Posted on 07/07/2011 1:45:03 PM PDT by kathsua
Once again, the defense was under no burden to prove anything.
WEll, the jury watched 100 % of it and you didn’t.
Who said they were?
Wrong question. It's possible aliens abducted her and she died on the UFO and they dumped her in the swampt. Absurd, but possible. Is it *reasonable*?
The is no reasonable answer except that Casey did it. Hence, there is no *reasonable* doubt that she was guilty.
Even if the slut had made a video of her trashing the kid a moron like you would think it was doctored. Such stupidity on Free Republic......
Nice presentation of the evidence that SHE applied it ya got there. Real persuasive.
Tioga said they did not put up a defense and I reminded him/her that they had no burden to do that.
Who said they were?
Moby Grape did in an earlier post.
“Flawed reasoning. There was NO evidence presented by the defense that she died accidentally, only conjecture. Since when is a “possibility” grounds for reasonable doubt.”Evidence needs to be provided to prove something; conjecture as to possibilities can be raised and needs no evidence to prove it. The defense doesn't have to prove something happened for the jury to consider it possible.
did the argument in the backyard before Casey took off...the one where Cindy choked her, make it into evidence in the trial?
Bob, you are correct. It seems people here think the defense are suppose to “prove” something.
In a trial, each side, (the prosecution and the defense) presents a theory about what happened but only the prosecution has any responsibilty to prove their theory.
If the prosecution fails to prove their theory to the jurors, they will find the defendent not guilty.
I heard one of the jurors being interviewed by Greta van S. on FOX and she seemed quite intelligent. She reasoned that the prosecutor gave the jury no supportable evidence that a murder had been committed by the defendant so, much as they would have favored a guilty finding, they had to go with not guilty. My opinion of the whole matter is that there would have been no jury and probably no trial at all if Casey Anthony had been truthful from the beginning and only she knows what happened to her daughter. Therefore, Casey Anthony deserved a guilty verdict. IMO water boarding for liar and coward Casey and all of her lying family would have gotten to the truth early on. Justice was not served by this verdict no matter how members of that jury choose to interpret their decision to free the main culprit in the death of her two year old defensless daughter, Caylee Anthony.
And while you watched the 75% of the trial, you also watched and heard another couple of hours of commentary by the media. They hashed and rehashed all the points day after day and received money to come on a show to argue a particular side,
Why do you suppose the jurors were sequestered? One of the reasons is so they couldn’t go home and watch the trial on their DVR. Then they may have had your opinion.
Oh my gosh. You would kill her because she lied? Your version of justice sounds much like vigilante thinking.
How about manslaughter or child endangerment? No death penalty there. Legal does not always equate to Justice. Casey was rewarded for lying and this reasoning by the jury is now legal history for other criminals to invoke when needed. Casey walks because she lied, and lied, and then there were more lies from her and her family. She did not testify and tell her side of the story for fear of a conviction. Her child is dead because one way or another Casey was negligent in protecting Caylee from danger. BTW, I would not know how or what a vigilante thinks, perhaps you could enlighten me?
The CIRCUMSTANCES of this case were so simple to put together that even a child could figure it out. Hannity, Rush, Levin and the rest are so wrong about this one.
THe jury acted like lazy spoiled children, Casey surly got a jury of her peers.
Aggravated manslaughter requires no premeditation. The jury COULDN’T even try to put 2 and 2 together. It is a travesty. I would ask that jury you couldn’t find murder then why not the lessor charges? I know why, to discuss and reason through them would have been HARD.
I have a hard and fast rule to never argue with fools but I’ll break it just this once.
I never said or even implied that the the burden of proof was on anyone but the prosecution. What I did say is the mere “possibility” that Caylee died accidentally with no evidence whatsoever to back it up is merely speculation and conjecture and certainly is no basis for reasonable doubt.
There’s a big difference between “reasonable” doubt and all doubt.
You also may want to look up the original post I replied to as it may give you a bit clearer picture of my meaning and keep you from looking any more like a goof.
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.