CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL

[fishnfool73]

[quote="Jordan"]lol a lack of evidence. what a joke.[/quote
Care to explain this evidence you believe made her guilty

[Jordan]

The google searches on her computer including breaking necks and chloroform. Chloroform and duct tape found on caylee's mouth. The decomposed matter found in a car that only she had access to. The fact that "accident" story was never heard of until baez introduced it during court. The fact that she lied to the police. The fact that she got a tattoo during the time that caylee was "missing". Not to mention that the tattoo translates to "good life", during a time where her child was either dead or missing. What about the heart shaped stickers found in casey's room that were also found on caylee's remains? Why did she wait 31 days to report her child missing? It all adds up to me that she murdered her daughter. The defense outplayed the prosecution and to me that's the only reason that she's free. It's just too bad, because that woman is a murderer.

[TarponTamer69]

Im with you on that Jordan. Atleast Child Neglect

[crashmister]

Guy's the prosicution failed to prove beyond a "resonable doubt" she killed her kid. It's not that uncommon. The justice system is desingned to error on the side on caution. I belive the quote is "It's better to let 10 guilty men go free than to put one innocent man in jail" That's the foundation of our justice system. Of cource that didn't stop the state of IL from putting 9 innocent men on death row. When DNA became addmissible evidence, it forced the release of 9 death row inmates who were proven innocent. It's been proven that texas has executed several innocent men. I think 2 of which were under Bush. That's a proven fact again by DNA. Think about it that's 2 out of 50 states. How many other innocent people do you think slipped through the crack's. Truth is the media expert's proved they weren't expert's at all. The part I don't agree with is not guilty of child neglect. I think she was but I don't know if the prosicution proved that. I didn't watch it. From all the news I've read, Chris is right! The whole case was weak and circumstancial. I've read many DA's would not have tried it with what little evidence they had. Lotta people dropped the ball on this one from start to finish. The test for Chloroform could not be duplicated. The difference between Chloroform and Chloraphyll can't be forensically derermined with 100 % certainty. They could not prove conclusively if it was chloroform or organic matter. in either instance. She got a tat? what exactly does that prove? The month was never explained to any one's satisfaction. which is why I dont agree with not guilty on child neglect. But other than that their's no concrete evidence of anything really. Just saying.

[fixed80]

the streets will give your justice.

[whatisntseen]

@Crashmister

[cantseeme47]

The google searches on her computer including breaking necks and chloroform. Chloroform and duct tape found on caylee's mouth. The decomposed matter found in a car that only she had access to. The fact that "accident" story was never heard of until baez introduced it during court. The fact that she lied to the police. The fact that she got a tattoo during the time that caylee was "missing". Not to mention that the tattoo translates to "good life", during a time where her child was either dead or missing. What about the heart shaped stickers found in casey's room that were also found on caylee's remains? Why did she wait 31 days to report her child missing? It all adds up to me that she murdered her daughter. The defense outplayed the prosecution and to me that's the only reason that she's free. It's just too bad, because that woman is a murderer.

u prove again what a ignorant douche u are let me show u how flawed ur reasoning is. computer searches dont mean a dam thing because all she has to say is that was my friend they cannot say for a fact she herself searched it that so there goes computer searches. so chloroform was found on the kid chloroform is used constantly in many murder cases so they still cant tie her to the kid dying. now u say she lied to police ok ur right shes getting charged for that so again ur wrong u must not be watching the news. a tattoo? lmfao jordan u my friend are special. a tattoo could mean anything "good life" maybe she was trying to be positive that the killer of her daughter would be found? or maybe she was trying to do anything that would shed light on this dark time for her i mean her daughter did die again ur wrong so far ur 3 for 3 on being wrong. now u say stickers? ok the kid had them on when she died. shes a kid jordan of course shes gonna have stickers and "they were in her moms room" well she is her mom im pretty sure some stuff of mine is in my moms room lmao so far ur 4 for 4 on being wrong. now the car there was no body and no blood found in it so end of story they cant prove the kid was there so ur wrong again. now she waited 31 days to call the cops and? all she has to say is i been looking for her on my own theres no law that says u have to call the cops when ur kid goes missing. so jordan whos the idiot now? It just goes to show how ignorant and uneducated u are. u just jump to one conclusion for everything. Life always has a broader prospective that people don't understand. Let's just hope people like u are never put on a jury because u only make a judgment on character and not evidence then u are likely to put an innocent person away for life. There is a chance that she may have killed her daughter or she knows who did it, but twelve jurors and a judge said she didn't, plain and simple.

[Jordan]

literally not even going to get into this with you kid. if you can't tie any of that together i really have no idea what's wrong with you. nice spelling and grammar by the way.

[Jordan]

i'm arguing the statement that there was not enough evidence, not the way the court works. i do think he's right in the aspect that that is how the system works and it's unfortunate, but i thought there was enough forensic and non forensic evidence to prove she killed her child. but that makes me "a ignorant douche".

[whatisntseen]

i'm arguing the statement that there was not enough evidence, not the way the court works. i do think he's right in the aspect that that is how the system works and it's unfortunate, but i thought there was enough forensic and non forensic evidence to prove she killed her child. but that makes me "a ignorant douche".

What it boils down to is that there was not enough hard evidence. And that's all that matters. 12/12 jurors agreed. Circumstance means nothing especially when you're talking about a mother to her child. It's different if the murderer chooses a complete stranger as his victim. Even then there can't be any doubt that the person did it and not someone else at the bar/off the street.

[krash]

Its Ok to sentance a rich mofo from Chicago who mowed down 2 tourist walking on teh sidewalk in his $120K Porcshe to a couple years in his parents penthouse condo on the beach, why shoudn't she be found not-guilty in a case with little more than circunstantial evidence. Its the American way..

[fishnfool73]

KRASH funny you mention DeVin he just got violated for his probation in Illinios.

[cantseeme47]

i'm arguing the statement that there was not enough evidence, not the way the court works. i do think he's right in the aspect that that is how the system works and it's unfortunate, but i thought there was enough forensic and non forensic evidence to prove she killed her child. but that makes me "a ignorant douche".

the same way u called me an idiot for saying there was a lack of evidence

[crashmister]

KRASH funny you mention DeVin he just got violated for his probation in Illinios.

Gee who said that was gonna happen? I just can't remember
Wait, I think it was some guy in response to the Money can buy anything thread Justin started.
"I doubt spoiled little rich boy will abide by his sentence. If he break's it, he spend's the rest of it in jail. Most likely, traded off for pack's of smoke's as sombody's boss of the house. Now that would be justice."

How long did that take him 2-3 month's?

[Albacized]

i'm arguing the statement that there was not enough evidence, not the way the court works. i do think he's right in the aspect that that is how the system works and it's unfortunate, but i thought there was enough forensic and non forensic evidence to prove she killed her child. but that makes me "a ignorant douche".

What it boils down to is that there was not enough hard evidence. And that's all that matters. 12/12 jurors agreed. Circumstance means nothing especially when you're talking about a mother to her child. It's different if the murderer chooses a complete stranger as his victim. Even then there can't be any doubt that the person did it and not someone else at the bar/off the street.

It's funny to start hearing the so called 'expert' TV lawyers argue over the differences of 'reasonable doubt' and 'beyond a shadow of a doubt...Tells me that the 'experts' don't even know how it works (at least how they interpret 'it')