Casey Anthony Trial

[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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

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.

It's the justice system, and this is the justice system working, like it or not. Whoever said they'd rather have 100 guilty people go free than one innocent person imprisoned, well I agree, but this case is a consequence of that. And we don't KNOW what happened.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

It's the justice system, and this is the justice system working, like it or not. Whoever said they'd rather have 100 guilty people go free than one innocent person imprisoned, well I agree, but this case is a consequence of that. And we don't KNOW what happened.

I agree. As a friend and I were discussing earlier (Prosecutor Ashton also said this), personal reactions aside, it makes no sense to say you support justice and innocence until proven guilt yet you only support it when you agree with the verdict.

The justice system has hundreds if not thousands of people who were wrongly convicted over the years. For a small percentage of those people, they will eventually be vindicated. A radio station did a show about that last week (also: http://www.innocenceproject.org/). Likewise, there will also be people who were found not guilty but they MAY have done the crime. I just hope that people operate by the law and don't attempt to take the law into their own hands.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

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. Now I'm legitimately angry which is almost worse than I was just righteously indignant but didn't really know what was going on.

I know you said you don't know much about the legal system but I cannot understand why people (not you) are acting so baffled. It is one thing to be shocked or angry over the verdict. It's another thing to act as though these legal dynamics are something new. I think it speaks to a number of things including, as we said before, how people tend not to pay attention until they are interested in the particular case for some reason. This could be a teachable moment about various aspects of the legal system and the media. However, I can't help but be floored and mildly amused that people are making so many judgments when they are so uninformed about the legal system.