Dubstepforum.com

You can't fry someone because you're pretty sure they did it. It sucks, but a functioning legal system is more important than any one case.You want the jury to rely on their emotions or solid proof?

If anyone is interested this is a good site for a timeline of events and transcripts etc

http://www.acandyrose.com/caylee_anthon ... _index.htm

Eh, she'll get convicted of all the lies and shit and that's enough for me. I don't care if she's a stupid, lying cum dumpster who has a dead 2 year old child, she shouldn't have pulled bullshit and she'll get what she deserves one day.

I think it's funny, once a mother MICROWAVED her baby alive and all she got was a paragraph in a newspaper. She was pretty much some drunk bitch who was probably once the same kind of cum dumpster this casey bitch is. Really, I'd like to see someone persecute the press for the fucking circus they've started to make some money. They'd get away scot free, but I'd still sleep better knowing someone tried.

Back to job hunting!

LACE wrote:You can't fry someone because you're pretty sure they did it.

Not reporting your 2 yo missing for 31 days seems like a legit fryable offense to me.

Sure does, she's a textbook sociopath. But is it solid proof in court? Eeehh..not really.

"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent should suffer" -Blackstone

Kodachrome wrote:Plenty have been convicted on (less) circumstantial evidence, that she didn't is a travesty.

This, x 1,000,000.

well you'll be happy she got well above the average on her misdemeanors. 4 Misdemeanors = 4 x 1 year CONSECUTIVE. If you or I had the same we'd have likely had those concurrent or less initial sentences all together..

oh god i was flipping through the news channels and so many angry idiots getting air time and the media flocking to them like vultures.

deadly habit wrote:oh god i was flipping through the news channels and so many angry idiots getting air time and the media flocking to them like vultures.

yeah nancy grace fans.... getting wound up and thinking they're fit to be a jury


well within your right to express your opinion.... but respect the legal process and understand why we sequester our juries.

svpreme wrote:A couple of jurors spoke to the press...

Pretty much confirms exactly what most of the people in this thread have been saying.

After reading what they had to say, I find their point of view a bit more understandable...but I think it's safe to say that this case was pretty unique in terms of the EXTENT to which there was circumstantial evidence.

More than anything else, this shit is just tragic and fucked up.

"In our country ... we have to prove it. You can't just be like, 'Yeah that really looks bad. Smells bad. Looks bad.'

May I have a juror of this caliber when I'm on trial.

It's fucked up, a lot of fucked up shit happens, but it's still fucked up.

No matter how fucked up though, it isn't worth loosening the entire legal system we've spent centuries to set in place.
Don't let this trial be an excuse for a witch hunt later. I'm glad she was found innocent (although I believe she was guilty) because in 50 years, we won't have to deal with idiots saying things like, "Remember the Casey Anthony trial? We don't need hard evidence if we can all assume that you're guilty." This case is not worth losing the productivity of our legal system (however fucked up it can be), once innocent people start ending up behind bars and sentenced to death, then our system is counterproductive and will destroy us.

"the juror told the St. Petersburg Times in an exclusive interview as he was, the paper says, overcome by tears."I wish we had more evidence to put her away.

"I truly do ..."

Surely it should be "I wish we had more evidence to know wtf happened in the first place." ?

Reminds me of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parachute_Murder

Bit of the same thing, woman accused of murder. All the evidence was circumstantial (and even the circumstantial evidence wasn't convincing of her being guilty).
Judge put her away for 30 years, obviously "guilty". I give it a pretty high chance that she's not guilty.

And about the Anthony case; maybe she's guilty, but as long as there's no hard evidence... The jury did her work.

NilsFG wrote:Reminds me of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parachute_Murder

Bit of the same thing, woman accused of murder. All the evidence was circumstantial (and even the circumstantial evidence wasn't convincing of her being guilty).
Judge put her away for 30 years, obviously "guilty". I give it a pretty high chance that she's not guilty.

And about the Anthony case; maybe she's guilty, but as long as there's no hard evidence... The jury did her work.

yeah but with that you know where they died, how they died, when they died


this case there wasn't even 'decent' circumstancial evidence.

So in other words the jury just did her work and the not guilty conviction is normal.