Casey Anthony Contempt

JR4AU · « **Reply #100 on:** July 07, 2011, 11:42:54 AM »

Quote from: Snaggletiger on July 07, 2011, 10:56:52 AM

The thing is that there are 4-5 lawyers that have weighed in on this issue and all say the exact same thing. If you notice, all of us think she's most likely guilty as hell but are simply saying under our system....good, bad or ugly...the jury did what they should have done.

Here's the real deal. Common sense for those that like to tag all their "ideas" and "opinions" with in order to make it sound intelligent.

In many cases the defense is hoping to find ONE juror...JUST ONE that feels so strongly that they just can't in good conscience vote "guilty", to hang up the jury.

In this case, a jury listened to all the evidence. A death qualified jury, which means more conservative right off the bat. More likely to convict. They listened without Nancy Grace screaming "she's guilty" for a whole month plus. And at the end of it all, the PROSECUTION had such a shitty case that not one...NOT ONE SINGLE JUROR THOUGH ENOUGH OF THE CASE AND EVIDENCE TO STAND THEIR GROUND WITH "GUILTY" AND HANG THE JURY SO THE STATE COULD GET ANOTHER CRACK! NOT ONE! Now, if I apply good old "common sense" and a good dose of real world experience...THAT tells me all I need to know. Make all the lawyer cracks you want. That my friends says it all. The one juror that's spoken out has said the bullshit and diversions didn't factor in...the bottom line is they just had nothing to hand their hat on for a murder conviction, despite the fact they wanted to find that peg.

Kaos · « **Reply #101 on:** July 07, 2011, 11:46:38 AM »

Quote from: JR4AU on July 07, 2011, 11:42:54 AM

Here's the real deal. Common sense for those that like to tag all their "ideas" and "opinions" with. In many cases the defense is hoping to find ONE juror...JUST ONE that feels so strongly that they just can't in good conscience vote "guilty", to hang up the jury. In this case, a jury listened to all the evidence. A death qualified jury, which means more conservative right off the bat. More likely to convict. They listened without Nancy Grace screaming "she's guilty" for a whole month plus. And at the end of it all, the PROSECUTION had such a shitty case that not one...NOT ONE SINGLE JUROR THOUGH ENOUGH OF THE CASE AND EVIDENCE TO STAND THEIR GROUND WITH "GUILTY" AND HANG THE JURY SO THE STATE COULD GET ANOTHER CRACK! NOT ONE! Now, if I apply good old "common sense" and a good dose of real world experience...THAT tells me all I need to know. Make all the lawyer cracks you want. That my friends says it all. The one juror that's spoken out has said the bullshit and diversions didn't factor in...the bottom line is they just had nothing to hand their hat on for a murder conviction, despite the fact they wanted to find that peg.

Juror:

We didn't say not guilty. She was guilty. They just didn't prove it.

Something's wrong with that.

JR4AU · « **Reply #102 on:** July 07, 2011, 11:49:33 AM »

Quote from: Kaos on July 07, 2011, 11:46:38 AM

Juror:

We didn't say not guilty. She was guilty. They just didn't prove it.

Something's wrong with that.

That's not exactly the way she phrased it, but close enough. This is why over-charging sometimes backfires. They, as I understand what she said, thought something was up, but she clearly said there was NO EVIDENCE of how the child died, or who, IF ANYBODY was responsible, and to what level they were responsible.

GarMan · « **Reply #103 on:** July 07, 2011, 11:53:38 AM »

Quote from: Kaos on July 07, 2011, 11:46:38 AM

Juror:

We didn't say not guilty. She was guilty. They just didn't prove it.

Something's wrong with that.

Yeah... An overzealous prosecution trying this as a capital case with circumstantial evidence, rather than securing more reasonable convictions...

Kaos · « **Reply #104 on:** July 07, 2011, 11:57:23 AM »

Quote from: JR4AU on July 07, 2011, 11:49:33 AM

That's not exactly the way she phrased it, but close enough. This is why over-charging sometimes backfires. They, as I understand what she said, thought something was up, but she clearly said there was NO EVIDENCE of how the child died, or who, IF ANYBODY was responsible, and to what level they were responsible.

That's CSI Miami's fault.

We've gotten to the point that the common sense simp referred to no longer applies. Do you really have to have DNA samples when the parent lies and the kid is discovered bound and its airways blocked?

We're so accustomed to watching Calliegh and Delko and Boa Vista figure out that the pool boy did it by examining the rectal excretions of a tsetse fly that we expect absolutes.

When real life investigators -- who don't have miracle tsetse fly probes -- can't make that conclusive determination, the remainder of the evidence is rendered moot.

That's not reasonable doubt in my book. That's unreasonable expectation.

JR4AU · « **Reply #105 on:** July 07, 2011, 11:59:58 AM »

Quote from: GarMan on July 07, 2011, 11:53:38 AM

Yeah... An overzealous prosecution trying this as a capital case with circumstantial evidence, rather than securing more reasonable convictions...

