Watch the news.
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/article/209900/4/Casey-Anthony-Verdict-is-not-Guilty-of-Killing-Daughter-Caylee
Well, it's kind of to be expected. From what I saw watching that trial, the state just didn't prove its case. The prosecution never managed to establish where she died, when she died, why she died, how she died, much less who killed her, and the forensics, despite literally inventing new areas of science, was just much ado about nothing. In the end, none of it actually tied the defendant to a criminal act. Just a lot of smoke and mirrors. All the jury was left with was a bunch of irritable attorneys with opposing theories, and they did exactly what they were supposed to do in that situation. Much to their credit, since the public pressure was enormous.
Yeah, I totally agree. Though the evidence points toward her being a total sociopath, the state failed to provide enough meaningful evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she murdered her daughter. I have really mixed feelings about the case. My gut certainly tells me that she probably did kill her daughter, and thus it's hard to see her walk, but on the other hand, I'm happy and actually somewhat proud that the jurors didn't allow emotion or outside influence to cloud their judgment in regards to the actual evidence, or lack thereof. Others might disagree, but I would rather five murderers walk than see one innocent person convicted of a murder they didn't commit. For better or worse, the justice system worked in this case.
Quote from: KenFSU on July 05, 2011, 07:44:51 PM
Others might disagree, but I would rather five murderers walk than see one innocent person convicted of a murder they didn't commit. For better or worse, the justice system worked in this case.
I agree with that. That's basically what "innocent until proven guilty" is supposed to do.
Your guys arguments sound pretty nice but if that's the way things are suppose to work, why does 99% of the people I follow in Facebook/Twitter/Etc going irate about how she's guilty and how she should be careful and how justice must be done?
About 50% of them are vocally complaining about how our Justice system is broken and how it should be fixed and politician this and that and I'm not exactly sure what they are saying but they are ready to blame somebody on it! How does this make you think about the future of our political system?
The system is screwed up because if it was a black woman or man. This case wouldn't have gotten this far. F*** this corrupted ass system it's time to fix it
Quote from: Duuuvalboy on July 06, 2011, 04:59:48 AM
The system is screwed up because if it was a black woman or man. This case wouldn't have gotten this far. Fuck this corrupted ass system it's time to fix it
OK, I'll bite. How about explaining how to fix the "corrupted ass system"? Seems to have worked just like it's supposed to work.
Quote from: Duuuvalboy on July 06, 2011, 04:59:48 AM
The system is screwed up because if it was a black woman or man. This case wouldn't have gotten this far. Fuck this corrupted ass system it's time to fix it
I agree completely.
Regards, Orenthal James Simpson
Quote from: cityimrov on July 05, 2011, 10:32:57 PM
Your guys arguments sound pretty nice but if that's the way things are suppose to work, why does 99% of the people I follow in Facebook/Twitter/Etc going irate about how she's guilty and how she should be careful and how justice must be done?
About 50% of them are vocally complaining about how our Justice system is broken and how it should be fixed and politician this and that and I'm not exactly sure what they are saying but they are ready to blame somebody on it! How does this make you think about the future of our political system?
That's because there are so many dimwits getting whipped into a frenzy by the likes of Geraldo Rivera and Nancy Grace. The burden of proof is much lower in the court of public opinion.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on July 05, 2011, 07:37:21 PM
Well, it's kind of to be expected. From what I saw watching that trial, the state just didn't prove its case. The prosecution never managed to establish where she died, when she died, why she died, how she died, much less who killed her, and the forensics, despite literally inventing new areas of science, was just much ado about nothing. In the end, none of it actually tied the defendant to a criminal act. Just a lot of smoke and mirrors. All the jury was left with was a bunch of irritable attorneys with opposing theories, and they did exactly what they were supposed to do in that situation. Much to their credit, since the public pressure was enormous.
WooHoo! We agree Chris!
I have many reservations about the verdicts and the prosecution did a poor job on the murder charges, but I can't understand how failing to report your missing child for 30 days would not be considered some form of negligent child abuse especially with the lies about the baby sitter.
