DwayneEMTP Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Watching the stuff on tv, and on FB, on Casey Anthony, I have to tell you that it looks more like a witch burning of 200 years ago than a trial of today. Bottom line for me? 12 of my friends and neighbors have decided that they had to allow her to go free so as not to risk putting an innocent person in prison. And I think that that took amazing courage. They watch the TV, the read the papers, and yet they decided to do what they thought was right despite knowing the pain and hate that it would bring them and their families. I would gladly shake their hands and stand by their sides. Is she guilty? I don't know. Yet I'm not willing to condemn the suspect, jury and judge based on the feedback from a bunch of talking heads on the news that lie to me daily. Send your love to the baby, but to call for this woman's head is to side with the likes of the Taliban, and others, that believe that suspicion is the same as guilt...and that is pathologic. I can't support you in your cry for a justice system that will put innocent people in jail instead of risk allowing the guilty to go free. Be angry if you must, but to bring your children to the gathering that calls for the death of a woman that has been found not guilty in a United States court of law spits in the face of all of our men and women of the military, those involved in law enforcement, that have lost their lives to protect your civil liberties.... Just my two cents... Dwayne 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usalsfyre Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 The thing that most seem to forget is "justice" works two ways, for the victimized AND for the accused. This type of stuff is why I've got outright contempt and disgust for the media at the national level. They no longer report news. They sell good stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard B the EMT Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 As she was convicted of lying to the LEOs, and is probably going to get "time served", doesn't she fall under the "Son Of Sam" laws, that prohibit the "doer" from profiting "after the fact", from a crime perpetrated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happiness Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 I dont think the Son of Sam laws apply as she was conviced of a misdemeanor not a federal offence. I have watched the stuff on this case on and off and It is people Like Nancey Gray who like to think they know all. She has taken this case from the very beginning and made it her priority, even giving her the title "Tot Mom", just like they name serial killers. Unfortunantly our society has given reporters like herself the God status and what ever they say must be true. I haven't a clue whether she committed these acts but I do have to agree the prosecution didnt bring enough evidence to the Jury to say Beyond a resonable doubt. They couldn't say how the girl died. Now take a look at the family setting OMG its just disfunction on so many levels. Now thats its over I dont think her life is going to be a bed of roses and there are those that just see her as a baby killer and I wouldn't be surprised if her life is in jepordy, and that we will have someone on trial for her murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HERBIE1 Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 (edited) Courageous? Nah- just apparently following the letter of the law. Interviews with the jurors indicate they believed she was guilty, but the evidence simply did not support that verdict. BIG difference between that and acquitting her. Am I angry at the verdict? Damn right. Based on the evidence we have heard, it would seem the prosecution did not have a strong case. Tons of circumstantial stuff? Absolutely. Too many questions unanswered to convict, I guess- BUT- Why did she lie to the police? Why did she wait 30 days to report her child was missing? Why did she lie about where her child was? Why did she seem so annoyed when someone asked her in a phone conversation about her daughter when she seemed more interested in her own issues? Why was this little girl found with duct tape on her mouth if this was supposed to be an accident? Sorry- I'm not a judge, a lawyer, nor was I on that jury. That;s why I can say without reservation that I think that in some way, this woman was responsible for killing her own daughter. If not- I want someone to give me a plausible alternative explanation for what happened, and who was responsible. Added: The defense's job was to create reasonable doubt, and with their shotgun approach- blast away with all kinds of crazy theories to plant the seed of doubt in the minds of the jury. They didn't disprove anything. They did their job, but in my mind, justice was NOT served for that poor little girl. Edited July 8, 2011 by HERBIE1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard B the EMT Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Within my circle of friends, we seem roughly split between someone "getting to" her, and waiting for her to get into trouble again, "as a matter of time". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Star Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 To paraphrase what I said in another forum: The prosecution in this case didn't meet the burden of proof in this case. Sure, they had a truck load of circumstantial evidence, but nothing concrete. In American jurisprudence, the burden of proof lies upon the accuser (in this case, the State of Florida). The defense doesn't have to prove a thing, all they have to do is raise a REASONABLE doubt; which in this case, they did. I don't think that the allegations of incest, extramarital affairs and any other 'dirty laundry' of the Anthony family had any bearing on the case, and should have been left out of it. As far as all of the pundits, 'legal analysts' and 'legal experts' that have been making the rounds of the news and gossip shows....they need to turn in their crystal balls because they're obviously defective. The jury reached the only conclusion that they could have...they acquitted Casey Anthony based upon the fact that the burden of proof wasn't met by the prosecution. Do I think Casey Anthony is guilty? I really can't say one way or the other, simply based upon the fact that there was so much evidence that I wasn't privy to. If I ever end up on trial for anything, I can only pray that I get a jury that is as diligent as this one was! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYCEMS9115 Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 In Court of Public Opinion: Guilty... In the Court of Law: Not Guilty... Just like Lt. Caffey said in A Few Good Men, "It doesn't matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove." The OC DA should have watched that movie or Law and Order... If the ME can't determine the cause of death; how can you (DA) charge someone with murder? She was found Guilty to 4 Counts of Misleading Law Enforcement Officials. I think some of us are Guilty of that: LEO, "I pulled you over for going 70 in a 50." You, "I was only going 55." or "I wasn't aware of the speed limit, I thought it was 65." or "I didn't know I was traveling that fast, I'm sorry." Now she'll make money from this... Thank you HLN, CNN, TruTV, FOX, ABC, etc for covering this from the beginning to end. Another person who can rake in $$$ for their wrongs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tniuqs Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 (edited) To answer the Question: Has the world gone crazy ? short answer: YES. and OJ is innocent too, good grief. Edited July 9, 2011 by tniuqs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akflightmedic Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 To answer the Question: Has the world gone crazy ? short answer: YES. and OJ is innocent too, good grief. Did someone say OJ??? Look at the happy couple I saw in downtown Orlando last night.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts