Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As you see, that isn't a "well this might have happened" statement. It was a statement made with first hand knowledge. The former would be speculation, the later is not.
.
Baez stating that a drowning took place DOES NOT MAKE IT EVIDENCE! The jury could only consider this "theory" if Casey herself got onto the stand and stated such. Opening statement are not evidence, and are not to be considered during deliberations-period. Just because the kid could open the door herself does not point to a drowning in any way, shape, or form. All of the prosecution's evidence put together clearly showed that Caylee was murdered, and that Casey was the murderer.
Eh, I am not here to argue. I just have a different opinion and voice it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25
It wasn't Casey and it was her FORMER attorney who she no longer has contact with.
Yes, the people saying they did a wonderful job are the same ones who can't/won't get over this case and who are calling for Anthony, Mason, Baez, to die/be tortured. I'll take those accolades with a grain of salt.
The media is supposed to be objective and report facts. They are not supposed to give their opinions or try to sway people either way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25
Casey's lawyers had nothing to do with this hoax.
So the media gets to just say whatever they want, have no ethical responsibility because three years ago the family went to them for help in locating the girl? I think not.
Nope, no arguments here, huh? If not, then apparently you have an inside source feeding you as you appear to be stating this as an absolute fact. You would not know for sure unless you truly did. As shady as these attys were and are and same with Casey....really? Not that I personally care where she is, because at this point it doesn't matter. She is not where she should be and no matter where she goes, she won't be. But, I find it odd that you KNOW this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephM
Baez stating that a drowning took place DOES NOT MAKE IT EVIDENCE! The jury could only consider this "theory" if Casey herself got onto the stand and stated such. Opening statement are not evidence, and are not to be considered during deliberations-period. Just because the kid could open the door herself does not point to a drowning in any way, shape, or form. All of the prosecution's evidence put together clearly showed that Caylee was murdered, and that Casey was the murderer.
What I think Bosco is saying is that Baez did not state this on his own, he did not make it up, he was not just speculating that it could have been a drowning, he said it WAS...he heard it from the wonderful Casey Anthony herself, so that does not make it speculation. Period. Doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, except the prosecution, who should have disproved that beyond a reasonable doubt. I think she is guilty as sin and she will pay for her crime one way or another. Just a shame that the no one is held accountable for that baby's tragic, sickening death.
Baez stating that a drowning took place DOES NOT MAKE IT EVIDENCE! The jury could only consider this "theory" if Casey herself got onto the stand and stated such. Opening statement are not evidence, and are not to be considered during deliberations-period. Just because the kid could open the door herself does not point to a drowning in any way, shape, or form. All of the prosecution's evidence put together clearly showed that Caylee was murdered, and that Casey was the murderer.
The defense doesn't have to prove anything and doesn't even have to come up with a theory. It doesn't have to even talk. The prosecutor has to prove that a crime took place and who did it.
NO ONE could determine how the child died so NO ONE can say it was a murder, as a FACT.
Again, FACT, not speculation, is what the jury was told to work with. We don't put the Nancy Grace's of the world on the stand for a reason...she's all speculation, NO FACT.
I am beginning think you are dense and just want to argue. I know I am correct and I know you are wrong. Bless your heart you can't help it if you are dumb as dirt.
Casey Anthony walked out a free woman but she killed her child. That is the facts! The American Justice System failed the real victim Caylee Marie Anthony.
I will not waste my time arguing when the majority of the WORLD knows a murderer walked in America.
The End
Actually, it's NOT FACT because NO ONE could prove how the child died, therefore, it is SPECULATION that CA killed her child.
Casey Anthony is guilty as sin and got away with murdering her adorable little girl. Unfortunately, the jury deemed her not guilty based on the evidence. From what I have heard, they didn't necessarily feel she was innocent, but based on the evidence they couldn't find her guilty. If that were the case, I wish they would have went for a hung jury just to keep her in prison longer.
I am beginning think you are dense and just want to argue. I know I am correct and I know you are wrong. Bless your heart you can't help it if you are dumb as dirt.
You fail to understand the definition of one of the more simple words in the English language. I'd not make the mistake of questioning anyone's intelligence if I were you.
Quote:
Casey Anthony walked out a free woman but she killed her child. That is the facts! The American Justice System failed the real victim Caylee Marie Anthony.
Another thing the emotional mob doesn't understand. This case wasn't about getting" justice for Caylee", it was about determining the guilt or innocence of Casey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimba01
I wonder, had the jury turned in a guilty verdict, would you be defending them the same way?
Assuming that the verdict was the only thing different about this hypothetical trial, I'd have serious questions about how the jury reached a guilty verdict given the lack of evidence, but I would have accepted the verdict given by the jury.
Quote:
It seems your defense is of the justice system
Absolutely. You may have seen the quote I posted before from John Wendell Holmes, who said that we have courts of law, not courts of justice. This is where the emotional mob is on the wrong side of the debate. They wanted to see the jury convict Casey Anthony because they know in their heart that she is guilty. It wouldn't have mattered if there was absolutely zero evidence at all, they simply wanted their "justice". The integrity of the legal system is unimportant to them.
Well, unfortunately for them that is not how our legal system works. I'm happy with the verdict not because I believe Casey is innocent, but because a jury of her peers were able to do their job, turn off their emotions and hold the prosecution the very high standard that the law prescribes.
Quote:
Or took the hit on his reputation to save his daughter from the death penalty.
Potentially, and I'm sure the jury considered that, but from listening to their interviews his behavior from day one were questionable at best, so I can see why they felt he was hiding something rather than throwing himself on a grenade for Casey's sake.
Quote:
Those who think they are "exponentially smarter than the average person" have a very difficult time understanding how that lowly average person can not understand something so seemingly simple to them. Since you think that you are (and I am not saying you are or not, doesn't matter what I think, only that you do) you will NEVER agree with the "average" people. You will never see things as the average person does. Therefore, you will continue to get frustrated with their views. If you find yourself having to repeat your views over and over again and you enjoy doing it in order to teach what you know, fine. But, if you are getting so frustrated that it is making you angry, why bother? You know what you know and you believe it to be true. So be it. Either way, it will never change the outcome of this case.
And, since most people are of average intelligence and they continue to ask the same questions and wonder the same things about this case, what would ever make you think that a jury of less-than-average intelligence would just "get it"? Just because they gave a verdict you agree with?
Actually, when this thread first started we had a pretty good discussion about the legal system and evidence. Unfortunately many of the smart people (from both sides of the debate) have abandoned the debate and it's literally degraded into a couple pages of me trying to educate people on a simple definition.
That said, this thread has about run it's course and it probably won't be much longer until I too have had my fill of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimba01
What I think Bosco is saying is that Baez did not state this on his own, he did not make it up, he was not just speculating that it could have been a drowning, he said it WAS...he heard it from the wonderful Casey Anthony herself, so that does not make it speculation. Period.
Correct. These statements came from Casey and were told through her lawyer. It was not a theory that the prosecution thought up, it was Casey's account of the events.
Last edited by McBain II; 07-21-2011 at 04:53 PM..
There are good analogies, bad analogies, and your analogy about speculation, the worst. Anyway
Ok then, give us a better one, or better yet give us your explanation of the word "speculate" and we'll see if you really know what you're talking about or if you're just gonna say "you're wrong" to everything.
Quote:
In your world, there'd never be a conviction in 'no body' cases and few, if any, if little remains of a body.
Not true. It would be much harder, but not impossible.
Quote:
Reward the defendant for a great job of hiding the victim.
The sad fact of the matter is that this is true. Cases are tried on evidence and if the evidence is not there than you are unlikely to get convicted. If you have an alternate method, feel free to share it with us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aries5
Casey Anthony is guilty as sin and got away with murdering her adorable little girl. Unfortunately, the jury deemed her not guilty based on the evidence. From what I have heard, they didn't necessarily feel she was innocent, but based on the evidence they couldn't find her guilty. If that were the case, I wish they would have went for a hung jury just to keep her in prison longer.
LOL. So you wanted them to abandon their duty as jurors to spite the defendant. Just further proof that the emotional mob had a score to settle and the integrity of the legal system be damned.
Actually, it's NOT FACT because NO ONE could prove how the child died, therefore, it is SPECULATION that CA killed her child.
But she was the one who was last seen with the child. Who else would have a reason to kill Caylee. Like the prosecution said who benefited if Caylee died? There does not has to be direct evidence that someone did something to convict them plenty of cases has proven this.
That's fairly strong evidence, but not enough to convict.
What reason did Casey have to kill her? How would Casey benefit if she died?
She didn't have to actually hire a baby sitter (just lie about hiring one) and she could party all she wanted (which is, exactly, what she did after Caylee died). Sadly, what Casey gained was the freedom to party...for 30 days...THAT is what her daughter's life was worth. That's really sad. It's really too bad she didn't just leave Caylee with her grandparents and go party.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The jury could only consider this "theory" if Casey herself got onto the stand and stated such. Opening statement are not evidence, and are not to be considered during deliberations-period. Just because the kid could open the door herself does not point to a drowning in any way, shape, or form. All of the prosecution's evidence put together clearly showed that Caylee was murdered, and that Casey was the murderer.
If not, then apparently you have an inside source feeding you as you appear to be stating this as an absolute fact. You would not know for sure unless you truly did. As shady as these attys were and are and same with Casey....really?
