THEY LET THE b***h GO!

Post Reply New Topic

*FACEPALM*

Jury selections are random. It seems that the media and everybody that follows it wants her to be guilty. I'm glad we live in a society were stuff like this is tried in a COURT OF LAW, and not the court of public opinion.

Forget it guys. It's Earth.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2Bh68ZAZm4[/youtube]

the only thing worse than american politics is american justice.

You beat me to it again, Ruve.

In this country, a person must be considered guilty of a murder "beyond a reasonable doubt" before a conviction can be made. The prosecutuion failed to support this consideration on two counts: (1) They failed to prove how the child died; (2) they failed to prove when the child died. These two failures introduced the necessary "reasonable doubt" to acquit the defendent of the charges.

When determining a 1st-degree murder case, it is necessary to prove the following:

1. That the victim is dead.
2. That the death occured at a specific time and place.
3. That the victim died by a specific cause.
4. That the victim's death was intentional.
5. That the accused directly caused the victim's death.
6. That the accused knew what he or she was doing.
7. That the accused planned ("premeditated") the death of the victim.

A judge may impose other qualifications, but these are the ones I remember from the two murder trials I sat in on as a member of the juries.

In this case, all that the prosecution was able to prove is that the victim is dead. Beyond this, the prosecution failed.

WRONG!

She was found "Not Guilty" by a jury of her peers. "Innocent" means that she didn't do it. "Not Guilty" means that the prosecution failed to prove its case against her beyond a reasonable doubt.

I always thought she was a bad mother but not guilty of 1st degree murder. The media has this way of dragging the public through these cases pinning the defendant as guilty as hell and then they are found not guilty. I dont know why it always works this way, but that is the pattern, probably avoiding discussing what really needs to be discussed like the crap going down on capital hill. It seems to be a distractionary formula.

The Jury's decision is final. Whether you use the term "not guilty" or the term "innocent", the fact is that she can not be tried again for this. I just don't see why the court of public opinion refuses to accept the ruling of a court of law.

They're being manipulated by the media.

She can be retried, but only if the prosecution discovers and presents previously unknown evidence. What with the intensity of the investigation, it is likely that no new evidence will be found, much less presented.

And by "evidence", I mean valid material evidence that is both relevant and directly related to the case. This means that no assumptions, beliefs, "holy" revelations, opinions, "psychic" impressions, or other unsupportable claims could be admitted as evidence.

"Bad" news sells better than "Good" news.

Apparently, people will listen to the media before they listen to fact. This story has been buzzing around the web all day, and the comments I have read from the general public have caused me to facepalm several times.

I think they have found all the evidence they could, so i'm pretty sure she is off the hook. However, the case is not closed, and the evidence is still there. The prosecution could not convict her with the evidence they had, but they can probably convict the actual culprit.

There is also the underlying concept that if the victim had not been a cute, blue-eyed white girl, there would not have been as much publicity.

"If it bleeds, it leads" - The popular media seems to operate under the assumption that minority murder victims don't bleed.

If it's true that she killed her little girl so she could go out partying again, I've got to wonder - who's seriously going to go bar hopping with her after this? And how many bars won't just throw her out?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The evidence was circumstantial, and yet very specific and strong.
Or seemed that way to me. But apparently not to the jurors.

It sucks.

But on the other hand remeber that its better have a hundred Kaycee Anthonies, or OJ's, go free, than have one innocent person wrongly convicted.

I haven't been watching the trial, but I find it hard to believe that 12 reasonably competent people who had inside access to all the information would unanimously agree that the case was not strong enough to convict her rather than having a hung jury if there wasn't a major problem with the case. As for the coujrt of public opinion, that's just a little circus the media creates to advertize itself and has no legitimate place in determining the outcome of cases.

She is innocent until proven guilty under American law, and they didn't find her guilty.

The correct verdict was reached.

I do not watch TV. Just from the media reports on AOL, I thought she was not guilty, but someone else was. As I recall, the disapperance was not reported for a while.

Everyone I know would report a missing two year old in less than an hour.

Accidental death would be reported, so something happened, and she was told to shut up and lie. She did, and got convicted of lying.

Someone is still dead, and the investigation continues.

Charging someone with murder is a way of getting them to tell what they know to clear themselves. It did not work.

It is possible she knew nothing. She may not have known till the body was discovered.

The fact that she was out partying with friends points to her not knowing. Her life went on, normal behavior. I do not think she knows what happened. She and the child were living with her parents.

The Mexican babysitter is a story she was given, to cover up.

She could have well been told they sold the child, to a good home. She stuck to the story till the body was discovered, and she was charged with murder one. At that point there is nothing to do but defend.

If the body had not been discovered, no one would have been charged.

Then a cover of, kidnap for ransom, and and she would die if we contacted the authorities, would hold up.

The case goes on. Someone is guilty.

LOL! the fact that any of us know about this case is because the media in this country is reaching for anything to keep the important stuff off the tube. i'm supprised her cellphone didn't get hacked and some photos "discovered" to keep it jucy.

(From what little details i've read, it sounds like this would have been a case for jerry springer to handle.)

news flash: Prosecutor Jeff Ashton is calling it quits.

You're not quite correct, ruveyn.

Originally juries in scottish law were simple triers of fact, and the two verdicts open to them were "proven" and "not proven." During the Scottish renaissance, juries began to take upon them the privilege of trying the entire case and bringing in "not guilty" verdicts as a means of jury nullification. While the legal impact of the "not proven" and "not guilty" verdicts is the same, over time the former has become a compromise means of acquittal where a jury is concludes that neither the guilt nor the innocence of the accused has been proven.

To this day, Scottish juries continue to have all three verdicts open to them.