Casey Anthony Walks !

[tombogan03884]

Facts?....So let me get this straight..... The "real killer" killed her daughter, stole her car keys, placed the dead corpse of the child in the trunk. Casey Anthony then drove around with it in there for days in the Florida heat and humidity, totally unknowingly, not missing her kid in the least, and reporting it to no one. Oh yeah, I forgot....The "nanny" who never existed.  Then, even when it started to stink to high heaven, she never noticed it while she was partying and screwing days after the child was missing.

 Then, finally, her mother finally notices the stench, calls the police to tell them there is the smell of a dead body in the trunk of her daughters car. All the while Casey Anthony was totally unaware of anything.

Then, after all this they all march into court where they come up with this total cock and bull story of how the kid died in the pool. After, mind you, the mother calls police and tells them she hasn't seen her grand daughter in WEEKS after calling their attention to the rotting corpse smell in the car, 3 years before they come up with the dead kid in the pool story. And of course, the duct tape on the kids mouth just magically attached itself to the kids mouth....AFTER they, (or someone), threw the poor kids body into the weeds. Yeah, right. Beyond a "reasonable doubt"? How about a brain dead jury.   Bill T.

I don't know, and since I wasn't on the jury, I don't give a sh!t.
If you took your meds, you wouldn't either.

[tt11758]

Bill:

Casey Anthony will be punished.  She'll never again be able to walk in public without fear....without enduring the looks of people who firmly believe she offed her kid, etc.  Should she ever have another child, CPS will be up her ass clear to their shoulder blades until that child is grown and gone.

And finally, when the time comes that she shuffles off this mortal coil, she'll face the same Judge we must ALL face.  If she actually did that of which she was accused, she'll be punished. 

Do we get the satisfaction of seeing her pay now?  No.  Sometimes it happens that way.  Take a deep breath and move on. 

TT

[tt11758]

As guilty?
Either you are or you are not.
They were not trying her based on her behavior. They were trying her on the evidence, and apparently were not convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt.
You can't compare the two different juries. Just because one made the only choice they could make given the evidence doesn't mean the other jury was right or wrong. When it comes to juries, it is the luck of the draw.


I'm not defending her....and I respect your view, and like I said before, I agree that she is likely guilty....but I can't condemn the jury for 'making a bad decision' because I wasn't privy to all the info they got.

The legal system doesn't require proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt", simply beyond a REASONABLE doubt.  BIG difference.

[billt]

The legal system doesn't require proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt", simply beyond a REASONABLE doubt.  BIG difference.

I agree, and this is where I say the problem was with that jury, not the evidence presented, which there was nothing wrong with.   Bill T.

[Pathfinder]

I agree, and this is where I say the problem was with that jury, not the evidence presented, which there was nothing wrong with.   Bill T.

One of our pastors is a former LA County cop, and his take on juries was that jurors were dumb as bales of hay. Which I found offensive.

To bales of hay that is.

[Sponsor]

[fightingquaker13]

One of our pastors is a former LA County cop, and his take on juries was that jurors were dumb as bales of hay. Which I found offensive.

To bales of hay that is.

Post that after you get called next Path  .The frustrating thing about being on a jury is you only get the info thats fed to you. You can't do your own research,  you can't ask for advice, you can't interrogate a witness yourself, even if the DA missed an obvious question. You just have to be a mushroom and accept what you are fed. Guilty or not guilty, the blame is on those who gave you the info.
FQ13

[jnevis]

I agree, and this is where I say the problem was with that jury, not the evidence presented, which there was nothing wrong with.   Bill T.

Unless you were actually IN the courtroom, you have no idea what the REAL evidence was, just the media’s interpretation of it.  We’re all quick to jump on the MSM’s leanings on everything else, but take their coverage of court proceedings as gospel? 

In his closing argument, Baez urged the jurors not to get caught up in the strong emotions that have followed the case since Anthony was arrested in 2008.
He told the jurors during his closing argument on Sunday that it was the government’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the defense did not have to prove anything.
“Don’t speculate,” he said. “Don’t guess. It has to be proven to you beyond and to the exclusion of any reasonable doubt.”
Although many commentators had opined about the strength of the state’s case, prosecutors were unable at trial to present any direct physical evidence proving that Anthony played a role in her daughter’s death. They argued that the three pieces of duct tape found with Caylee’s skeletal remains were the murder weapon. But there no finger prints on the tape and the only unidentified DNA detected excluded both Caylee and her mother.
Defense attorneys said it was speculation that the tape caused Caylee’s death, and that the state – in a capital case – must prove that murder was committed
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0705/Casey-Anthony-trial-acquittal-Death-of-Caylee-Anthony-is-still-a-mystery/(page)/2

Did she do something that caused, or could have caused the child’s death?  Probably.  Could it be PROVEN illegal?  Not 100%, and by definition if there is a doubt in a “reasonable persons” mind that she actually KILLED the child, she in not guilty.  That isn’t to say through negligence or accident the child died, it means WILLFULL and DELIBERATE acts resulting in the death of an individual.  Post incident behavior, while suspect, is not evidence of a crime.  Were their ligature marks or bruising on the child, indicative of restraint?  Abnormal toxicology?   Even the manslaughter charge requires there to be physical evidence and proof that she knew that the actions she was taking would or could result in the death of the child.  Negligence alone does not prove guilt, it requires proven malice.  Since that evidence could not be brought out, as there was none due to the time it took to find the body, doubt of how the child actually died is in question.

Scott Peterson was a bloody tool (literally).  There were truckloads of physical evidence collected at the house, and everywhere else he went, before and after his wife went missing.  The testimony of witnesses and his behavior later on only added to the case, they weren’t the whole case, as it appears here.

[billt]

One of our pastors is a former LA County cop, and his take on juries was that jurors were dumb as bales of hay. Which I found offensive.

To bales of hay that is.

+1 !

[PegLeg45]

The legal system doesn't require proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt", simply beyond a REASONABLE doubt.  BIG difference.

I know. I simply mis-spoke (or mis-typed) or whatever you want to call it.   

[tombogan03884]

Personally I think the whole thing is just another bullsh1t distraction to keep the sheep from asking who's going to jail over the ATF gun running into Mexico, or the increasing unemployment or BO's illegal  war on Libya, etc, etc.
And in this Fox News is just as guilty as the rest of the LSM.
For all the hype neither the crime, or verdict makes a damn bit of difference to any one but the family, might as well get worked up about the Lizzie Borden verdict.