Quote from: jaxnative on July 06, 2011, 08:27:09 AM
I have many reservations about the verdicts and the prosecution did a poor job on the murder charges, but I can't understand how failing to report your missing child for 30 days would not be considered some form of negligent child abuse especially with the lies about the baby sitter.
Cause she wasn't charged with those crimes? Not saying it wasn't being a bad mother or even some type of child neglect, but they don't put you on trial and then decide all of the bad things you did afterwards.
If she is innocent WHY did she keep lying about everything? All I have to say is you reap what you sow. OJ didnt go to jail for his murder's, but he eventually still ended up in jail anyway. If this woman is guilty (which I really think she is), she is not going to have a easy life at all.
I do keep reading people's reactions about how the "justice system is broken" and needs to be fixed. But this case to me, is a shining example of the system working perfectly. The system isn't designed to make sure the cops always get their man. It's designed to protect against abuses, and injustices against the innocent. When it was designed, it was designed with the exact idea KenFsu said, we'd rather have 10 guilty walk, than 1 innocent go in. The opposite of that is terrifying. That's why it isn't "are you kind of positive" or "what's more likely", it is to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt".
The state had no evidence other than circumstantial. They had no case to begin with. The case built against Anthony was so bad, that even Baez couldn't mess it up, although he tried.
Quote from: duvaldude08 on July 06, 2011, 08:45:28 AM
If she is innocent WHY did she keep lying about everything? All I have to say is you reap what you sow. OJ didnt go to jail for his murder's, but he eventually still ended up in jail anyway. If this woman is guilty (which I really think she is), she is not going to have a easy life at all.
Well I think it's pretty clear the girl has mental problems. During the trial, it came out that she lied to her friends and family for years before the kid ever disappeared. She would make up fake boyfriends, fake best friends, fake impressive-sounding jobs, fake vacations, etc., out of thin air, and run around telling everybody about them like it really happened. Maybe to trying impress people, I guess, or to make it seem like her life was better than it really was. Or maybe she's just a delusional person, god knows there are enough out there. But she'd been doing that kind of nonsense most of her life, it wasn't some recent thing. She did the same things with the detective that she'd been doing for years. And got busted for it, since she was (rightly) convicted of lying to an LEO. I'm just not sure you can impute a murder based on lies to a detective made by someone who's been a pathological liar for years before the murder.
^^^ Maybe the reason the defense went with not guilty ilo insanity, and let the trial play out and show bouts of really insane actions.
Maybe I'm one of the few that really don't think that she killed the child - directly, but a lot of indirect actions and non-actions actually led to the death.
The cover up is usually worse than the crime and that rings true in this case as well.
I agree with WSRN, I think her actions did lead to her child's death, but I'm not so sure she actually killed her. Someday we may know the truth but the jury, who are now being demonized, did their job. Whatever the evidence and the facts they were presented, was not enough to send her to prison, or worse, death row. Not to minimize the tragedy of the death of a child, but if the victim had been an adult, the emotions of the public would not have been as hot. Most of the reactions have been scathing and based strictly on emotions. Because a child died, onlookers have thrown out their ability to reason on why this conclusion was met. I too was shocked at first, but soon realized the case against her was just not strong enough to convict. I truly hope it was a tragic accident and a pathological liar was trying to cover up her neglect.
Let's not forget that this story would have been a dead issue three years ago if not for the whole "Missing white girl" component to the story. Yes, Cayleigh was a child, but the meme nonetheless whips up the media and public into a frenzy that makes a fair trial almost impossible....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6jiblDQpYs
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ridley/missing-white-girl-syndro_b_51632.html
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2006/03/diagnosing-missing-white-woman.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome
http://www.poynter.org/how-tos/newsgathering-storytelling/writing-tools/92749/the-lure-and-peril-of-missing-white-girl-syndrome/
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on July 06, 2011, 09:19:29 AM
Quote from: duvaldude08 on July 06, 2011, 08:45:28 AM
If she is innocent WHY did she keep lying about everything? All I have to say is you reap what you sow. OJ didnt go to jail for his murder's, but he eventually still ended up in jail anyway. If this woman is guilty (which I really think she is), she is not going to have a easy life at all.
