THEY LET THE b***h GO!

Post Reply New Topic

You're thinking in the context of whether she's guilty from a legal perspective. It doesn't mean she can't be convicted of a more serious crime later on. "Innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt in a court of law" does not mean there's no possible way in real life the person didn't commit the crime. It only means in the context of the law the suspect hasn't been shown beyond reasonable doubt, but could be convicted of another crime later on.

To support what I'm saying about the possibility of being convicted of something more serious later on:

Are you familiar with Ted Bundy? He killed women and then raped them. He would also keep many of their heads as trophies. The police started to find obvious patterns and eventually suspected it was him, but didn't have enough evidence for "proof beyond reasonable doubt" until a really obvious murder years later. Did that mean in the mean time there was an objective reality out there that Ted Bundy didn't really kill those women because the police couldn't collect enough evidence? Did that mean there was no way later he couldn't be convicted of more serious crimes? In fact, Ted Bundy kept on killing and killing, regardless that his previous murders couldn't be nailed down and proven by law enforcement. He then was caught for two unrelated murders and got the death penalty.

In sum, you're looking at "guilty" from a different type of context. Since you give a lot of credit to the jury's decision, they even said themselves they "never said Casey Anthony is innocent" but rather not enough evidence for "proven beyond reasonable doubt" and "they were sick to their stomachs". That doesn't mean she can't be caught doing other more serious crimes later on, nor does it rule out 100% the possibility years later she may even confess to Caylee.

It is very rare that people really know for sure who did a foul deed. Even so-called eye-witness testimony can be mistaken. The best we can do is review evidence and take testimony (under rather stringent rules) and decide if the prosecutor has proven his charges sufficiently well. For most people the only connection between them and the crime is the evidence that the police have gathered.

In general only God and the perpetrator know who did the did and how and why. The rest of us have to be satisfied with evidence gathered after the fact.

ruveyn

As far as Casey Anthony goes:

After she was first arrested and released, she was soon after arrested for unrelated crimes of forgery, fradulent use of personal information, petty theft for forging nearly $650 worth of checks and using her friend's credit cards without permission. That sounds impulsive to me.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casey_Anth ... nd_charges
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,414 ... z1Skf47ZfG

The point for that one post you responded to wasn't that it's proven she's guilty (although I think so), but rather instead just because someone hasn't been shown in a court of law "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" doesn't mean they can't later commit more crimes.

Many of those who believe there wasn't evidence of "beyond reasonable doubt" either believe there's a "preponderance of evidence" or at the very least "reasonable suspicion". It's not unreasonable to suspect that it's possible she may commit other crimes in the future.

When that happens the law will take its course. Preventative arrests are not legal in the U.S. We do not put people in prison because they -might- commit a crime.

ruveyn

You're dodging the point and completely taking me out of context!

I am taking you literally and verbeitem. which is all I can do. I am an Aspie.

ruveyn

If you're taking me literally and verbeitem, where in that post above did I say you should put someone in jail before the fact?


I only said just because the justice system didn't find someone guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" doesn't mean they can't be convicted of a more serious crime later on. It also doesn't mean there's an objective reality out there saying there's no way possible they committed the criminal act, but from a "legal context" they're innocent.

Here's something you might all enjoy, produced by my Faculty of Law. A fictional interactive case (UK court) where you get to decide whether or not the accused is guilty; to see whether or not you have made that decision on the evidence; and to see how your verdict compares to other people.

Open the link and click on 'Start What's Your Verdict' under the picture.

http://www.open.ac.uk/openlearn/society ... ur-verdict

There was a woman who looked like Casey but wasn't her and some crazy lady drove into her car injuring her.

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/07/15/ok-w ... looked-li/

Yes, the emotions are running high around the case, and there have been several disastrous incidents.

lol, nobody knows what a jury is doing unless in extreme cases where a jury consulted an ouija board!

Wow, now I feel sorry for all the innocent people out there who looks like her. I say people who try and kill someone just because they thought she was Casey Anthony or do destruction because they thought she was Casey should be charged for it. People just need to learn to do the "what ifs" like what if it wasn't her and it is just someone who looks like her, then they have done damage to an innocent person or killed an innocent person.

Yeah. If anything Walther, Sig, and H&K might have a brief revenue rally this quarter over that.

That's f*****g insane.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer