Casey Anthony Found Not Guilty

[subzero 5,000+ posts]

There are a million things. Maybe she was infact trying to cover up an accident. Maybe she was really nervous. Who knows. Point is thats not evidence.

evidendce is not fool proof. It is all circumstantial. Under what conditions and circumstance did something happen. Then was it intentional or unintentional?

Was it intended or unintended infliction? Intentional infliction - yes, they intended to restrain the child. THat is evidence of intention intended infliction which led to "unindended?" inflicted suffacation of the child. Therefore the person that applied the ductape is guilty of unintential infliction of suffacating the child. WHich begs the question, what was her intention for restraining the child with duct tape. THat right there insights the view that the had intentions to cause harm to this child whether or not dead was the main objective, it is still subjective and validates punishment to that extreme. that bitch should have gotten the death penalty. period.

 

[whitedragon551 5,000+ posts]

evidendce is not fool proof. It is all circumstantial. Under what conditions and circumstance did something happen. Then was it intentional or unintentional? Was it intended or unintended infliction? Intentional infliction - yes, they intended to restrain the child. THat is evidence of intention intended infliction which led to "unindended?" inflicted suffacation of the child. Therefore the person that applied the ductape is guilty of unintential infliction of suffacating the child. WHich begs the question, what was her intention for restraining the child with duct tape. THat right there insights the view that the had intentions to cause harm to this child whether or not dead was the main objective, it is still subjective and validates punishment to that extreme. that bitch should have gotten the death penalty. period.

Experts during the trial said they couldnt confirm weather the duct tape played a role or not in her death. Since when does duct tape prove you killed someone here? She wasnt on trial for intentions to cause harm. She was on trial for murder.

 

[subzero 5,000+ posts]

Experts during the trial said they couldnt confirm weather the duct tape played a role or not in her death. Since when does duct tape prove you killed someone here? She wasnt on trial for intentions to cause harm. She was on trial for murder.

since when do you joyfully put ductape on a kids mouth..... you completely missed the point.

 

[bgowdy 5,000+ posts]

the way i see it noone knows the real story but the defendant. everyone else may think she did it. but really theres a lack of evidence to prove she did it. and i agree duck tape doesnt prove nun. she is innocent until proven guilty.

 

[grandam888 10+ year member]

evidendce is not fool proof. It is all circumstantial. Under what conditions and circumstance did something happen. Then was it intentional or unintentional? Was it intended or unintended infliction? Intentional infliction - yes, they intended to restrain the child. THat is evidence of intention intended infliction which led to "unindended?" inflicted suffacation of the child. Therefore the person that applied the ductape is guilty of unintential infliction of suffacating the child. WHich begs the question, what was her intention for restraining the child with duct tape. THat right there insights the view that the had intentions to cause harm to this child whether or not dead was the main objective, it is still subjective and validates punishment to that extreme. that bitch should have gotten the death penalty. period.

they couldn't even prove cause of death, so the "suffocation" cannot even be proven.

 

[mast240 10+ year member]

Experts during the trial said they couldnt confirm weather the duct tape played a role or not in her death. Since when does duct tape prove you killed someone here? She wasnt on trial for intentions to cause harm. She was on trial for murder.

acutually ... yes it was a capital case... but she was also charged with a lesser charge of manslaughter. which in itself, is usually described as someones intentional actions leading to the unintentional death of another... sounds about right to me. i never saw her taking the first degree charge, just not enough evidence for a capital case... but the manslaughter charge... that should have been a gimme

 

[grandam888 10+ year member]

acutually ... yes it was a capital case... but she was also charged with a lesser charge of manslaughter. which in itself, is usually described as someones intentional actions leading to the unintentional death of another... sounds about right to me. i never saw her taking the first degree charge, just not enough evidence for a capital case... but the manslaughter charge... that should have been a gimme

but based on your definition of "manslaughter", they couldn't convict her. the autopsy couldn't confirm cause of death. so how can they prove her intentional actions caused her death? i think people are just pissed off because she will probably walk before the end of this year.

 

[jtomsic 5,000+ posts]

end of the year? try tommorow.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

This is, imo, a clear cut case of our judicial system letting us all down. If there was insufficient evidence to convict her, nobody should have been sitting in the defendant's chair 1) until they found enough evidence to convict her, or 2) they found enough evidence to convict someone else.

With the amount of circumstantial evidence present, proof should not have been that difficult, one way or the other. All these questions 'nobody will ever know'... authorities should have been able to answer. If they couldn't, the trial should not have occurred. The cops screwed up, the medical examiner screwed up, and the D.A. screwed up. Period.

For all the guys saying she is going to be murdered in retaliation... I guess you guys are all too young to remember the OJ case. Another pretty much clear cut case of a murderer getting away with it due to the cops and lawyers fucking up. Everyone back then said he would get 'offed' too. How did that turn out? He's out golfing, making public appearances, and pretty much living his life just fine these days. Justice in this world is an illusion pulled over our eyes to make us think we are safe. That illusion is created by the massive web of lawyers, judges, politicians, and money that the system supports, feeds off of, and answers to. The rest is just smoke and mirrors to keep the majority of the population from revolting.

