Casey Anthony - The Decision Is In!

#254
#254
LawVol13 said:
Who do you think you're kidding? Lazy with your text? Please. You had no clue what you were talking about and now you're digging yourself an even deeper whole by making up these bs excuses.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

It was one of those things that made sense to me as I was typing it. I didn't think it would have read as stupid as it did. But there it is. Not making any excuses. I thought "non-felony murder" would easily clarify "any murder not considered felony murder."

It's not like I'm running my message board posts by an editor.
 
#255
#255
lylsmorr said:
I'm just wanting to know that everyone is ok being 99% sure that a child killer is free. Not the verdict, I want to know that you are personally ok with Casey Anthony being free. Seems like everyone is.

That's why I asked.
Click to expand...

I just find it irrelevant what we think. They couldn't prove she killed her kid; thus, she will be free. It's as simple as that for me.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#257
#257
LawVol13 said:
I just find it irrelevant what we think. They couldn't prove she killed her kid; thus, she will be free. It's as simple as that for me.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

What the **** are we on a message board for if it's irrelevant? You think any of this **** is relevant? No, but you me and everyone else on here still goes about talking about the various topics.
 
#258
#258
lylsmorr said:
What the **** are we on a message board for if it's irrelevant? You think any of this **** is relevant? No, but you me and everyone else on here still goes about talking about the various topics.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying I don't think you guys
should discuss it. I was just giving my opinion to your posed question.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#259
#259
lylsmorr said:
What the **** are we on a message board for if it's irrelevant? You think any of this **** is relevant? No, but you me and everyone else on here still goes about talking about the various topics.
Click to expand...
Non-relevance clause.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#261
#261
droski said:
you mean like the lack of evidence against OJ?
Click to expand...

Evidence was there against OJ, just ignored because the decision almost purely racial. This time the evidence, aside from purely circumstantial, just stunk.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#264
#264
BigPapaVol said:
Evidence was there against OJ, just ignored because the decision almost purely racial. This time the evidence, aside from purely circumstantial, just stunk.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

in my opinion there was enough circumstantial evidence to convict and the jury, being filled with a bunch of idiots as is normal, got caught up in the "resonable doubt" vortex. anyone here really think there is a chance she didn't do it?
 
#267
#267
droski said:
in my opinion there was enough circumstantial evidence to convict and the jury, being filled with a bunch of idiots as is normal, got caught up in the "resonable doubt" vortex. anyone here really think there is a chance she didn't do it?
Click to expand...
I dot know enough, but firmly believe she did it. Regardless, the burden of proof should be extremely high and it was too high in this case.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#268
#268
droski said:
in my opinion there was enough circumstantial evidence to convict and the jury, being filled with a bunch of idiots as is normal, got caught up in the "resonable doubt" vortex. anyone here really think there is a chance she didn't do it?
Click to expand...

That's kind of what juries do considering that's the standard of proof. There wasn't even close to enough evidence to show that she intentionally killed the girl.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#270
#270
FWIW, one Facebook, I've yet to see one lawyer friend disagree with the outcome of this case. Every single one of them says the same thing - the prosecution didn't prove she did it.
 
#271
#271
LawVol13 said:
That's kind of what juries do considering that's the standard of proof. There wasn't even close to enough evidence to show that she intentionally killed the girl.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

it's entirely possible she accidently killed the kid because she cloriformed (sp) her to shut her up. i agree with that. she definetely had a hand in her death.
 
#272
#272
LawVol13 said:
That's kind of what juries do considering that's the standard of proof. There wasn't even close to enough evidence to show that she intentionally killed the girl.Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

They could have convicted her of manslaughter. That was on the table. It had nothing to do with "intentional", the jury weren't convinced that she killed the girl.
 
#274
#274
BigPapaVol said:
Evidence was there against OJ, just ignored because the decision almost purely racial. This time the evidence, aside from purely circumstantial, just stunk.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
I mean, what normal person doesn't look up how to use chloroform, have syringes of chloroform near the remains of Caylee, ask to borrow a shovel, take her child away for a month, make up stories about where her daughter is. Must have all been fictional or planted on her by some puerto rican guy.
 
#275
#275
tigervol9802 said:
FWIW, one Facebook, I've yet to see one lawyer friend disagree with the outcome of this case. Every single one of them says the same thing - the prosecution didn't prove she did it.
Click to expand...

I've received several emails from attorneys who disagree. They're all chalking it up to the folly of high profile jury trials.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top