THEY LET THE b***h GO!

Post Reply New Topic

Breaking News-
Baby killing Casey Anthony found NOT GUILTY!
Was the damn jury out to lunch during the whole trial?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

People really are very stupid and easily deceived, aren't they?
She's only 25, too, so she'll probably have a couple more babies and go on welfare.

Ether that, or the prosecution did not sufficiently prove their case.

By the way, you were not on the jury and you did not see the evidence presented or hear the testimony. So do not be so quick to condemn the jury.

ruveyn

Actually the entire trial was covered by TruTV and other outlets, so its plausible he/she could have watched exactly what the jury saw.

Easy there... Keep in mind there is a court of law involved. Convictions ought not be obtained in the court of public opinion.

If you really feel that way, it could be something I've always suspected in mass media and that is what we hear about what is reported is what the news companies want us to hear or what they think we want to hear. There is not a single thing special about Casey Anthony. Not one thing. She just happened to be the latest suspect that got attention and had her name smeared all over the news. We WANT her to be guilty. Everything about this case, as far as anyone ever got to hear about, said that the prosecution had a slam dunk. Open and shut. And we wanted to believe because someone has to pay for what happened to that innocent girl.

Well, let's face it: the evidence in this case is largely circumstantial. Not that circumstantial evidence isn't strong evidence. But it was enough to convict Peterson. We all think we know Peterson is guilty, but the evidence as was portrayed in the media seemed really shaky to me. Basically the guy is on death row form cheating on his wife.

Not that he ISN'T guilty, but that being all it took to get a conviction is frightening.

Maybe Casey did it. We don't really know. But it sounds to me that fairness was kept throughout these proceedings, something we can't say about media portrayal.

And, for the record, she WAS found guilty of a crime--just not one worthy of the death penalty. I'm anxious to see what happens at her sentencing.

Based on the evidence, and only the evidence presented as evidence in the trial, would you have been able to find her guilty?

Personally I think she is very likely guilty. Whether she intentionally murdered the child or accidentally killed her I think she was involved in her death but trials aren't decided based on circumstantial evidence or "common sense"

First, that coverage would not necessarily have included exhibit evidence that could have been examined in detail by jurors.

Further, that coverage could have included voir dire evidence to which the jurors would have been prevented from having access.

Finally, and most importantly, coverage would not have included the deliberations of the jury.

Yeah, if common sense was rampant, we wouldn't even have a society where people kill their kids. So unfortunately, we are stuck with deciding trials based on "hard evidence" and things of that nature. I also think she is guilty because behavior reflects personality. But for the most part, I don't care that much because she isn't my sister, and I never knew the baby.

This might be the OJ case of this decade.

Casey was acquitted by a jury of her peers. That's the American justice system. Presumed innocence and a burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt have been cornerstones of our jury system for >200 years. Deal with it.

And twelve sober citizens did not think the State proved it case beyond a reasonable doubt. Since you were not on the jury your opinion does not count. You weren't there and a t.v. broadcast only transmit what the camera is pointing at when it and the microphones are activated. Viewers did not get the entire scene or ambiance. The opinion of viewers not in the courtroom counts for nothing

Another thing. The issue is NOT whether the woman was guilty or not, but whether the State proved its case. In Scotland a verdict to acquit is not called Innocent, but Not Proven.


ruveyn

Absolutely.

Bear in mind that just because the justice that might be deserved is not always meted out, it doesn't show that our criminal justice system is really that bad. I would even assert our justice system (in that regard) is among the best in the world if not THE best. Torts, on the other hand...

She is the new OJ. She got away with it when everyone knows she did it.

Be a shame if she had an accedent in the prision yard while serving her sentence for giving false info to law enforcment.

She was found innocent by a jury of her peers, end of story.

You mean they found 12 other people that killed there baby to sit on the jury?