wildnkrazykat
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2010
- Messages
- 47,352
- Likes
- 925
Here's the thing I have always hated about our legal system. The prosecution is in the business of having to prove everything, and that is the way it should be. However, the defense is allowed to sling mud and do everything they want to do without any proof of it whatsoever. In the Mary Winkler case, the defense attorney was allowed to say that her husband woke up and put his hand over the baby's mouth (they said to smother it) when the evidence showed that his bladder was full meaning he wasn't up for awhile. In this case, we have the opening statements where the defense attorney said that her dad put a penis in her mouth when she was 13 along with the accidental drowning off of a picture where she was opening a door. I just hate that a defense attorney is not bound by law (because many of them sure don't have any ethics if they are willing to throw crap and hope it sticks) to prove what they say.
Side note: The motive is clear with the dateline investigative report. There was a bitter relationship between her and her mother. Through this trial and with Caylee, who was punished the most? Cindy lost Caylee, had to sit through listening to her husband supposedly molesting her daughter and cheating on her, and hearing her son supposedly molesting her daughter. Everything in this case ties back to her mother. Coincidental?
i just think it's sad that casey anthony seemingly got off because of mental illness as a result of molestation yet the defense didn't even try to prove that. baez asked the father george a couple of times if he molested her, didn't go their with her brother, brought up an expert who never personally evaluated casey who said that irrational behavior is common with molested people, and that's all the sudden is reasonable doubt, at least enough for one juror.
wtf what? in order to believe that it was an accident, as that juror stated she believed, you're believing something that the defense presented no evidence to prove.
it means that at least one juror has stated that she thinks it was an accident based off something unproven and that's directly why she voted not guilty.Anthony was acquitted because all 12 jurors decided the government had not proven she was guilty.
I don't know what your previous post means, so 'wtf' that.
it means that at least one juror has stated that she thinks it was an accident based off something unproven and that's directly why she voted not guilty.
Legal jibber jabber. Let's get to the important question. Casey Anthony, do her or no?
The coverage of the trial and her release is grotesque. It's a sad commentary on the state of society. I get annoyed every time I turn over to the news and Casey Anthony is being called the top story of the day.
Posted via VolNation Mobile