Casey Anthony Trial

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by violetpretty

Innocent people do not lie to police. Accidents are not made to look like murders. Unfortunately, common sense is not proof of guilt in a court of law.

This isn't about guilt vs. innocence. She was convicted of lying so the whole liar thing is covered. A liar does not make a murderer unless there is evidence as such. Stranger things have happened so an accident looking like a murder is not so impossible that it could remove doubt.

I don't consider any of this common sense. It may be emotion and assumption but not common sense. And thank God the law is not (solely) based on what some consider common sense.

[violetpretty]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

This isn't about guilt vs. innocence. She was convicted of lying so the whole liar thing is covered. A liar does not make a murderer unless there is evidence as such. Stranger things have happened so an accident looking like a murder is not so impossible that it could remove doubt.

I don't consider any of this common sense. It may be emotion and assumption but not common sense. And thank God the law is not (solely) based on what some consider common sense.

I suppose I didn't make clear that I DO understand the difference between innocent and "not guilty". I understand, and agree with the jury's verdict. There was not enough evidence to convict. That doesn't mean I don't think the bitch did it.

A liar does not a murderer make in an American court of law. My point is that if you are innocent of a crime, you know the truth will save you, and therefore, you tell the truth. That sounds like common sense to me.

She's just lucky it took investigators 6 months to find the body, or else there'd probably be some pretty damning physical evidence.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by violetpretty

I suppose I didn't make clear that I DO understand the difference between innocent and "not guilty". I understand, and agree with the jury's verdict. There was not enough evidence to convict.

Cool.

I still don't consider any of this common sense.

ETA: I did see where you said you're glad you live in a country where people are innocent until proven guilty.

[violetpretty]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Cool.

I still don't consider any of this common sense.

I already knew you don't have any.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by violetpretty

I already knew you don't have any.

Uh...are you bored?

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by violetpretty

A liar does not a murderer make in an American court of law. My point is that if you are innocent of a crime, you know the truth will save you, and therefore, you tell the truth. That sounds like common sense to me.

LOL The truth has sent many a man to jail. Sorry maybe I was born into a cynical race so truth in a court of law has never done a lot of the people I've known any good.

She's just lucky it took investigators 6 months to find the body, or else there'd probably be some pretty damning physical evidence.

Court cases have convicted people on bodies that have been found 3, 5 and 10 years later so I can't agree with you on that one.

But in the grand scheme I understand where your thoughts are coming from so hey.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

LOL The truth has sent many a man to jail. Sorry maybe I was born into a cynical race so truth in a court of law has never done a lot of the people I've known any good.

Is that cynical race the human race?

Originally Posted by BluPhire

Court cases have convicted people on bodies that have been found 3, 5 and 10 years later so I can't agree with you on that one.

But in the grand scheme I understand where your thoughts are coming from so hey.

Be careful not to make bored violetpretty attempt to come at you. LOL.

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Is that cynical race the human race?

There goes my bait. LOL

Be careful not to make bored violetpretty attempt to come at you. LOL.

Like I said, I understand where she is coming from. Everybody that is having an emotional issue has yet to bring facts to the table.

I mean even Nancy Grace was more focused on her being a bad mother and who is Caylee's father (like not knowing who the father is somehow punishes Casey) than actually quoting the facts that the jury possibly overlooked.

Why? Because she didn't have facts that the jury had.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

There goes my bait. LOL

There it went. Down the toilet. Fail.

[AlphaFrog]

I had a sales rep today start in on "Shame about that verdict yesterday..." When I agreed that "Yes, it was a shame that the prosecution didn't meet their burden of proof and the jury had to follow the law.", he changed his tune pretty quickly.

I had the same kneejerk reaction many did; she's probably guilty and it's terrible that she may be getting away woth murder. However, after hearing all the doubt that the media had done a pretty good job of hiding, I have to agree that the proof just wasn't there. That only leaves one thing to say: KARMA'S A BITCH.

[Munchkin03]

Well, it's the role of the prosecutor to bring the case in a certain way. The prosecutors failed to do so--there was reasonable doubt pinging all over the place.

My FB page hasn't been popping the way that some of y'all have experienced. I'm lucky, I guess.

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

My FB page hasn't been popping the way that some of y'all have experienced. I'm lucky, I guess.

Just means you have boring friends.

LOL

Just messing with you.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Wow, so you'd impose a burden on the defense that not only would they have to prove innocence rather than keep the other side from proving guilt, but further, you'd require them to prove someone else did it?

And with what defendant's crime lab and investigative force would they do this magic you speak of?

Um, what magic are you rambling about? I never said anything about "the defense" unless police and detectives are part of "the defense." I'm not referring to defense attorneys if that's what you mean. If there isn't conclusive evidence that Casey did it than I would hope the investigation would continue to find who did. If the work thus far has been to tie Casey to the murder, then perhaps there are other avenues/suspects previously unexplored that could be now if that's possible. Of course, that's if they can even prove how Caylee died which is a long shot, I know. There's no need to be an sarcastic, know-it-all arse, Kevin. I already said I don't know a lot about this and am only stating what I'd like to see happen.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Christiangirl already said she doesn't know much about the law.

Christiangirl, being found not guilty does not mean you were found innocent and it does not require proof that someone else did it. The point is whether or not the evidence can convict YOU of doing it. If there's evidence that someone else and someone in particular did it, okay I guess, but generally speaking a separate trial would have to delve much further into that.

I know already knew the first bit (not happy about it but I understand now). Thank you for clarifying the bolded. I was pretty angry at hearing the verdict the first time, but I see why it had to happen. And iDied at those pix posted. GC never lets me down on that front.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

Um, what magic are you rambling about? I never said anything about "the defense" unless police and detectives are part of "the defense." I'm not referring to defense attorneys if that's what you mean. If there isn't conclusive evidence that Casey did it than I would hope the investigation would continue to find who did. If the work thus far has been to tie Casey to the murder, then perhaps there are other avenues/suspects previously unexplored that could be now if that's possible. Of course, that's if they can even prove how Caylee died which is a long shot, I know. There's no need to be an sarcastic, know-it-all arse, Kevin. I already said I don't know a lot about this and am only stating what I'd like to see happen.



I know already knew the first bit (not happy about it but I understand now). Thank you for clarifying the bolded. I was pretty angry at hearing the verdict the first time, but I see why it had to happen. And iDied at those pix posted. GC never lets me down on that front.

Thing is, the prosecution/investigators are probably fairly certain that they are right and that this is where the investigation led. If there were more suspects, then they might continue to proceed down those lines, but a conviction without new evidence would be all the more difficult for the media circus of this trial.

Her acquittal doesn't mean they didn't find the killer, it means they couldn't prove it. Nor does it mean that she IS the killer, but they may simply have no other significant evidence. A lawyer can better say how likely it is for someone else to be tried.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Thing is, the prosecution/investigators are probably fairly certain that they are right and that this is where the investigation led. If there were more suspects, then they might continue to proceed down those lines, but a conviction without new evidence would be all the more difficult for the media circus of this trial.

Her acquittal doesn't mean they didn't find the killer, it means they couldn't prove it. Nor does it mean that she IS the killer, but they may simply have no other significant evidence. A lawyer can better say how likely it is for someone else to be tried.

So basically, this is a mess all around. If she did do it, she got away with it. If she didn't, it's highly likely we'll never know who did. And if there's new evidence that implicates her, it won't matter because she can't be tried again.

That just flat out sucks.

*sigh*......Thanks for that. The scholar in me is glad to learn something new but now I'm legitimately angry which is almost worse than when I was just righteously indignant but didn't really know what was going on.