Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Because the criminal justice system works under aristotilian black/white logic. Yes, No, Guilty, Not Guilty, with 99% guilty still being considered not guilty.
People on the other hand can deal in things like "sort of, kind, of, most likely, almost certainly." based on a fuzzy logic approach to reasoning. This is more in line with civil procedure. Under civil codes, she would have been convicted in a heartbeat. Criminal, not so much.
Laws create systems, and systems have rules. Opinion, on the other hand has no rules whatsover.
That's a nice lecture but it does not speak to the illogical statement. "I think she's guilty but the state did not prove it." Well, if the state didn't prove it why do you think it?
It is logical though to say I think she's guilty and the state proved it."
I think the "I think she's guilty but the state did not prove it" crowd just want to have their cake and eat it too. They seem to know she killed the kid but are happy she walked free. Poor little Caylee.. just let the body rot cause then we won't know how you died. That's a good excuse.
Maybe for other people, but for me its the fact that the majority of the evidence points to her doing SOMETHING to her daughter, but under criminal law it isnt enough to convict.
Why can't you get that?
I wasn't overly impressed with Casey's defense team. What kid of defense team did Scott Peterson have? I have never even heard of another case that was this speculative. I fully believe Casey is responsible for her daughter's death, but I do not think it happened the way the prosecution presented it.
Well do tell, Einstein.. how did Caylee die?
For one, it makes no sense that she would kill Caylee because she wanted she party. There was a much simpler way to achieve that. If she actually murdered Caylee there must be another reason that actually makes sense. Most likely she accidentally killed her through some kind of extreme neglect, like drugged her to keep her out of the way or left her in a hot car too long.
That's a nice lecture but it does not speak to the illogical statement. "I think she's guilty but the state did not prove it." Well, if the state didn't prove it why do you think it?
It is logical though to say I think she's guilty and the state proved it."
I think the "I think she's guilty but the state did not prove it" crowd just want to have their cake and eat it too. They seem to know she killed the kid but are happy she walked free. Poor little Caylee.. just let the body rot cause then we won't know how you died. That's a good excuse.
Maybe for other people, but for me its the fact that the majority of the evidence points to her doing SOMETHING to her daughter, but under criminal law it isnt enough to convict.
Why can't you get that?
The charges ranged from first degree, to manslaughter, to aggravated child abuse. She's as innocent as a lamb on all three accounts. Shame on you for thinking she did something to her child. She was a good MOM.
Isn't the building of a false case against someone still fraud, or defamation of character? Its using falsehoods to affect the employment of someone, there has to be at least something not kosher with it.
I agree on the age discrimination thing, it wasnt true, so you have to instruct the jury the right way.
Being an at will work state, an employer can simply call you in and say you're gone. What they can't do is mess with your civil rights. Though the "evidence" was weak, that is what they built the case on and lost.
The employer may be free and clear, but wouldn't the person making up the false claims be liable for libel or slander? I would hold the company itself free of liability, but the second the person went about creating false statements/documents/accusations of incompetence, they become liable, at least civilly, and maybe criminally.
Maybe for other people, but for me its the fact that the majority of the evidence points to her doing SOMETHING to her daughter, but under criminal law it isnt enough to convict.
Why can't you get that?
The charges ranged from first degree, to manslaughter, to aggravated child abuse. She's as innocent as a lamb on all three accounts. Shame on you for thinking she did something to her child. She was a good MOM.
Casey Anthony did the best she could for her child.
The charges ranged from first degree, to manslaughter, to aggravated child abuse. She's as innocent as a lamb on all three accounts. Shame on you for thinking she did something to her child. She was a good MOM.
Casey Anthony did the best she could for her child.
And I'm betting Caylee is as grateful as all get out.
Casey Anthony did the best she could for her child.
And I'm betting Caylee is as grateful as all get out.
Justice was served in this trial, its win/win all around.
And I'm betting Caylee is as grateful as all get out.
Justice was served in this trial, its win/win all around.
I'm betting Caylee is somewhere grinning "winning." Yep
That's a nice lecture but it does not speak to the illogical statement. "I think she's guilty but the state did not prove it." Well, if the state didn't prove it why do you think it?
It is logical though to say I think she's guilty and the state proved it."
I think the "I think she's guilty but the state did not prove it" crowd just want to have their cake and eat it too. They seem to know she killed the kid but are happy she walked free. Poor little Caylee.. just let the body rot cause then we won't know how you died. That's a good excuse.
Maybe for other people, but for me its the fact that the majority of the evidence points to her doing SOMETHING to her daughter, but under criminal law it isnt enough to convict.
Why can't you get that?
The charges ranged from first degree, to manslaughter, to aggravated child abuse. She's as innocent as a lamb on all three accounts. Shame on you for thinking she did something to her child. She was a good MOM.
Maybe for other people, but for me its the fact that the majority of the evidence points to her doing SOMETHING to her daughter, but under criminal law it isnt enough to convict.
Why can't you get that?
The charges ranged from first degree, to manslaughter, to aggravated child abuse. She's as innocent as a lamb on all three accounts. Shame on you for thinking she did something to her child. She was a good MOM.
Maybe you should read the statues on all three crimes to see if they applied first. They have specifc qualifications. Note the word "Aggravated" in the child abuse charge. That means conditions above and beyond normal abuse/neglect, and you have to PROVE said conditions beyond a reasonable doubt.
Please stop using talking point retorts to my points, that may work on others, but I am replying with clear reasons why my positions are so.
The charges ranged from first degree, to manslaughter, to aggravated child abuse. She's as innocent as a lamb on all three accounts. Shame on you for thinking she did something to her child. She was a good MOM.
