Posted on 07/10/2011 8:46:37 AM PDT by Kaslin
None of that matters apparently. Nothing matters except she was found not guilty, that’s the end of it.
The case against Casey Anthony was circumstancial. Juries are instructed that inferences may be permissibly drawn from such evidence, and those inferences may or may not support a guilty verdict. I haven’t heard one talking head, even those who are lawyers, explain how circumstancial eveidence is distinguished from direct evidence, and how the jury could do what it did. Criminal lawyers need to explain jury instructions in closing argument (the instructions are read to the jury before closing in my jurisdiction). When a juror says “we thought she was guilty but the state didn’t prove its case”, it’s because the prosecutor failed to educate the jury about inferences and reasonable doubt.
Look, the jury rendered the verdict and they acquitted her. Do I think she was guilty? Yes. I'm not going to frame the rest of my life based on this event.
You and quite a few other’s keep spouting that vigilante crap.
Don’t see anyone here calling for a rope. I certainly don’t.
That however does not change the fact that no one will ever be held responsible for the death of a two year old little girl. But whatever.
“Our Constitutional Republic depends on a well-informed, educated populace. It is the lifeblood.”
We are obviously becoming very anemic and weaker by the year.
I don't know what your beliefs are, but there is one court that she and all of us will face. One that is inescapable.
Not really. It continues to make the same mistakes that others defending this jury make. One, that cricizing this jury and this decision is an attack on the system.
...and I suspect that you will be getting attacked by those who became emotionally invested in this young womans’ guilt."
And two, that critics must be emotionally biased and poorly informed.
News flash. You can be dispassionate and have well founded views based on the evidence, and think the jury was wrong. And you can think they were wrong in this case and still believe in the jury system.
"Knowing that someone is guilty and proving it are two vastly different things."
Defenders also routinely make the intellectually lazy step of assuming that because the jury acquited that it's somehow given the crime wasn't proven. Again, false assumption. The jury could have, and did in this case, ignored the evidence to reach its decision.
I have read where one of the jurors could not render a guilty verdict because there was not a cause of death and that was what lead to reasonable doubt. That makes no sense to me. Why not look at reasonable actions?
IF a child drowned, is it reasonable to duct tape their mouths shut, wrap them in a garbage bag and dump in a swamp OR does calling 9-11 for help and God forbid the child dies, give the child the dignity of a proper burial?
If a child goes missing do you call the police or do you look for your child during the day and party at night?
When the police finally become involved do you help them find your child or do you send them on a wild goose chase?
When the defendants history is one of lies and distortions how could anyone find the defenses convoluted theories credible? People whose families suffer terrible accidents stage them as murders all the time! /s
Has anyone ever heard of a case where a 2 yr. old wanders off with duct tape, puts it across their face, places themselves in plastic bag in a swamp and goes to sleep and accidentally dies?
And today I read where some of the jurors have hired PR firms and are willing to SELL their stories!!!! We live in a sick society!
I'll bet she would have plead to a lesser charge, say manslaughter with a 20 year sentence.
I’m gonna stop posting on these threads, it’s all the same.
Go have a good Sunday, relax and if you got kids hugs ‘em.
Yes, were being bled alright. Bleeding profusely due to injuries exacted by the left. They control everything.
Casey Anthony: The System Worked
-- snip --
Casey Anthony was not found innocent of her daughter's murder, as many commentators seem to believe. She was found "not guilty." And therein lies much of the misunderstanding about the Anthony verdict.
This misunderstanding is exacerbated by the pervasiveness of TV shows about criminal cases. On television and in the movies, crimes are always solved. Nothing is left uncertain. By the end, the viewer knows whodunit. In real life, on the other hand, many murders remain unsolved, and even some that are "solved" to the satisfaction of the police and prosecutors lack sufficient evidence to result in a conviction. The Scottish verdict "not proven" reflects this reality more accurately than its American counterpart, "not guilty."
-- snip --
She was acquitted of the lesser charges too.
There is no evidence that Casey duct taped Caylee mouths shut, wrapped her in a garbage bag and dumped her in a swamp. For all we know, it could have been her boyfriend or even her father. There was no proof presented of who committed murder.
Exactly. The circumstantial and forensic evidence provided the proof, but the jury chose not to accept that 'proof' in the face of glaring absurdity in the theory of defense. As I said in another thread:
With circumstantial evidence, one must consider ‘circumstances’. These sets of circumstances determine the probability or improbability of an event or ‘chain’ of events. In other words, the circumstances ARE the proof. This silly notion that the state did not ‘prove’ it’s case is merely the jury choosing to accept the highly improbable over the highly probable. If someone shows me an object that appears to be an apple, I would find it very probable that it is indeed an apple. While I may not be able to bite into it for absolute ‘proof’, I would find it highly improbable that is, in fact, an orange.
Thanks, not unwilling to admit even Prof. Derscowitz is right once in a while. Maybe we all learn something and become more informed citizens from this tragedy if nothing else.
I'm talking about a plea bargain before the trial. In many cases like this, the Prosecution would offer a deal for a lesser charge because they have a risk of losing at trial.
At the same time, the defendant might plead guilty to a lesser charge so as not to risk a Murder One conviction that might get them the death penalty.
Anyone read that story yesterday where the Octomom was on a plane with her 8 screaming kids and their screaming was annoying actress Kristen Johnson, so she and Octomom had it out? I thought that was pretty ironic. A single mother annoying a Hollywood actress.
Except for garbage posts like this, I would stay OFF the 'system' worked threads. The prosecution presented and the defense NEVER challenged the words right out of CASEY'S own mouth was that SHE was the one and the ONLY one who had custody of that child when that child went missing to 'Zanny' the 'Nanny'. You are showing your willing 'whatever' by continuing to make claims you are for whatever reason willingly to continue to make.
Then why didn’t she say that? Oh bother never mind.
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.