79 replies to this topic

[Sage]

I would think it would be better for them to say something. Then again the jury/judge aren't talking to the media either.

Like what? What would you have them say to the public after their daughter, who they were sure was guilty of a horrible crime, was cleared? "Whoops"?

[policepro]

Like what? What would you have them say to the public after their daughter, who they were sure was guilty of a horrible crime, was cleared? "Whoops"?

Maybe say something about how people might think that he did it. Since they found his daughter not guilty?
Or be happy your daughter didn't lose her life. Even if you think your daughter should go to jail wouldn't you be glad she didn't lose her life?

[Sage]

Maybe say something about how people might think that he did it. Since they found his daughter not guilty?
Or be happy your daughter didn't lose her life. Even if you think your daughter should go to jail wouldn't you be glad she didn't lose her life?

You don't think that a lot of people would just look at that as trying to save face after accusing their daughter?

[policepro]

You don't think that a lot of people would just look at that as trying to save face after accusing their daughter?

What does save face mean? I think I have an idea but I am not sure.

[Sage]

What does save face mean? I think I have an idea but I am not sure.

Covering up a massive stupid mistake you made.

[policepro]

Covering up a massive stupid mistake you made.

I don't think people would see it as that. Or at least I wouldn't. Now if your celebrating yes.

[BEEEEWRRYY]

I dont understand how come this case was so highly publicized.

[Stunnerrunner]

I dont understand how come this case was so highly publicized.

Because from the beginning, one might wonder how a mother could remain so emotionless if all of her claims were true. If she were really innocent, she would be speaking up and fighting the entire thing, IMHO.

[fxckyouguys]

Because from the beginning, one might wonder how a mother could remain so emotionless if all of her claims were true. If she were really innocent, she would be speaking up and fighting the entire thing, IMHO.

Well, from my experience, I feel it's best to keep your mouth shut when you're in trouble, otherwise you might get carried away. When I would get in trouble with the cops, and I would flip shit, they wouldn't listen to me and they would just turn into bigger assholes. So I just keep my mouth shut, since you do have that right. And even then, just like you said, they freaking get pissed because you're acting calm and not saying anything, and then they make the assumption that you don't care. -____-

[WharfRat]

This whole trial makes me sick... Not for what happened... but for the sensational journalism following it. Do I think she murdered her daughter? I'm not sure. Do I think she was involved in the death or the coverup of her daughter? Most probably. Could I convict her beyond the reason of a doubt of the charges she faced? Absolutely not. (Besides the providing false information, obviously.) The prosecution simply did not meet the burden of proof in this case... There was no cause of death, there was no real motive, and the evidence that they did have was strictly circumstantial.

I'm glad the jury managed to remain objective in reaching their decision...

P.s. about her parents... They likely wanted to gtfo before being assaulted by the media. They're entire family has been through enough in the past year... I don't blame them at all.

[kittycat]

idk enough about the case so i could b wrong but from what it looks like there is a lot of circumstantial evidence provided by the prosecutors...would you really want to risk someones life on circumstantial evidence lol

[Cory]

This whole trial makes me sick... Not for what happened... but for the sensational journalism following it. Do I think she murdered her daughter? I'm not sure. Do I think she was involved in the death or the coverup of her daughter? Most probably. Could I convict her beyond the reason of a doubt of the charges she faced? Absolutely not. (Besides the providing false information, obviously.) The prosecution simply did not meet the burden of proof in this case... There was no cause of death, there was no real motive, and the evidence that they did have was strictly circumstantial.

I'm glad the jury managed to remain objective in reaching their decision...

P.s. about her parents... They likely wanted to gtfo before being assaulted by the media. They're entire family has been through enough in the past year... I don't blame them at all.

Past three years* People forget that this case has been on going since 2008.

Thanks for having a level head. Everyone on facebook and twitter are screaming about how there is no justice. Two points; the first being that most people did not watch the whole trial so they do not see all the facts and secondly even if they did they would be completely bias due to the media who wants to persecute her rather she did it or not.