Well I think it's pretty clear the girl has mental problems. During the trial, it came out that she lied to her friends and family for years before the kid ever disappeared. She would make up fake boyfriends, fake best friends, fake impressive-sounding jobs, fake vacations, etc., out of thin air, and run around telling everybody about them like it really happened. Maybe to trying impress people, I guess, or to make it seem like her life was better than it really was. Or maybe she's just a delusional person, god knows there are enough out there. But she'd been doing that kind of nonsense most of her life, it wasn't some recent thing. She did the same things with the detective that she'd been doing for years. And got busted for it, since she was (rightly) convicted of lying to an LEO. I'm just not sure you can impute a murder based on lies to a detective made by someone who's been a pathological liar for years before the murder.
Thats what makes this even more bizarre. I just want scream, "What the hell really happen!!???!!!!!!!!!"
Quote from: Jaxson on July 06, 2011, 10:43:27 AM
Let's not forget that this story would have been a dead issue three years ago if not for the whole "Missing white girl" component to the story. Yes, Cayleigh was a child, but the meme nonetheless whips up the media and public into a frenzy that makes a fair trial almost impossible....
Sounds pretty racist to me Jaxson. My wife was with OKC Victim Services through OSU University, and I'm here to tell you it didn't matter one wit who's missing baby it was, she poured herself into every case. She also has met her share of people that think because the cop was this color, or the victim that color, the resources were not used, a notion that is completely false. I've known a lot of Jacksonville, Palatka, St. Augustine, police and sheriff's deputies and it's amazing how the departments are completely multiracial. For your premise to be true, then dozens of Black, Hispanic or 'others' on these departments must have ignored both their work and their passions.
Frankly the only department in either Oklahoma or Florida that I've known to be racially corrupt is the one in Orlando. OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: Ocklawaha on July 06, 2011, 12:02:28 PM
Quote from: Jaxson on July 06, 2011, 10:43:27 AM
Let's not forget that this story would have been a dead issue three years ago if not for the whole "Missing white girl" component to the story. Yes, Cayleigh was a child, but the meme nonetheless whips up the media and public into a frenzy that makes a fair trial almost impossible....
Sounds pretty racist to me Jaxson. My wife was with OKC Victim Services through OSU University, and I'm here to tell you it didn't matter one wit who's missing baby it was, she poured herself into every case. She also has met her share of people that think because the cop was this color, or the victim that color, the resources were not used, a notion that is completely false. I've known a lot of Jacksonville, Palatka, St. Augustine, police and sheriff's deputies and it's amazing how the departments are completely multiracial. For your premise to be true, then dozens of Black, Hispanic or 'others' on these departments must have ignored both their work and their passions.
Frankly the only department in either Oklahoma or Florida that I've known to be racially corrupt is the one in Orlando.
OCKLAWAHA
Sorry, Ock, but I am not talking about law enforcement! I am talking about the media and how THEY ignore many deserving cases in favor of stories that they believe will get more ratings. I would NEVER malign law enforcement in such a way.
Please click on one of the links that I included with my post for a better picture of what I am saying...
Quote from: Ocklawaha on July 06, 2011, 12:02:28 PM
Quote from: Jaxson on July 06, 2011, 10:43:27 AM
Let's not forget that this story would have been a dead issue three years ago if not for the whole "Missing white girl" component to the story. Yes, Cayleigh was a child, but the meme nonetheless whips up the media and public into a frenzy that makes a fair trial almost impossible....