 

[mast240 10+ year member]

^^^ yea bro... but the big difference between this chick and OJ, is that OJ killed his wife... she killed a little girl. i remember the OJ trial, and it was ALOT more a racial issue back then, than everybody being upset as to the fact that he killed his wife, u kno... but when there is a child involved, i just think that it gets escalated a lil bit. why do you think child mollestors have no chance in prison? same concept.. even the most hardened criminals have a soft spot for kids... everyone does.

thats why i have the feeling, someone is goin to take this into their own hands

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

^^^ yea bro... but the big difference between this chick and OJ, is that OJ killed his wife... she killed a little girl. i remember the OJ trial, and it was ALOT more a racial issue back then, than everybody being upset as to the fact that he killed his wife, u kno... but when there is a child involved, i just think that it gets escalated a lil bit. why do you think child mollestors have no chance in prison? same concept.. even the most hardened criminals have a soft spot for kids... everyone does.
thats why i have the feeling, someone is goin to take this into their own hands

Sorry, but Im not seeing the huge difference. OJ's wife was proven to be an abused woman who was simply trying to get away from an abusive man/relationship, and said man simply killed her for it. No, not exactly a child, but an incredibly sad situation and victim none the less.

Everyone will say "someone" is going to kill her for this. Nobody is going to say "Im going to go kill her for this". Everyone wants to see justice occur (or what they feel is justice), but nobody is going to go out of their way, and put their own life/freedom on the line, to follow through on it.

I was an adult when the OJ thing went down, and (so far at least) I saw much more outcry over than trial's outcome than I have seen from this one.

 

[grandam888 10+ year member]

This is, imo, a clear cut case of our judicial system letting us all down. If there was insufficient evidence to convict her, nobody should have been sitting in the defendant's chair 1) until they found enough evidence to convict her, or 2) they found enough evidence to convict someone else.
With the amount of circumstantial evidence present, proof should not have been that difficult, one way or the other. All these questions 'nobody will ever know'... authorities should have been able to answer. If they couldn't, the trial should not have occurred. The cops screwed up, the medical examiner screwed up, and the D.A. screwed up. Period.

For all the guys saying she is going to be murdered in retaliation... I guess you guys are all too young to remember the OJ case. Another pretty much clear cut case of a murderer getting away with it due to the cops and lawyers fucking up. Everyone back then said he would get 'offed' too. How did that turn out? He's out golfing, making public appearances, and pretty much living his life just fine these days. Justice in this world is an illusion pulled over our eyes to make us think we are safe. That illusion is created by the massive web of lawyers, judges, politicians, and money that the system supports, feeds off of, and answers to. The rest is just smoke and mirrors to keep the majority of the population from revolting.

i agree with this. truthfully they should have never tried her. it was a waste of tax dollars, and now the DA looks like a moron. The main reason she was probably tried is the DA knew he would make a name for himself if he succeeded, but @ the same time knew if he didn't try her, he would look a like a douche.

 

[jtomsic 5,000+ posts]

This is, imo, a clear cut case of our judicial system letting us all down. If there was insufficient evidence to convict her, nobody should have been sitting in the defendant's chair 1) until they found enough evidence to convict her, or 2) they found enough evidence to convict someone else.
With the amount of circumstantial evidence present, proof should not have been that difficult, one way or the other. All these questions 'nobody will ever know'... authorities should have been able to answer. If they couldn't, the trial should not have occurred. The cops screwed up, the medical examiner screwed up, and the D.A. screwed up. Period.

For all the guys saying she is going to be murdered in retaliation... I guess you guys are all too young to remember the OJ case. Another pretty much clear cut case of a murderer getting away with it due to the cops and lawyers fucking up. Everyone back then said he would get 'offed' too. How did that turn out? He's out golfing, making public appearances, and pretty much living his life just fine these days. Justice in this world is an illusion pulled over our eyes to make us think we are safe. That illusion is created by the massive web of lawyers, judges, politicians, and money that the system supports, feeds off of, and answers to. The rest is just smoke and mirrors to keep the majority of the population from revolting.

oj is in jail bro..9 year sentence or something like that for kidnapping and trying to rob that guy at that hotel

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Oh, and I couldn't agree more with the guy above who said with all the real problems going on in this world, its pathetic the media spent so much time on this one trial. Sad? Sure. A tragedy? Absolutely. But Im sorry, there are much bigger issues they should be investigating than one single murder. Soldiers die every day in American conflicts surrounded by controversy. Soldiers with families, spouses, children. Every day hard working people lose their jobs, their homes, their lives, their families, because our politicians are running our country into the ground for their own personal/professional gain. Every day regimes all over the world kill, ****, harm and otherwise abuse the people they are suppose to protect and care for. But all you've seen one FOX/CNN/etc, for MONTHS, is this one single murder trial. Why? Because Casey is sexy, insane, and the circumstances were a bit unusual. The media has let us down just as badly as has the justice system. But people dont care, they want to be entertained. I look at trials like this, and the media sensationalization of it, as akin to the Roman gladiator combat spectacles of ancient history. We think of that as so brutal... how could people sit there and watch people kill each other for nothing more than entertainment.... we aren't so far removed from that mentality when we watch, perpetuate, and hype these trials.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

oj is in jail bro..9 year sentence or something like that for kidnapping and trying to rob that guy at that hotel

Oh yeah, he is, I forgot. But he's not in jail for murdering his wife (which he DID do). Nobody murdered him for getting away with it. The fact he is in jail for a completely different charge in an unrelated situation is no excuse for the failings of our justice system, and the media who made money off of it.