[Jake]

She is clearly involved in the child's death whether it be an accident or on purpose. If the child did indeed drown then she should at least be charged for some type of terrible parenting crime. I never paid much attention to this but someone please inform me how a child who drowns manages to show up in a forest six months later with their remains. I could never be a juror because the law obviously fails at certain levels but I understand the requirement for strict evidence.

Edited by Jake, 05 July 2011 - 01:31 PM.

[WharfRat]

Past three years* People forget that this case has been on going since 2008.

Thanks for having a level head. Everyone on facebook and twitter are screaming about how there is no justice. Two points; the first being that most people did not watch the whole trial so they do not see all the facts and secondly even if they did they would be completely bias due to the media who wants to persecute her rather she did it or not.

I am aware that the case has been ongoing for three years now... and while I do understand the hell they went through in the initial portion of losing their granddaughter, I was mainly referencing the media circus that has been going on with this case in the past year.

I also appreciate the level head that I know you're seeing this from based upon your reference of the Ramsey case of years ago... My facebook is also blowing up with people screaming about how there is no justice and I'm just shocked a bit... I'm certain that the media bias here is the real culprit, but I can't help but be put off a bit by the barbaric tone of some of these people... They all just seem so complacent in sending a woman to the chair based upon circumstantial evidence at best. Disgusting.

(Though in a bit of humor, someone who agreed with me on FB posted this and I thought I'd share. (It's a quote from the movie "Idiocracy". If you haven't seen it yet, you should. )

"And B, we've got all this, like, evidence, of how, like, this guy didn't even pay at the hospital. And I heard that he doesn't even have his tattoo.

And I'm all, 'you've gotta be shittin' me!' But check this out man, judge should be like, "guilty!" Peace."

[GarenaMaster]

nope she isnt ... but i answerd not sure *LOL*

[luvsmyncis]

Sorry Waser, it's been going on for too long to even try to explain. Here's the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia....i/Casey_Anthony

The main purpose of this whole court system is to help ensure innocent people are not wrongfully punished. But nothing in this world is perfect. Sometimes criminals walk free and innocent people get put behind bars. So it goes.

I don't know that looking at the evidence, if ANYONE can truly say that Casey MURDERED her daughter. It looks like there might have been negligence and there's no doubt in my mind she's a terrible person. But you can't convict someone of murder just because you think they suck.

[iargue]

Wasn't oj also declared innocent?

Sorry Waser, it's been going on for too long to even try to explain. Here's the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia....i/Casey_Anthony

The main purpose of this whole court system is to help ensure innocent people are not wrongfully punished. But nothing in this world is perfect. Sometimes criminals walk free and innocent people get put behind bars. So it goes.

I don't know that looking at the evidence, if ANYONE can truly say that Casey MURDERED her daughter. It looks like there might have been negligence and there's no doubt in my mind she's a terrible person. But you can't convict someone of murder just because you think they suck.

The fact that she lied to the police and told them that she was kidnapped, and then changed her story to saying that she drowned in the pool, is pretty hard damning evidence. Even an accidental murder is still murder. Child Neglect that leads to her death is considered manslaughter, and she should have been found guilty of that if the child had drowned in the pool.

[Chalk]

Wasn't oj also declared innocent?

Yes he was.

[kittycat]

It was just a really difficult case, no doubt, for both the persecutors, the defender, and the jury.

[luvsmyncis]

The fact that she lied to the police and told them that she was kidnapped, and then changed her story to saying that she drowned in the pool, is pretty hard damning evidence. Even an accidental murder is still murder. Child Neglect that leads to her death is considered manslaughter, and she should have been found guilty of that if the child had drowned in the pool.

Her lying constantly about everything is about as much evidence of murder as the fact that OJ led that famous highway chase before turning himself in. It's really strange behavior, some might say brought on by guilt, but it is not evidence of murder.

They probably couldn't convict her of the manslaughter, because there was no actual proof the child had drowned.

