Singlestack Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nheiny13 Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 The 90's had OJ Simpson, 2000's had Michael Jackson, and now the 10's have Casey Anthony. All have something in common... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Hayden Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 You'd think the timing of the tattoo would have carried more weight against her.. But, the jury heard alot more than we did.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carmoney Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 So what's the common thread? Guilty people getting off the hook? Or a viewing public that jumps to judgment, promoted by a media that never passes up the chance to sensationalize the legal process? Or perhaps both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carmoney Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 But, the jury heard alot more than we did.. Sometimes the jury hears a lot less. Although it's damn difficult to truly sequester a jury in a case like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOne Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Like it or not, this is the system that the country was founded on, over 200 years ago. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. This tragic event unfolded less than 50 miles from my home, yet I refused to follow the case and all the hoopla surrounding it as it has become a circus, and the media only has power if you give the power to them. While in my personal opinion, she has acted very badly, and may even be guilty, the prosecution obviously could not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Would you have our system any other way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I was actually expecting that verdict; The prosecution could not show positive cause of death, without that there is no way for the jury to be certain that the child was murdered. If the location of the body had been reported earlier then the outcome may have been different. I recall that the person that found her did not notify the police for 2 weeks, a lot of evidence could deteriorate in that time period. Our system of justice is not perfect, no system is, but I think it is preferable to many others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiny Warrior Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 The 90's had OJ Simpson, 2000's had Michael Jackson, and now the 10's have Casey Anthony. All have something in common... Add Robert Blake to that list (can't remember the year that trial was). Her behavior was screaming guilty but we can't put someone to death for that. Its unfortunate, really that nobody will pay for the little girl's death. And that another killer walks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrawandDuck Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Like in the movie Training Day...."It's not what you know, it's what you can prove".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raz-0 Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Not guilty is what you get when you spend the entire trial trying to prove the defendant is unlikable, and that a child was killed. At some point, if you want to win, you have to provide something that.. you know... kind of shows that said unlikable person might have killed the child. My wife subjected me to hours of this "news" every day. I failed to see them ever do that. Can't say I like the verdict, but it's what I suspected would happen given the lawyering I saw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiG Lady Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Well, I knew for sure that the jury in the Anthony case would render verdict in less than 24 hours. I just intuitively knew that. It was only 10 hrs of actual deliberation. Began yesterday at noon. I was not altogether surprised by the verdict inasmuch as there WAS considerable "reasonable doubt" no matter what conventional emotional opinions were on the street (the Defendant was not well liked, as you know). 1. When was the baby murdered/killed/died? No one knew for sure. 2. What was the Defendant's motive? No one seemed to have a firm clue. 3. Who moved the baby's body into the woods? Not even a guess. 4. Where did the baby die before she was placed in the woods? No one knew. 5. Was the baby's death REALLY a homicide or was it an "accident" as the Defense claimed? That was the biggest question of all. And that question was never answered fully. All the so-called evidence in the trial was so inconsistent (and sometimes a little weak) with everything else that no one could knit it all together into a coherent story. The Defendant and her family members were so emotionally dysfunctional all along that none of their stories matched up that it was impossible to tell who was lying and who wasn't! I figure all three of the main family members were each lying about SOMETHING--which only complicated the whole issue. Hence all the "reasonable doubt." For sure this is a hefty notch in Jose Baez' (defense atty) belt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gohuskers Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 But, the jury heard alot more than we did.. Sometimes the jury hears a lot less. Although it's damn difficult to truly sequester a jury in a case like this. Exactly right. I've spoken to so many jurors on cases in which they said that exact thing: "why didn't you tell us that?" Because we have something called the rules of evidence and rules of criminal procedure. The jury doesn't know the extent of defendant's past behavior unless it's specifically allowed, and then only for a limited purpose. Murder cases are hard to piece together because you generally don't have any witnesses to tell you what happened and you never have a victim to tell you why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JThompson Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) Sure looks like a discussion to me... Siggy, you should not better. JT Edited July 5, 2011 by JThompson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiny Warrior Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Well, I knew for sure that the jury in the Anthony case would render verdict in less than 24 hours. I just intuitively knew that. It was only 10 hrs of actual deliberation. Began yesterday at noon. I was not altogether surprised by the verdict inasmuch as there WAS considerable "reasonable doubt" no matter what conventional emotional opinions were on the street (the Defendant was not well liked, as you know). 1. When was the baby murdered/killed/died? No one knew for sure. 2. What was the Defendant's motive? No one seemed to have a firm clue. 3. Who moved the baby's body into the woods? Not even a guess. 4. Where did the baby die before she was placed in the woods? No one knew. 5. Was the baby's death REALLY a homicide or was it an "accident" as the Defense claimed? That was the biggest question of all. And that question was never answered fully. All the so-called evidence in the trial was so inconsistent (and sometimes a little weak) with everything else that no one could knit it all together into a coherent story. The Defendant and her family members were so emotionally dysfunctional all along that none of their stories matched up that it was impossible to tell who was lying and who wasn't! I figure all three of the main family members were each lying about SOMETHING--which only complicated the whole issue. Hence all the "reasonable doubt." For sure this is a hefty notch in Jose Baez' (defense atty) belt. She wanted the single-social life. Her child seemed to be inconvenient to her lifestyle. Or so the prosecution claimed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyZip Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 What I don't like about our media society. We try people in the public forum rather than the judicial. What do WE really know? What the media types and talking heads spout isn't vetted for accuracy. Too bad about the kid, really, she was just a little girl. A precious thing lost indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 This Hate rant has turned into a discussion, which is beyond the bounds of the rules for the Hate Forum. Thus, it must be closed. Please review the Hate Forum Rules: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8097 [note: this is a generic response] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts