Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Shades of the Duke LaCrosse team case trial... Just a prosecutor trying to get a conviction at any cost then getting disbarred for providing false evidence...
I was right as always. There is NO evidence... or NOT ENOUGH evidence... Just trying to blame a weak mother with problems to solve a murder... Are they looking for the real murderer, or just sitting on their fat butts blaming the jury?... Casey is a stupid person with problems... this does not make her a murderess... If she did it, she would not have the mental capacity to not have this proved... Get off your fat Florida arzes and find the real murderer...
P.S.
I will not be going to Florida for vacation with a murderer running loose...
Wasn't the whole defense that the child accidentally drowned? This is what she got off on
.there is no other murderer. You either believe the child drowned or casey lied and got off. Those are the only options.
Wasn't the whole defense that the child accidentally drowned? This is what she got off on
.there is no other murderer. You either believe the child drowned or casey lied and got off. Those are the only options.
The drowning story doesn't explain the duct tape or the Internet searches.
"A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable."
The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case. Proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt', therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.
The drowning is a story that she heard from another inmate on her cell block. I think I am still in shock over the verdict. Hearing the alternate juror doing interviews it appears that the jury believed her father was involved somehow. How could they not believe that Casey never had her daughters dead body in her car? I don't know what these people were thinking finding her not guilty.
I just pray to God I never need a jury to deliver justice for me, because there are too many stupid jurors in this country. The woman is guilty. She's a sociopath. Someone needs to answer the question of why duct tape is found over the face of a supposed drowning victim. Someone needs to answer the question of why the mother seemed jubilant after the murder of her toddler.
The bottom line is, there is no proof, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this woman murdered her child.
We have a lot of conjecture, that is all.
Our legal system requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. While there can be no doubt that this mother was complicit in something that had to do with her daughter's death, but there is absolutely nothing that points beyond a shadow of a doubt that this mother murdered her child.
The death of a child is one that hits everyone the hardest, and the thought that this young person's life was taken away and that we cannot obtain justice for it, is a harsh reality.
We may never know exactly what happened, or why, but I CAN tell you this, based on all the "evidence" I heard, I could not convict her either. It would tear me up inside, to have to be in that position, but there is just no person in this forum, that has any clue as to what exactly happened to end this young person's life. We have a lit if "If's", "Possibly", conjecture, theory, but nothing in any way that implicitly, beyond any doubt, tells us what happened, how it happened, and the responsible party who made it happen.
Because the trial didnt turn out the way Nancy Grace and the rest of the media said it should.......never mind about not enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and a lousy prosecutorial effort. You know.....all these posters on city data who disagree are legal savants and the 12 jury members who actually heard the evidence and made a decision based on that evidence are idiots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jareb
Based on the evidence submitted to the jury....the right verdict was reached: Not guilty. Be aware that I didnt say I thought she was INNOCENT.....just not guilty based on the evidence....hope that clears it up for ya
I agree with the above posts.
The jury verdict was based on the FACTS presented at the trial, not on how the jurors personally felt about Casey Anthony.
Most everyone is totally SHOCKED and deeply DISAPPOINTED in the verdict.
The charge against Casey Anthony may have been set too high. Maybe the police botched some things. Maybe the coroner/forensic pathologist botched some things. Maybe the state botched some things in trial. Maybe the defense botched some things in trial. But, in the end I believe the jury did not understand their responsibility with respect to their verdict when it came down to the word 'reasonable' in the phrase 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. This jury obviously wanted absolute and positive proof beyond any shadow of a doubt. That is not the level or standard which is necessary to convict under the law of our land. Any person that is reasonable or beyond reasonable believes Casey IS the person responsible for the death of little baby Caylee.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is a legal term.
Therefore, it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in the eyes of the law, not in the eyes of the person.
Personally, the case DID eliminate all doubt from my mind that she had something to do with it, however, the prosecution FAILED at proving beyond a reasonable doubt in the eyes of the law, which is the requirement.
The jurors have to act not on their personal opinion, but on the law. Which is what they did.
well, while your twisting the law around with that word "presumption", a killer walks free. i sure don't see that as a damn good thing.
maybe america needs to change the laws so that smarmy lawyers can't get the guilty off or convict the innocent with their words.
Change the laws?
I'm sorry, but I'd rather keep the law around that requires lawyers to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in the eyes of the law before condemning someone to death.
The law is perfectly fine, we just need to have competent detective work that actually links people to the crime. Not what happened in this trial.
Therefore, it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in the eyes of the law, not in the eyes of the person.
Personally, the case DID eliminate all doubt from my mind that she had something to do with it, however, the prosecution FAILED at proving beyond a reasonable doubt in the eyes of the law, which is the requirement.
The jurors have to act not on their personal opinion, but on the law. Which is what they did.
It is the jury members that must believe a person is guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. However, it does not mean the jury must have absolute certainty. That is the law...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