Sounds pretty racist to me Jaxson. My wife was with OKC Victim Services through OSU University, and I'm here to tell you it didn't matter one wit who's missing baby it was, she poured herself into every case. She also has met her share of people that think because the cop was this color, or the victim that color, the resources were not used, a notion that is completely false. I've known a lot of Jacksonville, Palatka, St. Augustine, police and sheriff's deputies and it's amazing how the departments are completely multiracial. For your premise to be true, then dozens of Black, Hispanic or 'others' on these departments must have ignored both their work and their passions.
Frankly the only department in either Oklahoma or Florida that I've known to be racially corrupt is the one in Orlando.
OCKLAWAHA
Notice that I never mentioned our LEOs, but the
MEDIA.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/08/us-crime-anthony-idUSTRE7620Y720110708
In any event , I hope this lady can live with what she did. O wait.. She wasn't proven guilty , so she must not have done it. About the same level of justice served as with OJ Simpson. Guess that was a double-suicide, not a murder.
Quote from: Timkin on July 07, 2011, 10:01:29 PM
In any event , I hope this lady can live with what she did. O wait.. She wasn't proven guilty , so she must not have done it. About the same level of justice served as with OJ Simpson. Guess that was a double-suicide, not a murder.
My mother is a lady. Your mother was a lady. Casey Anthony is definitely no lady!!! Patsy Stone would have made a better mother than Casey! ; )
Quote from: Timkin on July 07, 2011, 10:01:29 PM
In any event , I hope this lady can live with what she did. O wait.. She wasn't proven guilty , so she must not have done it. About the same level of justice served as with OJ Simpson. Guess that was a double-suicide, not a murder.
I keep seeing this comparison to O.J. but it doesn't really hold up. They were two entirely different cases. The OJ case was a case of botched investigation, mismanaged evidence, and horrific character problems with witnesses. The facts were there, and the exact theory of the murder events was presented. See Marcia Clark's "Without a Doubt".
Anthony's case didn't have the evidence. It used entirely untested methods (smell) as evidence and they just didn't hold up. Couple that with an inability of the prosecution to have a covincing theory of how the murder went down, and you just don't have enough for a conviction.
It was even worse with the Anthony trial, the prosecution's theory of the case was outright contradicted by the their own evidence. They claimed the girl was chloroformed, and then their experts on cross and the defense's experts all asknowledged they had done extensive testing for chloroform and residue and found no concentration anywhere that was higher than what exists naturally in the ambient atmosphere. They claimed the body was in the trunk for days in a Florida summer, but somehow there was no evidence of decomposition other than a rotting smell that, as it turned out, probably came from the rotting bag of garbage left in the trunk.
They claimed the stains in the trunk were evidence of decomposition, but under cross the state's expert acknowledged there was no chemical evidence of decomposition in the stains, and no DNA. Then the defense even trotted out the car dealer who said the trunk stains were already there when the Anthonys bought the car. Then on cross examination, it turned out the state's IT expert had screwed up the IP address for the 84 visits to a site on how to make chloroform, and that it was actually myspace.com that had been visited 84 times. Then the mother took the stand to say she had done the search on chloroform, not the daughter, when google autocorrected her search for a similar word. Which I think was a lie. But I doubt the jury gave the defendant's mother's testimony much weight anyway, a defendant's mother testifying on their behalf is about as shocking as the sun rising in the morning, and a whole lot less meaningful.
Then you have only two pieces of physical evidence, the first was the duct-tape, where you had the police detective lying on the stand, trying to say that, well, the duct tape had the same decorative pattern printed on it as the duct tape found at the Anthony home, but that it magically disappeared before he was able to snap a photo of it. Seriously? The duct tape on the body sat out in the Florida elements for how many months, and somehow a pattern printed on it only disappeared at the exact moment the cop tried to take a photo of it? Then you had a single strand of the girl's hair found in the trunk, which is weak, most people who've ever put a hair brush in their luggage can probably say the same.
Then, when you thought it couldn't get any weirder, out comes the city employee who found the body, and it turns out he'd been making calls to his friends for months bragging that he'd found the body and it was his "lottery ticket." This was important, because certain findings can be imputed to a defendant who is shown to have engaged in the intentional spoilation or destruction of evidence, which here would have been concealing the location of the body. That door slammed shut when it came out that the guy already knew where she was and held out trying to make a buck off it.