Dude, are you on drugs, or starting to see the light? By the way, there was very little circumstantial evidence as to murder here...it was more a case of the prosecution asking for a murder conviction by character assassination, which with Casey, wasn't hard to do...surprisingly, juries aren't nearly as stupid as some people think.

By the way...had this prosecution team been able to give the jury something...a smoking gun...for instance...found where Casey actually purchased or possessed chloroform. Found a roll of duct tape in her house and matched the piece found on the body to that roll, or a fingerprint of Casey's on that duct tape found...you'd have had a guilty verdict here. They had squadoosh.

JR4AU · « **Reply #106 on:** July 07, 2011, 12:03:59 PM »

Quote from: Kaos on July 07, 2011, 11:57:23 AM

That's CSI Miami's fault.

We've gotten to the point that the common sense simp referred to no longer applies. Do you really have to have DNA samples when the parent lies and the kid is discovered bound and its airways blocked?

We're so accustomed to watching Calliegh and Delko and Boa Vista figure out that the pool boy did it by examining the rectal excretions of a tsetse fly that we expect absolutes.

When real life investigators -- who don't have miracle tsetse fly probes -- can't make that conclusive determination, the remainder of the evidence is rendered moot.

That's not reasonable doubt in my book. That's unreasonable expectation.

You're arguing both ends of the spectrum. Yes, CSI makes some things tough in my business.

I'LL SAY THIS AGAIN...THERE'S PLENTY OF EVIDENCE OF A COVERUP, AND SHE WAS CONVICTED OF THAT...

NONE, NO EVIDENCE, JACK FUCKING SQUAT, SQUADOOSH EVIDENCE OF A MURDER, OR WHO COMMITTED IT IF IT WAS A MURDER.

Kaos · « **Reply #107 on:** July 07, 2011, 12:06:40 PM »

Is the baby dead?

Dead baby = Evidence

GarMan · « **Reply #108 on:** July 07, 2011, 12:10:44 PM »

Quote from: JR4AU on July 07, 2011, 11:59:58 AM

Dude, are you on drugs, or starting to see the light?

Drugs... Definitely drugs... ALWAYS...

Quote from: JR4AU on July 07, 2011, 11:59:58 AM

By the way, there was very little circumstantial evidence as to murder here...it was more a case of the prosecution asking for a murder conviction by character assassination, which with Casey, wasn't hard to do...surprisingly, juries aren't nearly as stupid as some people think.

We still don't know it was a murder... There was a death, a cover-up and an awful lot of lies. We'll never know the truth.

JR4AU · « **Reply #109 on:** July 07, 2011, 12:29:11 PM »

Quote from: GarMan on July 07, 2011, 12:10:44 PM

Drugs... Definitely drugs... ALWAYS...

We still don't know it was a murder... There was a death, a cover-up and an awful lot of lies. We'll never know the truth.

Can I buy you a beer, a joint, a line?

Snaggletiger · « **Reply #110 on:** July 07, 2011, 12:34:23 PM »

BTDub....she was just sentenced to 6 days with her time already served. Don't you people think she's been punished enough? Haters...the whole lot of you.

Vandy Vol · « **Reply #111 on:** July 07, 2011, 12:49:26 PM »

Quote from: Kaos on July 07, 2011, 11:46:38 AM

Juror:

We didn't say not guilty. She was guilty. They just didn't prove it.

Something's wrong with that.

There is something wrong with that. The part that is wrong is saying that you know she's guilty but that no one can prove it.

How do you know she's guilty if you can't prove it? Because she partied while her daughter was missing? I mean, her actions were completely fucked up, but they don't actually show that she did anything.

Do her actions show that she might be guilty? Yeah, sure, I guess, or they could show that she's just a crazy fucked up bitch that was glad that something happened to her daughter so that she didn't have to deal with her anymore. You can't convict her on speculation as to why she was being a drunken whore for 31 days, nor can you know that she murdered her daughter simply because she ate 25 dicks, 6 pussies, and 9 assholes during the time that her daughter was missing.

Kaos · « **Reply #112 on:** July 07, 2011, 12:51:14 PM »

Quote from: Vandy Vol on July 07, 2011, 12:49:26 PM

There is something wrong with that. The part that is wrong is saying that you know she's guilty but that no one can prove it.

How do you know she's guilty if you can't prove it? Because she partied while her daughter was missing? I mean, her actions were completely fucked up, but they don't actually show that she did anything.

Do her actions show that she might be guilty? Yeah, sure, I guess, or they could show that she's just a crazy fucked up bitch that was glad that something happened to her daughter so that she didn't have to deal with her anymore. You can't convict her on speculation as to why she was being a drunken whore for 31 days, nor can you know that she murdered her daughter simply because she ate 25 dicks, 6 pussies, and 9 assholes during the time that her daughter was missing.

Oh, but I already did.