVER prevent that from happening so don't worry about it. It has happened and will happen again as there is no fool-proof system. So saying you prefer guilty people go free than putting innocent people in prison is terrible. That would be anarchy with no laws and people doing whatever they want at will. You say she is guilty as sin - so why not convict her? Trust your gut - you know she did it just as I do. This is called common sense.



And no I won't say she will burn in hell cause we have discussed religion on this board before and it was clear I was the only one who believes in god amongst all the atheists here.

 

[klemmer]

But you can NEVER prevent that from happening so don't worry about it. It has happened and will happen again as there is no fool-proof system. So saying you prefer guilty people go free than putting innocent people in prison is terrible. That would be anarchy with no laws and people doing whatever they want at will. You say she is guilty as sin - so why not convict her? Trust your gut - you know she did it just as I do. This is called common sense.



And no I won't say she will burn in hell cause we have discussed religion on this board before and it was clear I was the only one who believes in god amongst all the atheists here.

That explains a lot.

 

[Kerfuffle]

That explains a lot.

Go find the thread Klem if you don't believe me. There are many in that thread who said they were atheists and didn't believe in god. I was the only one in that thread who did believe. Maybe you didn't participate that day and you believe in god as well - I don't know and I don't care.

 

[supraman]

But you can NEVER prevent that from happening so don't worry about it. It has happened and will happen again as there is no fool-proof system. So saying you prefer guilty people go free than putting innocent people in prison is terrible. That would be anarchy with no laws and people doing whatever they want at will. You say she is guilty as sin - so why not convict her? Trust your gut - you know she did it just as I do. This is called common sense.



And no I won't say she will burn in hell cause we have discussed religion on this board before and it was clear I was the only one who believes in god amongst all the atheists here.

What if you were the innocent guy put in prison? Also this trust your gut bullshit is the reason we have laws and the reason we have the court system we do. Your way could put anyone away for anything because you know it "in your gut"



Seriously you don't seem like you have any comprehension of the reasoning behind our judicial system. Hell that is something even public education managed to teach me.

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

Go find the thread Klem if you don't believe me. There are many in that thread who said they were atheists and didn't believe in god. I was the only one in that thread who did believe. Maybe you didn't participate that day and you believe in god as well - I don't know and I don't care.

I may have to resurrect that thread.

 

[Kerfuffle]

What if you were the innocent guy put in prison? Also this trust your gut bullshit is the reason we have laws and the reason we have the court system we do. Your way could put anyone away for anything because you know it "in your gut"



Seriously you don't seem like you have any comprehension of the reasoning behind our judicial system. Hell that is something even public education managed to teach me.

Because the evidence in this case, although circumstantial, was overwhelming. My gut is based on that, not flipping a coin in the air. And stop saying 'what if I were the innocent one put in prison? She is NOT innocent!!

 

[supraman]

Because the evidence in this case, although circumstantial, was overwhelming. My gut is based on that, not flipping a coin in the air. And stop saying 'what if I were the innocent one put in prison? She is NOT innocent!!

Prove it.



Our court system is based on the concept that you are innocent until they can PROVE your guilt. Not the other way around.

 

[R K]

I may have to resurrect that thread.

Like Fluff was resurrected. When do we stop this stupidity?

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

Like Fluff was resurrected. When do we stop this stupidity?

When you embrace the ignore button.

Wow-- is the board running slow for anyone else?

 

[LordKOTL]

Fuff:



Based on the same circumstantial evidence criteria, anyone who searches for Enumclaw, WA on Google must therefor be guilty of **********.



Plus as supraman said, in the US, the onus is on the state to prove guilt, not on the defendant to rove their innocence.



And the fact remains is that circumstantial evidence is just that--circumstantial. It never proves beyond a reasonable doubt. It can be a jumping off point but it never proves beyond a reasonable doubt.



Public opinion is one thing, and often based on circumstantial evidence. Proof of guilt is another thing that should never be based off circumstantial evidence.

 

[R K]

When you embrace the ignore button.

Wow-- is the board running slow for anyone else?

**** that. Allowing this bullshit so things can "livin Up" is pretty fucking dumb. If your board go take a dump, rather then make 95% of the board fucking suffer reading dumb ass comment after dumb ass comment.

 

[klemmer]

Because the evidence in this case, although circumstantial, was overwhelming. My gut is based on that, not flipping a coin in the air. And stop saying 'what if I were the innocent one put in prison? She is NOT innocent!!

If I were a juror and the prosecutor could do no better than circumstantial evidence, I'd laugh in their face while letting the accused go free.





Circumstantial evidence is reasonable doubt by its very nature.



Thanks for making our point. The Doctor is ready to perform your optalanalogy now.

 

[TSD]

But you can NEVER prevent that from happening so don't worry about it. It has happened and will happen again as there is no fool-proof system. So saying you prefer guilty people go free than putting innocent people in prison is terrible. That would be anarchy with no laws and people doing whatever they want at will. You say she is guilty as sin - so why not convict her? Trust your gut - you know she did it just as I do. This is called common sense.



And no I won't say she will burn in hell cause we have discussed religion on this board before and it was clear I was the only one who believes in god amongst all the atheists here.

No We cant prevent that from never happening, but the more we can the better it is. You do realize when innocent people get thrown in jail, which you are ok with, the guilty person is still getting off scott free right? Without even having that stigma of having been tried for the crime.



The fact of the matter is fluff, had the cops and other investigators done their job right, there would have been a guilty verdict. Fault the people responsible for collecting the necessary evidence to get a conviction, not the justice system. In many other cases, they find piles of evidence, that is not circumstantial. It doesn't require a "video tape of the murder" as you say in my view, that is just sensationalism.

 

[Kerfuffle]

If I were a juror and the prosecutor could do no better than circumstantial evidence, I'd laugh in their face while letting the accused go free.





Circumstantial evidence is reasonable doubt by its very nature.



Thanks for making our point. The Doctor is ready to perform your optalanalogy now.

The evidence is what it is - the prosecutor cannot invent something just to satisfy what you want to see as the jury. Circumstantial evidence is admissable and does not mean 'reasonable doubt' by nature. Otherwise, why go through the trial and why would the prosecution have brought charges? Think about it.