Casey Anthony found not guilty of murdering daughter

adoucette and superstring01

Both of you have made strawmen of my argument. Of course if we were to just imprison willy-nilly, assume guilt first instead of suspicion or innocents, like the soviets did, yes that would cause far greater damage then letting the guilty go, but that was not what I was arguing for. I did not say the government could just arrest anyone or on shoddy evidence, I still demand considerable proof to convict, and I'm not demanding we assume guilt first only that we accept that we never actually presumed innocent first, if we did we would not arrest and hold people in custody before we even put them on trial, clearly the accused is in a state of suspicion, a state which they can never get out off even if found "not guilty" because the public will always be suspicious, of course if we were to have the state acquit the person as completely innocent that might help.

Many countries have better legal systems than the USA, nothing utopian about it. Scotland for example has "guilty", "not guilty" and "not proven", 3 possible verdicts.

We already do whether you accept it or not. Casey Anthony will likely be hounded all her life now by the public, the fact the government technically won't is inconsequential.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Faulty evidence, loose evidence that leaves questions in ones mind? The law states that one needs enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What is reasonable doubt, that is not defined. Evidence that this women was the last one with the murder child, that the child was poison with chloroform, that the child was transported in her car, that the child was chucked in a swamp with duck tape around her mouth and nose? Is still reasonably doubtable? And that not including the fact she did not report it mission, that she should no sign of care, that she lied ever possible excuse and story to remove blame from her self, stories which none of which added up to all the evidence like the theory that she murder her daughter alone. Still there is doubt?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

See: "Reasonable Person Standard".

"What would a reasonable person conclude?"

http://www.tpub.com/content/armymedical/md0033/md00330010.htm

You think she did it but to say "i know she did it" is unreasonable.

Look at OJ, only they had even more evidence against him.

Juror dont want to sentence people to the death penalty based on what people think to be the truth.

 

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is unreasonable....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So your saying people aren't reasonable? ... yeah that makes a lot of sense now that a think about it.

Is that the same as saying guilty or not guilty? I mean we convicted people on less so I fail to see what unreasonable doubt there was.

That not a matter of what I think, I laid out the evidence as it is, she murdering her daughter is the best conclusion that can be derived by any one willing to use logic and unbiased thought. But people are illogical and bigoted creatures, claim race was an issue and you can get a black man to go free for murdering his wife. Call forensic "junk science" enough and you can get a women off of murdering her daughters. This is what happens when you have uneducated irrational morons selected for a juror.

 

Some are not reasonable. For example, making someone of severely diminished intellect a juror would most likely render unreasonable conclusions. Making a person a juror who is biased as well.

Except for the fact that they apparently could not prove there was a homicide let alone who committed it. We can only assume a homicide occurred but it is safe to say wrongful death may have occurred.

First of all there was very little forensic evidence to go by. There was no blood or bodily fluids etc. that is forensic evidence.

The problem is that your conclusion is just a guess. Most likely is not the conclusion peole want to go on when in a death penalty case. In one way it does show that death penalty cases have a higher standard of proof than someone stealing a bicycle.

 

A good comparison is the Scott Peterson case but i recall there was more evidence against him and even witnesses placing him in the area where he did go on a fishing boat, there was hair from his wife on pliers in the boat and he admitted to go fishing in the same bay his wife turned up in. That is going off the top of my head. Also i am pretty sure he made attempts to disguise himself and flee the country.

 

And? My argument stands that the jury in the case of Casey Anthony were idiots and that the amount of evidence in order to convict is completely variable and dependent solely on the intelligence or lack of from the jury.

You can look back to previous posts where I link to case where a body was never found and that death was not truly proven, yet murder convictions were achieved!

 

It is variable in most instances. Instances with complete reproduction are not really variable like a video tape or still images as long as they are clear they are extremely convincing. Look at when people video themselves committing crimes and they have probably 100% conviction rate. DNA evidence seems to be very accurate since it has been proven to be accurate in medical cases.

Death must have been proven.

 

bells still think i was just being hysterical? No i was predicting where this sort of attitudeds lead too. Because of this one case people here are sugesting that we throw out the presumption of innocence and lower the standeds of proof required for conviction. On the flipside its one of the few times i have seen both string and tiassa agree with eachother

 

Not even DNA evidence can get over jury stupidity, take OJ Simpsons case were they had his blood there at the crime seen, the defense made the claim the lab mistakes somehow could have produce a positive match.

Nope. Heck the very first one on this list it is easily questionable if the victim ever existed at all!
http://www.victimsofthestate.org/CC/WB.htm

 

its sad to see how little you people oviously know about your own systems of law. Case in point the people here who have said the civil case against OJ simson proves that the jury in the criminal case was wrong. Err NO thats a falacy, in the criminal case it was found that "based on the evidence provided it couldnt be proven BEHOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT that he commited the crime he is accused of"

Where as the civil case only found that "on the balance of probability he probably caused the death of x"

COMPLEATLY DIFFERENT. MASSIVILY different standed of proof, compleatly different case.

All that can be said about OJ is that the law found he probably caused her death, not he definitly murdered her.

Ive herd a fair amount about civil cases, my partner is involved in quite a few in her work and the "evidence" presented is flimsy at best. For the most part it just consists of a statement by person x and a statement by person y about what happened in the acident and then the magistrate works out which one he thinks is more crediable. Hell watch judge judy and see if you think that the evidence presented there is a reasonble level for sentancing someone to death

 

yeah, I never said the civil case proved he was guilty.

 

So if we all agreed that she is guilty, let's get ready for a good old fashioned lynching!!!

Get your pitchforks!!!

Seriously, she will be ostracized in society, just like OJ was, and I wouldn't be surprised if she gets attacked in a public place.

 

Casey Anthony may be one of the most vilified women in the country right now, but if she plays her cards right, she could also become one of the richest.

Literary agents and publicists contacted by ABCNews.com said that the 25-year-old mother, who on Tuesday was found not guilty of murdering her 2-year-old daughter, could make upwards of $750,000 with a book deal. It's likely that television and movie producers will also compete to score a coveted first interview and rights to her life story.


http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment...thony-make-750000-book-deal/story?id=14009296

 

so if someone is innocent then its ok to destroy there lives because they can sell there story to the media? Wernt you the one in my thread saying that the fact the media has no ethics is ok because the pollies need them and that means its the pollies fault?

 

Yes and I'm showing the irony of it all with this news.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Even OJ Simpson did not make much cash on his acquittal, and considering there is already facebook pages out there conspiring to picket and protest anything that that might fund this women, I'm sure her financial future is quite uncertain. As is there already law suits against her.

 

Right now, it's dangerous to even look a little like Casey Anthony. A woman mistook a store clerk for Casey Anthony, lied in wait in the parking lot, then tried to kill her by ramming into her car with a van.

http://www.newson6.com/story/15084225/woman-mistaken-for-casey-anthony-attacked


The attacker

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The victim's side by side with Casey Anthony:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!