I have never seen a prosecution fall apart like this one. I mean, it's one thing to fail to meet your burden, but it's another thing entirely to spend 6 weeks disproving your own case. All of this should have been fact-checked and investigated before trial. What a ridiculous waste of tax dollars, $2mm spent by the state in forensics alone, when had they properly investigated they would have known they had no case. Either that or they did know, but with a typical prosecution mindset, they decided hey we're going to go for capital murder instead of negligent homicide, and we'll just steal James Cameron's idea from Titanic and cook up some computer videos of a little girl morphing into a skull and whatnot to shock the jury into disregarding the lack of evidence.
Who do the Orange County taxpayers see about their multimillion-dollar refund?
In the British justice system they have an alternative verdict to "Guilty" or "Not Guilty", it is "Not Proven" which might have been a better choice, at least as far as public sentiment goes.
Nice analysis, Chris.
Quote from: Jaxson on July 07, 2011, 11:03:29 PM
Quote from: Timkin on July 07, 2011, 10:01:29 PM
In any event , I hope this lady can live with what she did. O wait.. She wasn't proven guilty , so she must not have done it. About the same level of justice served as with OJ Simpson. Guess that was a double-suicide, not a murder.
My mother is a lady. Your mother was a lady. Casey Anthony is definitely no lady!!! Patsy Stone would have made a better mother than Casey! ; )
Edina Monsoon would have made a better Mother than Casey Anthony.
Edina: "They are trying to make out , that Patsy is a sex-crazed morally corrupt, drunken high-class prostitute, dahling "
But you're right Jaxson. And our justice system is clearly broken when there is little (none here) doubt that this "Mother" directly took this child's life, and she still was basically slapped on the hand for lying when she actually did far more. It is just like OJ. there is no one I have ever talked to , that did not think he murdered his ex and her friend..no one.. I have yet to find anyone who thinks otherwise in this case. The system is broken. Period.
Quote from: Timkin on July 08, 2011, 01:16:43 PM
Quote from: Jaxson on July 07, 2011, 11:03:29 PM
Quote from: Timkin on July 07, 2011, 10:01:29 PM
In any event , I hope this lady can live with what she did. O wait.. She wasn't proven guilty , so she must not have done it. About the same level of justice served as with OJ Simpson. Guess that was a double-suicide, not a murder.
My mother is a lady. Your mother was a lady. Casey Anthony is definitely no lady!!! Patsy Stone would have made a better mother than Casey! ; )
Edina Monsoon would have made a better Mother than Casey Anthony.
Edina: "They are trying to make out , that Patsy is a sex-crazed morally corrupt, drunken high-class prostitute, dahling "
But you're right Jaxson. And our justice system is clearly broken when there is little (none here) doubt that this "Mother" directly took this child's life, and she still was basically slapped on the hand for lying when she actually did far more. It is just like OJ. there is no one I have ever talked to , that did not think he murdered his ex and her friend..no one.. I have yet to find anyone who thinks otherwise in this case. The system is broken. Period.
The system isn't broken, unless you don't mind executing innocent people. Which would be the result if you changed the system in a way that would allow anyone to be convicted based on the evidence presented at the Anthony trial. You can't always have things both ways, the point of a trial isn't to help the cops. It's an evidentiary fact-finding enterprise, and if the facts don't support the charge brought, then that's really all there is to it and an acquittal was the correct course of action. Did she murder the kid? Nobody knows. Did she probably have something to do with the kid's death in some way? Of course. But nobody knows what that might have been, and unless you connect the dots, you can't just go convicting and sentencing people to death based on gut feelings. People are wrong, often. We already convict far too many innocent people as it is.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on July 08, 2011, 05:15:40 PM
The system isn't broken, unless you don't mind executing innocent people. Which would be the result if you changed the system in a way that would allow anyone to be convicted based on the evidence presented at the Anthony trial. You can't always have things both ways, the point of a trial isn't to help the cops. It's an evidentiary fact-finding enterprise, and if the facts don't support the charge brought, then that's really all there is to it and an acquittal was the correct course of action. Did she murder the kid? Nobody knows. Did she probably have something to do with the kid's death in some way? Of course. But nobody knows what that might have been, and unless you connect the dots, you can't just go convicting and sentencing people to death based on gut feelings. People are wrong, often. We already convict far too many innocent people as it is.
