casey anthony

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Yeah Thank God a ridiculous defense duped a group of idiots in Florida. Bravo

Jackasz D.A. laughing at the defense summation really helped a lot.....for the defense....guy should be disbarred.......

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Jackasz D.A. laughing at the defense summation really helped a lot.....for the defense....guy should be disbarred.......

that was ridiculous. I agree. You shouldnt be allowed to be a D.A. if you are going to pull that kind of crap.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Jackasz D.A. laughing at the defense summation really helped a lot.....for the defense....guy should be disbarred.......

their only 'defense' was the child drowned, and that the accidental death was made to look like a homicide. what kind of bs defense is that? and then the judge ruled they couldn't even mention it in closing, as it wasn't even close to being proven.

the woman lied from beginning to end-and now she walks. horrendous.

[alysheba4]

an all time low

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by alysheba4

an all time low

sad day for all.. unless you are Casey or Somer of course.

[keithting]

A sad day for the U.S. justice system

But the good news is that that juror will make her cruise afterall (departing on the 7th).....

[Princess Doreen]

I don't think this jury undestood the meaning of "reasonable doibt."

It would be hard to convict someone on a couple of examples of circumstantial evidence. But, in this case, they could throw out a 100 of the examples and still not be left with reasonable doubt.

I would submit that this jury was too tired and worn out serving on that sequestered jury for 6 weeks to spend the time to fully examine the evidence. They just wanted to put an end to it and took the quick and easy way out.

The distaff version of OJ. What a tragedy.

[Danzig]

i agree princess. unless you have 100 witnesses who all say the same thing, there will always be some 'reasonable' doubt.

its too bad that it ended like that. i am amazed. honest people with nothing whatsoever to hide don't make up a string of lies a mile long.
people have been convicted of murder without a body! this girl gets away with it, and they had the body. unbelievable.

[keithting]

I would so love for someone to name a thoroughbred "Casey Did It"".......

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by keithting

I would so love for someone to name a thoroughbred "Casey Did It"".......

or Bella Vita

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

I don't think this jury undestood the meaning of "reasonable doibt."

It would be hard to convict someone on a couple of examples of circumstantial evidence. But, in this case, they could throw out a 100 of the examples and still not be left with reasonable doubt.

I would submit that this jury was too tired and worn out serving on that sequestered jury for 6 weeks to spend the time to fully examine the evidence. They just wanted to put an end to it and took the quick and easy way out.

The distaff version of OJ. What a tragedy.

exactly.. i was listening to an interview of Juror 14 (2nd alternate). Asked about Casey partying for a month (it doesnt look good, but doesnt prove anything). they basically said not guilty because of three things: 1) no exact cause of death (because casey through the body in the woods and there were only bones left) 2) no time of death (also because of casey's doing) and 3) they didnt believe George, therefor giving credibility to Casey's ridiculous defense of drowning and molestation, neither of which were supported by a SHRED of real or circumstencial (sp?) evidence.

Basically, the jury rejected the circumstencial evidence, even though it overwhelmed them to a point where I couldnt see them letting her off. the jury was filled with by the book morons.

[GenuineRisk]

I confess, I didn't know anything about the trial until about two weeks ago, and then didn't follow it because the subject matter upset me too much, but the verdict doesn't mean she didn't do it; it means the prosecution didn't make their case. Cases built on circumstantial evidence, which this was, from what I gather, are very, very hard to prove, and it sounds like the prosecution, in their rush to bring this to trial, did a sh*tty job of it.

The onus of guilt must always be on the state to prove, not on the defendant to disprove. We give that up, in our rush to have a perpetrator to blame, then we might as well give up any notion that we believe in a free society.

And we can never underestimate the power of the media to shape the narrative we see, and clearly the media wanted the narrative to be that this woman did it. Again, I'm not saying she didn't; I didn't follow the case. But, and be honest with yourself, how many of us were absolutely sure that Gary Condit was involved in Chandra Levy's disappearance? Because that was the narrative the media wanted, and that's what they put forth, to the exclusion of any other possibilities.

[Danzig]

see, i don't see it as being like gary condit. he was a slimeball, but there was nothing tying him to her crime. no smelly car, no string of lies, etc.

now, the atlanta bombing and richard jewell...that was definitely a media frenzy, as was the duke rape case.