Casey Anthony - The Decision Is In!

#502
#502
utvolpj said:
always a possibility but if they say they have reasonable doubt then they did the correct thing. All this other stuff is just trying to act like the media and convict without facts
Click to expand...

Again, I'm willing to live with the results of the "one that got away" type case every blue moon by the jury of peers. I think it it is a typically sound system. But this time, I think they might have thrown out logic as they searched for reasonable doubt.
 
#503
#503
droski said:
you are allowed to use your comon sense in a murder trial.
Click to expand...

You don't get it. Common sense to you may be different than the person next to you in a jury; therefore, you have to have a standard/rule to go by.
It's not complicated and there really isn't a better option.
 
#504
#504
pl3 said:
You don't get it. Common sense to you may be different than the person next to you in a jury; therefore, you have to have a standard/rule to go by.
It's not complicated and there really isn't a better option.
Click to expand...

A standard with such rigorous guidlines as "Reasonable Doubt"?
 
#505
#505
pl3 said:
You don't get it. Common sense to you may be different than the person next to you in a jury; therefore, you have to have a standard/rule to go by.
It's not complicated and there really isn't a better option.
Click to expand...

Reasonable doubt can also be interpreted differently....
 
#506
#506
OJ got away with it. Here, the prosecution didn't have enough - couldn't show cause of death.

I think she did it but can see why this jury ruled as they did. Agree with those who say prosecution should have found other charges that better fit the evidence they had.
 
#507
#507
volinbham said:
OJ got away with it. Here, the prosecution didn't have enough - couldn't show cause of death.

I think she did it but can see why this jury ruled as they did. Agree with those who say prosecution should have found other charges that better fit the evidence they had.
Click to expand...

If cause of death could have been proven then the only question is whether it's murder 1 or not.
 
#508
#508
pl3 said:
You don't get it. Common sense to you may be different than the person next to you in a jury; therefore, you have to have a standard/rule to go by.
It's not complicated and there really isn't a better option.
Click to expand...

The system obviously hinges on people being able to recognize what is and is not reasonable in terms of doubt. That seems like you would need some common sense to be able to make that determination. The jury in this case ignored the evidence as it relates to a big picture and tried to only analyze the evidence in their own seperate compartments. That defies the common sense that it takes to make the determination of whether there is or is not reasonable doubt.
 
#509
#509
SamRebel35 said:
A standard with such rigorous guidlines as "Reasonable Doubt"?
Click to expand...
The thing is, they practically came to not guilty over one cup of coffee time wise... it would seem they(jury) deemed the verdict to be perfectly obvious. As the pages fly by on this thread, it's clear that to the rest of the world the case was anything but obviously 'not guilty'...

real head scratcher.
 
#510
#510
orange+white=heaven said:
The thing is, they practically came to not guilty over one cup of coffee time wise... it would seem they(jury) deemed the verdict to be perfectly obvious. As the pages fly by on this thread, it's clear that to the rest of the world the case was anything but obviously 'not guilty'...

real head scratcher.
Click to expand...

Some will argue media coverage swayed public opinion. Obviously ESPN hates Casey Anthony.
 
Last edited:
#512
#512
SamRebel35 said:
DNA is only 99% accurate. Video tape can easily be tampered. Finger prints can be sliced off of dead people and glued to your own. There is no way of "proving beyond reasonable doubt" if the defense is able to throw out wild situational possibilities that have as little liklihood of happening as the circumstantial evidence being wrong.
Click to expand...

So by your reasoning nobody should be in prison unless they confess. But then there's the possibility they have some sort mental disorder or something so just throw it out. If anybody had doubt she wasn't involved in killing her daughter it was unreasonable.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#514
#514
pl3 said:
You don't get it. Common sense to you may be different than the person next to you in a jury; therefore, you have to have a standard/rule to go by.
It's not complicated and there really isn't a better option.
Click to expand...

oh i understand. we have a bunch of stupid people put in a position to determine life and death.
 
#515
#515
govols/cc said:
So by your reasoning nobody should be in prison unless they confess. But then there's the possibility they have some sort mental disorder or something so just throw it out. If anybody had doubt she wasn't involved in killing her daughter it was unreasonable.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

This was mock reasoning. I'm saying that if a jury is willing to listen to every crackpot theory the defense offers and then expects the prosecution to line by line eliminate every theory 100% then there is no end to the possibilities of who ends up getting away with what.
 
#516
#516
I don't think the jury wrestled at all with reasonable doubt. The quick decision tells me they flat out didn't think prosecution made the case.
 
#518
#518
I didn't go through the whole thread but has the name Kevin Fox come up? I saw a special on it (one of the news networks, ABC maybe?) and it changed a lot of my views about how people become "guilty" in the eyes of the system. I'm pretty cold blooded when it comes to those that are, quite simply, guilty and everybody knows it but there's some serious flaws in "rush to judgement" scenarios that keep cropping up. The Duke Lacrosse case was really, really ugly. So much so the lead prosecutor (Mike Nifong) was disbarred.

If you've got time google up; falsely accused dna. Kinda spooky really.
 
#519
#519
volinbham said:
I think you're right.

Will be interesting when they start talking.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I still think the prosecution should have gone 2nd degree rather than first. But I'm still baffled that she was found not guilty on child abuse and manslaughter charges. I also wonder if the prosecution hadn't pushed for the death penalty, that the jury would have had a longer deliberation.
 
#520
#520
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).
 
#521
#521
Lawrence Wright said:
I expected the not guilty verdict on murder one, but was floored by the not guilty verdict on aggravated child abuse.

The state never had a cause of death, let alone proof Casey did it...even though a blind man could see she played a role in Caylee's death.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

This.
Pinning murder is hard to due in a lot of cases. Child abuse was not from my understanding of her as a mother.
 
#522
#522
Her Parents testimonies destroyed the prosecutions case against the aggravated child abuse charge.
 
#523
#523
So in a murder trail no COD = no conviction? Didn't realize it was that easy to get away with murder.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#524
#524
Cdywolfe said:
So in a murder trail no COD = no conviction? Didn't realize it was that easy to get away with murder.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Don't forget, you have to be crafty enough to dump the body in the swamp and stall suspicions for a month. That's the tricky part.
 
#525
#525
dexter-casey-anthony-e1309907666572.jpg
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top