+10000 more well said than anything I've heard so far
IF she probably had something to do with the kid's death (this is even your opinion, Chris and I do respect your opinion) that would make her, at the very least an accessory to murder. You are correct.. based on the evidence presented, she is off the hook. But the lady either directly or indirectly had something to do with the death of the child...yet she is not convicted of anything except lying which was not disputed at all .. That should be the first clue and should have given the jury VERY reasonable basis for her being directly responsible for the child's murder. THAT is the problem I find with the system. It seems to me , if you have a good enough attorney , there can be solid evidence, and you can still buy your way out of it. I totally agree that we convict innocent people...by the same token we let GUILTY , incompetent and apparently heartless people like this lady go with basically a slap on the wrist, so to speak for lying. I stick to my opinion.. The justice system is broken. Yes innocent people are convicted.. something terribly wrong with that. Guilty people set free even though they killed someone (cite OJ and this incompetent Mother) . Something still terribly wrong.
Unfortunately, things do go terribly wrong. In this case there were many dots but not enough lines to connect enough of them to prove the charge of murder. That poor baby didn't walk herself into the woods but if you're going to jump to a conclusion (even if it is the correct one) then in our justice system the only way you win the game of hopscotch is to hit every number in every box.
Because the child was in the care of the mother, and ended up in the underbrush, I can't understand why something like child abuse, child endangerment or whatever the violation might be wasn't at least a part of the charges. If someone found a child in their car seat in a closed hot car you could bet your bippy the one in charge would be arrested and convicted.
Quote from: Ralph W on July 08, 2011, 10:23:39 PM
Unfortunately, things do go terribly wrong. In this case there were many dots but not enough lines to connect enough of them to prove the charge of murder. That poor baby didn't walk herself into the woods but if you're going to jump to a conclusion (even if it is the correct one) then in our justice system the only way you win the game of hopscotch is to hit every number in every box.
Because the child was in the care of the mother, and ended up in the underbrush, I can't understand why something like child abuse, child endangerment or whatever the violation might be wasn't at least a part of the charges. If someone found a child in their car seat in a closed hot car you could bet your bippy the one in charge would be arrested and convicted.
Bingo, Ralph! While I totally concur with Chris' position and similar, I still maintain that even a moron could tell this "Mother" directly or indirectly is responsible... yet she faces no charges. A horrible case of blind justice.
She did face charges. She prevailed against them.
Not having paid the amount of attention to this case as so many seem to have done, I don't have an opinion as to the actual guilt or innocence of the accused. The jury did.
If the glove don't fit...
Let me ask this question to the ones who know how the law works - If they had tried her on a lesser charge ilo 1DM do you think there would have been sufficient evidence to convict? Or was it because the prosecution went for the gusto that she was awarded an acquittal and a slap on the wrist for perjury.
Second thought to this, WTF was the prosecution thinking when they went to trial for 1DM, knowing the lack of evidence that they had. Where was the level head talking them down to a reasonable charge that might have stuck?
Quote from: Timkin on July 09, 2011, 12:41:03 AM
Quote from: Ralph W on July 08, 2011, 10:23:39 PM
Unfortunately, things do go terribly wrong. In this case there were many dots but not enough lines to connect enough of them to prove the charge of murder. That poor baby didn't walk herself into the woods but if you're going to jump to a conclusion (even if it is the correct one) then in our justice system the only way you win the game of hopscotch is to hit every number in every box.