[Joanna]

This whole trial makes me sick... Not for what happened... but for the sensational journalism following it. Do I think she murdered her daughter? I'm not sure. Do I think she was involved in the death or the coverup of her daughter? Most probably. Could I convict her beyond the reason of a doubt of the charges she faced? Absolutely not. (Besides the providing false information, obviously.) The prosecution simply did not meet the burden of proof in this case... There was no cause of death, there was no real motive, and the evidence that they did have was strictly circumstantial.

I'm glad the jury managed to remain objective in reaching their decision...

P.s. about her parents... They likely wanted to gtfo before being assaulted by the media. They're entire family has been through enough in the past year... I don't blame them at all.

This so much this. They obviously did not have enough evidence to convict her... what if she is innocent? Should we send her to jail just because everyone thinks that she did it?

This has turned into a witch hunt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

Edited by Joanna, 05 July 2011 - 08:16 PM.

[WharfRat]

This so much this. They obviously did not have enough evidence to convict her... what if she is innocent? Should we send her to jail just because everyone thinks that she did it?

This has turned into a witch hunt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

You literally took the words right out of my mouth. I was arguing with someone on facebook earlier and I was saying that it has absolutely turned into a witch hunt.

(Though you totally beat me with the awesome clip! I wish I had brought that one out! )

[Joanna]

You literally took the words right out of my mouth. I was arguing with someone on facebook earlier and I was saying that it has absolutely turned into a witch hunt.

(Though you totally beat me with the awesome clip! I wish I had brought that one out! )

I couldn't resist... it was honestly the first thing I thought of when I heard about all this 1 million times today.

[Kat]

I definitely agree with you guys now.. it was crazy at work today.. people wouldn't stop talking about it and constantly said nasty things about her.
I think she's guilty, but I totally agree that if I was in the jury and I saw there wasn't enough evidence, I wouldn't have said guilty either.
Innocent until proven guilty! The justice system sucks but it also can work if done right.
The only thing I worry about is more evidence arising that points to her being guilty.. ain't shit they can do now that this all is done.

But what makes me really sick is that whoever killed her is out free right now. RIP Caylee

Also I'd have to say it must have been a concrete decision for that jury to not only decide that so quickly, but with all the media hype and people raving at the mouth wanting her to be charged.. for them to clear her of all those charges (besides the 4 counts of lying to the police) ... that's really something. in most cases like this the jury is in deliberation for hours on end.. I wonder what went on in there.
Anyway, like I said, innocent until proven guilty, and the jury was obviously very keen to see the lack of proof.

Edited by Katrinas, 05 July 2011 - 08:48 PM.

[WharfRat]

I definitely agree with you guys now.. it was crazy at work today.. people wouldn't stop talking about it and constantly said nasty things about her.
I think she's guilty, but I totally agree that if I was in the jury and I saw there wasn't enough evidence, I wouldn't have said guilty either.
Innocent until proven guilty! The justice system sucks but it also can work if done right.
The only thing I worry about is more evidence arising that points to her being guilty.. ain't shit they can do now that this all is done.

But what makes me really sick is that whoever killed her is out free right now. RIP Caylee

Also I'd have to say it must have been a concrete decision for that jury to not only decide that so quickly, but with all the media hype and people raving at the mouth wanting her to be charged.. for them to clear her of all those charges (besides the 4 counts of lying to the police) ... that's really something. in most cases like this the jury is in deliberation for hours on end.. I wonder what went on in there.
Anyway, like I said, innocent until proven guilty, and the jury was obviously very keen to see the lack of proof.

As to your last question; The jurors were sequestered through the duration of the trial. (Weren't allowed to watch the news or anything like that.) I think it's amazing how obvious the prosecution lacked in evidence when you haven't been exposed to 24/7 media sensationalism such as "She did it!", "This is how she did it!", "Isn't what she did awful?", and "I hope they give her the chair so that little Caylee will get justice!". throughout the trial.