Maybe you should read the statues on all three crimes to see if they applied first. They have specifc qualifications. Note the word "Aggravated" in the child abuse charge. That means conditions above and beyond normal abuse/neglect, and you have to PROVE said conditions beyond a reasonable doubt.
Please stop using talking point retorts to my points, that may work on others, but I am replying with clear reasons why my positions are so.
Listen.. Here's the bottom line bud. In every court room some one tells the truth and some one lies. Now it's evident you guys have chosed the liars to be the winners. It's just that simple. End of story. And the liar side was so damn effective that George and Cindy are now receiving death threats. Ain't that special?
Maybe you should read the statues on all three crimes to see if they applied first. They have specifc qualifications. Note the word "Aggravated" in the child abuse charge. That means conditions above and beyond normal abuse/neglect, and you have to PROVE said conditions beyond a reasonable doubt.
Please stop using talking point retorts to my points, that may work on others, but I am replying with clear reasons why my positions are so.
Listen.. Here's the bottom line bud. In every court room some one tells the truth and some one lies. Now it's evident you guys have chosed the liars to be the winners. It's just that simple. End of story. And the liar side was so damn effective that George and Cindy are now receiving death threats. Ain't that special?
I haven't chosen shit. I have analyzed, from what I know of the case, and of criminal law to determine my position. How the death threats to the parents relates to said position is beyond me.
A verdict is not always the truth, nor does the truth always result in the proper verdict. Nothing is ever perfect. Those people foaming at the mouth over this "injustice" are in no way related to my view of both my opinion of her ACTUAL guilt, nor my view that the legal system reached the proper conclusions based on the presented evidence.
Yeah; DNA evidence was too complex fo OJ's jury, and this jury would only have convicted with it. Had the police followed up on Cronk's phone calls, there might have still been some. Since they lacked the hard incriminating evidence beyond the circumstantial, the prosecution should have gone for some lesser charge, and not for murder one. When the found hard evidence was lacking for a murder one charge, they, the jury, likewise doubted it was sufficient for lesser charges including manslaughter.
This woman's jury matched OJ's
OJ's jury was so ......
I frankly cannot find the words to describe OJ's jury accurately. I think they thought DNA was like TWA and couldn't connect the dots between airlines and evidence.
Talk about the most stupid people on the planet. And all they wanted were their book deals/movie rights/hope and change.
Book deals and movie rights? Are you talking about Marsha Clark and Christopher Darden? Only in America can you get rich from screwing up the most failing so badly at your job.
The charges ranged from first degree, to manslaughter, to aggravated child abuse. She's as innocent as a lamb on all three accounts. Shame on you for thinking she did something to her child. She was a good MOM.
Maybe you should read the statues on all three crimes to see if they applied first. They have specifc qualifications. Note the word "Aggravated" in the child abuse charge. That means conditions above and beyond normal abuse/neglect, and you have to PROVE said conditions beyond a reasonable doubt.
Please stop using talking point retorts to my points, that may work on others, but I am replying with clear reasons why my positions are so.
Listen.. Here's the bottom line bud. In every court room some one tells the truth and some one lies. Now it's evident you guys have chosed the liars to be the winners. It's just that simple. End of story. And the liar side was so damn effective that George and Cindy are now receiving death threats. Ain't that special?
Listen.. Here's the bottom line bud. In every court room some one tells the truth and some one lies. Now it's evident you guys have chosed the liars to be the winners. It's just that simple. End of story. And the liar side was so damn effective that George and Cindy are now receiving death threats. Ain't that special?
I haven't chosen shit. I have analyzed, from what I know of the case, and of criminal law to determine my position. How the death threats to the parents relates to said position is beyond me.
A verdict is not always the truth, nor does the truth always result in the proper verdict. Nothing is ever perfect. Those people foaming at the mouth over this "injustice" are in no way related to my view of both my opinion of her ACTUAL guilt, nor my view that the legal system reached the proper conclusions based on the presented evidence.
Well, you choose the liars.
I heard the same evidence.
I choose to believe the prosecution's case and she'd lucky I wasn't on the jury.
The reality of that matter is that the FBI DID NOT have the evidence to actually charge OBL with 9-11, and the tapes are proven to be faked, as well as others made by so called "terrorists".This has me thinking, if Osama Bin Laden was put on trial here in the US he would probably get off, is there really any solid evidence tying him to 9/11? everything is circumstancial.
Nope, we have him on tape discussing it. Of course some claim the tape is fake....
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah buddy whatever you say. Just as you have, I understand gutless turds like yourself as well. You "inspected weapons systems", well supposedly. Anyway, you were a behind the lines jack off if that was even the case. You were hiding behind a fence or a tree trunk while you watched better men than you drive off to perish. Fuck you bro. Eat a big dick because that's the only language that liars like you can understand.
At the end of the day, you came at me first. If you truly were in the service, then I respect that. However, there are so many frauds these days. Also, think about what we are fighting about right now if that is the truth? ~BH
If it means anything, I personally know salt jones and every single thing he posted is true. I was stationed with him in a fighter squadron in Miramar for four years and know every squadron he went to after that. He retired a year after I did and came here just like me after he got his dd214. I know where he works now and I repeat, every single thing he said above is true.
Just saying.
Let me guess, you also served with GayBikerSailor.
Knowing and Proving are Entirely Different things...
The State could NOT Prove the Mother did it.
Whether or not any of us Feel she is Guilty, we don't Convict on Feelings...
We Convict on Fact, Evidence and Proof.
The State Failed Miserably to Prove anything, and much of that Failure was out of their Control.
Sometimes Justice can't be Served.
Get the Fuck over it already.
peace...
