Casey Anthony - The Decision Is In!

#527
#527
BearCat204 said:
How in the world did it work properly? Any resonable person could not possibly think that she didnt have anything to do with her death. And what resonable person would beleive that the kid drowned and they got scared and made it look like a murder? I rank this one right up there with OJ. It seems like everyone in the room knows she was guilty except the retards they had lined up as jurors.
Click to expand...

I agree. Hope that piece of trash is dealt with very soon.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#529
#529
volinbham said:
SIAP but what crimes (if any) could be charged for not reporting your child missing for 31 days? Any type of abandonment, endangerment, etc?

Also, can the prosecution not add any and all charges they think she might be guilty of or would adding the above jeopardize the higher charges (moot point now of course).
Click to expand...

I have been thinking the same thing.

You would think that hiding a child's disappearance and or death would be a felony offense.
 
#530
#530
vol4eva said:
You don't think she killed her daughter? There might have been reasonable doubt but common sense and logic should tell you it's highly likely she killed her or was at least involved.
Click to expand...
What you're describing is assumption-based logic... A lot of people ***** and moan about leaving the country if this person or that person gets elected, but the second capital cases here are being convicted based on anything other than hard evidence, bet your ass I'll be high-tailing it north of the border or across the Atlantic.

utvolpj said:
and that's all that's needed. All this "common sense says..." crap does not hold in a court. Prosecutors have to prove guilt or they lose. Pretty simple
Click to expand...
This. The whole thing has been another example of how TV crime drama and bat-shiz crazy hobags like Nancy Grace are altering peoples perception of the justice system.

droski said:
you are allowed to use your comon sense in a murder trial.
Click to expand...
You think people should be able to get convicted of murder based on motive and circumstance? Any murder charge has to hard evidence behind it, and that's the end of it. They had absolutely no solid proof whatsoever that she killed her daughter, and she rightly walked because of it.

droski said:
oh i understand. we have a bunch of stupid people put in a position to determine life and death.
Click to expand...
Ask GAVol or myself, we've both been on juries. Ask somebody else who's ever been on a jury over any extended period of time. Short of ADA-defined disability, intelligence has little to do with it. As I said, the jury system we have now is by far the fairest that anybody, anywhere has ever come up with. If you've got a better idea, share it.

volinbham said:
I think you're right.

Will be interesting when they start talking.
Click to expand...
Doubt that will be for a while... Saw protesters and such outside of Casey's parents houses. I think if one of the jurors were to come out, they'd be subject to some pretty nasty harassment.
 
#531
#531
milohimself said:
What you're describing is assumption-based logic... A lot of people ***** and moan about leaving the country if this person or that person gets elected, but the second capital cases here are being convicted based on anything other than hard evidence, bet your ass I'll be high-tailing it north of the border or across the Atlantic.


This. The whole thing has been another example of how TV crime drama and bat-shiz crazy hobags like Nancy Grace are altering peoples perception of the justice system.


You think people should be able to get convicted of murder based on motive and circumstance? Any murder charge has to hard evidence behind it, and that's the end of it. They had absolutely no solid proof whatsoever that she killed her daughter, and she rightly walked because of it.


Ask GAVol or myself, we've both been on juries. Ask somebody else who's ever been on a jury over any extended period of time. Short of ADA-defined disability, intelligence has little to do with it. As I said, the jury system we have now is by far the fairest that anybody, anywhere has ever come up with. If you've got a better idea, share it.]

I have been on a jury before. What really gets me is the short amount of time they took. I had a case that was far less serious. We debated just as long on guilty/not guilty as this jury did. I just don't get it.
Click to expand...
 
#532
#532
I only watched the closing arguments and the entire time the prosecution was talking, I was going "Yeah but where is the PROOF"
 
#533
#533
They showed an interview with the alternate juror & he said the prosecution proved nothing & Casey was a good mom.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#535
#535
govols/cc said:
They showed an interview with the alternate juror & he said the prosecution proved nothing & Casey was a good mom.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

He also believed the defenses absurd story, which still doesn't make a bit of sense.
 
#536
#536
vol4eva said:
He also believed the defenses absurd story, which still doesn't make a bit of sense.
Click to expand...

Yea forgot that. Only thing he got right is them being dysfunctional. This is sad. The prosecution must be dumber than the defense & jury.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#537
#537
SIAP didn't have time to look.
hide_yo.png
 
#539
#539
2 jurors are talking - they think she did it but didn't have sufficient evidence.

The juror, Jennifer Ford, a 32-year-old nursing student, said that jurors were “sick to their stomachs,” ABC News reported.

“I did not say she was innocent,” said Ms. Ford, who was juror No. 3. “I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be.”
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/us/07casey.html?_r=1
 
#549
#549
Court ordered hysterectomy seems a viable option.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top