THEY LET THE b***h GO!

Post Reply New Topic

And all are subjective.

ruveyn

Maybe the jurors thought the kid was unwanted therefore it was okay for Casey to murder her daughter, that or the jury was drunk most of the trial.

This is why I care:

Remember earlier when I mentioned



Anyway, earlier I heard on the news about a man being convicted of raping and murdering a woman. The police found a dead woman in the woods with obvious signs of rape. They looked at a nearby parking lot video camera and found the last person to be around her was a man 20 years older luring her to a side area. Then they did a DNA test on the sperm inside her and found there was only 1 in a million chance it's not his. He was convicted in court, even after he cried, saying he didn't have sex with her. I thought to myself that you can't prove 100% it was him; however, 1 in a million DNA chance isn't good enough reason to consider himself innocent. Then I started to think about a possibility that maybe these two random complete strangers had an affair and then when she walked away someone else murdered her. Looking back at this news article, it's possible, but not reasonable. First, he denied doing anything sexual with her. Second, even if he was scared and didn't tell police he had an affair, both him and the woman were complete strangers and he was 20 years older.

It appears it doesn't matter how much evidence you have, you can always try to brainstorm your way out. So when do you draw the line of when it's okay to convict? What is "reasonable doubt"?

Reasonable doubt is an elusive concept. It has no precise definition and law makers are loath to do so be they believe it is what people think it is. Which is really helpful (not). At law school I taught that it mean 99.99%. Judges normally tell juries that based on the evidence they have seen in court, if they are sure that the defendant is guilty of the crime with which they have been charged then they should convict as this demonstrates that they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. (see R v Lifchus)

Hey, lookie here!

"Flawed forensic evidence explains Casey Anthony acquittal, experts say." (<-- Link)

I called it first! (Look on page 7 of this thread.)

In the eyes of the court, someone who is old enough to have a career is worth more than an infant or a toddler who hasn't yet advanced in life. It seems like it should be the other way round because the infant or toddler are being deprived of a future, therefore their life is more valuable because they are denied self actualization. Courts do not see it this way, though.

Evidence, please.

All you need to do is look at the sentences one receives in cases of child abuse compared to cases where one stranger has assaulted another, both adults. Someone who harms an adult is given a harsher sentence, generally, than someone who has harmed a child, especially if the child is their own.
For instance. rarely is someone who murders their own child given a life sentence without parole in my state. Many times over adults have gotten the death penalty or a life sentence without parole for murdering another adult. There's your proof!

That would not be admissable evidence and therefore proves nothing.

Yeah, but I thought it on page 6.

First of all, I have to say that this is the forum where we can to talk about Casey Anthony...so go somewhere else.
Second, I have to say that the state of Florida could not produce any physical, concrete evidence linking Casey to the crime in any way. The initial investigation of this case was horrible. I believe that Roy Kronk found the body on August 18th, and yet a Florida deputy couldn't find anything and went on to berate the guy for calling him (the deputy) out there for nothing. Much of the possible physical evidence that may have existed was there at that time. Yet, it took another 4 months for that scene to be re-discovered. Only then did the Florida deputies decided excavate the remains and do an autopsy.

I have no idea if Casey committed the crime(s) that she was accused of committing (other than the 4 cases of lying). All we know is that she is a pathological liar, she is immature and not well-educated, and a young woman who will for the rest of her life, have to come to terms with what may or may not have happened to Caylee. I believe that she has some kind of personality disorder (which is not necessarily a mental illness per se I don't believe) and would help herself best if she just found a psychologist that can help her figure out what the hell happened in her life that would put her in this position and just privately move on. I don't believe that she abused Caylee in any way; I don't believe that she would have the cold steel nerve to go through with such a horrible act such as murder. However, I don't believe that she is completely innocent either. Something happened.

I just hope that that whole family heal from this pain and move on out of our consciousness. I can't take anymore of it...until she does an interview or something similar, then I'm there. Then she should move on because she seems to be nothing but bad news...and she is not hot enough for any man to deal with her baggage.

That's not a good comparison - child abuse is rarely perpetrated by strangers, and when it is, it's usually punished pretty harshly. A better comparison would be to spousal abuse, where the result is usually only a restraining order, not prosecution.

One description is "doubt for which one has a reason" - for example, "I have doubts about whether Casey Anthony committed murder because the cause of death is unknown and could have been innocent", or "I have doubts that Casey Anthony premeditated a murder of her daughter because all the available evidence says she was a loving mother".

The reasons here are well established - that Caylee's death certificate listed the cause of death as undetermined, and that all the evidence presented said that Casey was a loving mother. In contrast, in your example, that the victim and accused had an affair doesn't count as a reason because no evidence or even assertion was provided that it could have been true - it's speculation rather than reason.

It is a good comparison. Look at capital murder cases. I cannot think of one person on death row in my state fore murdering a child yet this state ranks high for child abuse and child deaths.
What other reason is there?

Plus, I remember reading about how adults have more value in the eyes of the court. The older you are, the more value you have because of the life you have built for yourself, contributions you have made,relationships you have established.

Actually, in my home state of Washington, there was a guy executed for raping and murdering at least one child. I think his name was Wesley Allen Dodd, it was in the 1990's, and it had been the first execution in Washington after a number of years. He was also the last person in my state to die by hanging, since afterward, lethal injection became the sole means of execution. It was commonly felt he got exactly what he deserved.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Wow. Someone was hung in Washington in the 1990s? I don't know when the last time they hung someone here was...