Because the child was in the care of the mother, and ended up in the underbrush, I can't understand why something like child abuse, child endangerment or whatever the violation might be wasn't at least a part of the charges. If someone found a child in their car seat in a closed hot car you could bet your bippy the one in charge would be arrested and convicted.
Bingo, Ralph! While I totally concur with Chris' position and similar, I still maintain that even a moron could tell this "Mother" directly or indirectly is responsible... yet she faces no charges. A horrible case of blind justice.
So what your saying is, if you are accused of something (example: murder) and the jury doesn't seem to be convinced you are a murderer. Then that means you should be tried again for another charge? If that charge doesn't work, you should be tried again for another charge until they figure out what crime you actually caused? This keeps going on and on and on no matter how many years or decades it takes until "justice" is done and the court finds out what you did? Should you be found not guilty of any of this stuff, what happens then? What happens to the years of your life spent in the court system?
Is this what your saying or am I missing something?
I believe the state has one chance to get it right and if the charges related to the case were not included, such as were the four counts of lying to law enforcement officials, then those charges can no longer be brought.
Quote from: cityimrov on July 09, 2011, 05:55:15 PM
Quote from: Timkin on July 09, 2011, 12:41:03 AM
Quote from: Ralph W on July 08, 2011, 10:23:39 PM
Unfortunately, things do go terribly wrong. In this case there were many dots but not enough lines to connect enough of them to prove the charge of murder. That poor baby didn't walk herself into the woods but if you're going to jump to a conclusion (even if it is the correct one) then in our justice system the only way you win the game of hopscotch is to hit every number in every box.
Because the child was in the care of the mother, and ended up in the underbrush, I can't understand why something like child abuse, child endangerment or whatever the violation might be wasn't at least a part of the charges. If someone found a child in their car seat in a closed hot car you could bet your bippy the one in charge would be arrested and convicted.
Bingo, Ralph! While I totally concur with Chris' position and similar, I still maintain that even a moron could tell this "Mother" directly or indirectly is responsible... yet she faces no charges. A horrible case of blind justice.
So what your saying is, if you are accused of something (example: murder) and the jury doesn't seem to be convinced you are a murderer. Then that means you should be tried again for another charge? If that charge doesn't work, you should be tried again for another charge until they figure out what crime you actually caused? This keeps going on and on and on no matter how many years or decades it takes until "justice" is done and the court finds out what you did? Should you be found not guilty of any of this stuff, what happens then? What happens to the years of your life spent in the court system?
Is this what your saying or am I missing something?
I will answer that by simply asking you this question. Do you (personally) belive that she was either DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY involved in the murder of this child? Simple question. I am not arguing that the dots do not connect completely... but they connect enough for me, personally to believe that she was either directly the murderer or had something to do with it.
Quote from: Timkin on July 10, 2011, 03:53:59 PM
Quote from: cityimrov on July 09, 2011, 05:55:15 PM
Quote from: Timkin on July 09, 2011, 12:41:03 AM
Quote from: Ralph W on July 08, 2011, 10:23:39 PM
Unfortunately, things do go terribly wrong. In this case there were many dots but not enough lines to connect enough of them to prove the charge of murder. That poor baby didn't walk herself into the woods but if you're going to jump to a conclusion (even if it is the correct one) then in our justice system the only way you win the game of hopscotch is to hit every number in every box.
Because the child was in the care of the mother, and ended up in the underbrush, I can't understand why something like child abuse, child endangerment or whatever the violation might be wasn't at least a part of the charges. If someone found a child in their car seat in a closed hot car you could bet your bippy the one in charge would be arrested and convicted.
Bingo, Ralph! While I totally concur with Chris' position and similar, I still maintain that even a moron could tell this "Mother" directly or indirectly is responsible... yet she faces no charges. A horrible case of blind justice.
