Posted on 07/05/2011 12:26:49 PM PDT by buggy02
http://www.orlandosentinel.com
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
The test is not :conclusively prove” nor is it “beyond a doubt”. The test for proving a crime is “beyond a REASONABLE doubt”. I find it a bit hard to see what was the REASONABLE doubt.
You wouldn’t spend even one night under the same roof with that woman, so don’t be so adamant.
Its all circumstantial.
They got taht guy in California on circumstantial evidence for killing is wife, but they ahd LOT more of it and it was far more compelling.
The possible scenario was one of her accidentally overdosing her kid with chloroform, the kid died and she didn’t know what to do with the body. Maybe the father was watching the kid and it drowned and they conspired to get rid of the body. There are ALL of these possibilities and sorry, it doesn’t add up to a Murder 1 conviction by ANY stretch of the imagination.
True, and I’m sure that you also learned that any jury trial is a crapshoot.
It is amaizing, insn’t it? Good reason for the number of jurors on a jury panel I suppose.
Hey, Anthony (there’s that name again, eh) Weiner’s Congressional website was all about protectin’ the chilluns’ on the internet from adult internet predators!
Hmmm. You ACTUALLY saw HER DO THIS?
Amazing.
But then, according to Sharia the woman is always guilty anyway, so why care.
I don’t see it that way.
The kid could have drowned.
The kid could have had an overdose of chloroform.
She could have killed the kid.
The grandfather could have been involved.
Etc. etc.
NOTHING to directly link her to the killing of her child.
All vague circumstantial evidence and LOTS of “reasonable” doubt and if I were sitting on a Jury, I would NOT convict ANYONE of a capital offense unless I was sure beyond a reasonable doubt they were guilty and this was not the case here.
She was found not guilty by a jury. Under the law, she is not guilty. I, however, am a free, moral agent who can make my own judgments. The bitch caused the death of her daughter and it did not bother her. She is as guilty hell.
listening to alternate juror #14 on fox news..
he says .. prosecution didn’t provide evidence of how Caylee died or what was the motive. he felt like George was hiding something..
I don’t know what trial the jury watched.. sounds like family dynamics drove the decisions.. may none of their families be as dysfnctional in the future as the anthony family has been portrayed.
Oh well, the value of life of little girls is pretty cheap in the South , especially Florida, I reckun. (If I catch heat for that comment, fine. The track record of late ain’t that great, imo)
That means somebody somewhere else is losing more than 5% if the Inspectors lose that much.
Part of it is selecting the right law to prosecute under.
I would think the only reason a sane person would want to serve on a long running jury like this it to make a buck
from selling their story after the trial.
People always show their class when they refer to a child as "it."
The bottom line is without a doubt.
It’s Orange County, isn’t it? Lots of not so nice people there. I had a handbag stolen in a fast food place there.
But it seemed to me he was talking more about vandalism. I do know that happens. When faced with a creep that seems to escape prosecution, people go around at night and throws things at the house, etc.
I seem to remember a family whose daughter was dying, and this other family was gloating on the internet. People gave them hell.
“Peterson did it.”
I have doubts. That’s for another topic.
In any case, I do not support a death penalty conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence. Life in prison with no parole, yes. A death penalty? No.
With this woman the evidence is her own bizarre stories. But again, I would not go for a death penalty and would instead support life with no parole.
Not that I’m a mush, I just don’t like death penalty convictions that may well be overturned on appeal with the convict being set free.
It’s even worse than that - some would distrust the ‘videotape’. There’s probably even a few who wouldn’t believe her if she confessed.
Kind of like OJ after he's tossed his ex-wife up against the wall rendering her unconscious, and then that guy jumps on his back, whereupon he does a body slam and that guy is unconscious ~ first trick is to call his lawyer.
Neither of them are doctors but somebody got the idea of cutting the throats, etc.
The coroners report clearly establishes they were unconscious when killed ~ hope you caught that subtle nicety.
So, who killed OJ's exwife and Ron goldman? Was it OJ, or was it his lawyer?
We'll be find out now who told her to kill the kid. Just look at all the trouble he's got her into! She won't be safe until he's in jail.
The defense said in the opening arguments that the baby accidentally drown in the swimming pool, and Casey and her father hid the body. Then, of course, Casey went out to party the night her baby died....to forget, I’m sure.
To make such a judgment, I assume you are experienced with Grand Juries and felony trials?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.