So what your saying is, if you are accused of something (example: murder) and the jury doesn't seem to be convinced you are a murderer. Then that means you should be tried again for another charge? If that charge doesn't work, you should be tried again for another charge until they figure out what crime you actually caused? This keeps going on and on and on no matter how many years or decades it takes until "justice" is done and the court finds out what you did? Should you be found not guilty of any of this stuff, what happens then? What happens to the years of your life spent in the court system?
Is this what your saying or am I missing something?
I will answer that by simply asking you this question. Do you (personally) belive that she was either DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY involved in the murder of this child? Simple question. I am not arguing that the dots do not connect completely... but they connect enough for me, personally to believe that she was either directly the murderer or had something to do with it.
I cannot answer that question. I haven't watched the trial or even the media coverage. Except for a very few snippets that CNBC shows in their 10 second blurb, a Twitter/Facebook/etc account full of outrage, and this thread - I know barely anything about this case. I'm not even sure where this case took place at!
However, what I do see is a whole bunch of people ready to drastically change the entire legal system. That's what concerns me. Politicians know this story riles people up and if they can use it to change laws which will eventually decide court cases of not only this story but thousands to millions of other people - that concerns me.
I would only see the system changed because I did watch enough of it and follow it well enough to have an opinion. Maybe if I had some doubt about this lady , I would not be so upset at the outcome.
Reasonable doubt is one thing. I just do not buy into the notion that this woman was not involved in the death of the child. I think she either directly did it, or was an accessory to it , and either way because of "reasonable doubt" she walks. Just her lying to law enforcement should have put "reasonable doubt" into the credibility of her story. OJ's trial was basicly the same thing.. Botched up Prosecution....so he got away with it.. but the evidence against him and her , to me at least, is too damning .
Too late, the pieces are falling. It's happening. It's happening very very quickly. Laws like these usually take months to years of debate to prevent any "side-effects". People want this law to happen, tomorrow!
Here's the first fallout: "Caylee's Law":
"Florida's proposal would make it a felony for a parent or other caregiver to not report a child under the age of 12 missing after 48 hours. It also makes it a felony to not report a child's death or "location of a child's corpse" to police within two hours of the death."
http://www.news4jax.com/news/28495818/detail.html
Also look at:
http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/11/cayleys-law-crime-fighter-or-more-grief-for-mourning-parents-and-troubled-teens/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/caylees-law-casey-anthony-_n_893953.html
Wow, a felony. This is a dangerous law - especially if it has strict enforcement. If people (especially parents) really want this law as it is being discussed today, I really hope they are paying close attention to the person they vote for attorney general.
As for the jury...
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/28509115/detail.html
http://www.wpbf.com/news/28502086/detail.html
Quote from: cityimrov on July 11, 2011, 12:39:18 PM
Too late, the pieces are falling. It's happening. It's happening very very quickly. Laws like these usually take months to years of debate to prevent any "side-effects". People want this law to happen, tomorrow!
Here's the first fallout: "Caylee's Law":
"Florida's proposal would make it a felony for a parent or other caregiver to not report a child under the age of 12 missing after 48 hours. It also makes it a felony to not report a child's death or "location of a child's corpse" to police within two hours of the death."
http://www.news4jax.com/news/28495818/detail.html
Also look at:
http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/11/cayleys-law-crime-fighter-or-more-grief-for-mourning-parents-and-troubled-teens/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/caylees-law-casey-anthony-_n_893953.html
Wow, a felony. This is a dangerous law - especially if it has strict enforcement. If people (especially parents) really want this law as it is being discussed today, I really hope they are paying close attention to the person they vote for attorney general.
As for the jury...
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/28509115/detail.html
http://www.wpbf.com/news/28502086/detail.html
So if I don't report my child missing because my child was in the care of my friend on a trip with my child's friend, BAM! I would be in the slammer.
Gee thanks a lot leg jerkers who RUSH to the legislation. That's like acting without thinking.
-Josh
Interesting update on that law. It's turning out to be very popular.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/os-caylees-law-qpoll-20110805,0,5861598.story
The article doesn't say but I'm curious if parents are strong supporters of the law since it affects them the most.