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.
His comment about moving to Iran is another inappropriate, over the top comment, in addition to his middle finger gesturing. Sounds like he can't handle the heat he's getting.
that is not right he is wrong to do that if he did.
Come on, you can't seriously believe that. The jury had doubts and could not convict. But, really, after putting all the pieces together, I don't think anyone can seriously conclude that.
Accidental death from application of xanax or chloriform, maybe, but that is negligent homocide...and that's what she should have been convicted of (manslaughter). But she did not drown and her parents had nothing to do with it. How could you see those jailhouse discussions with parents and child and possibly consider that? Do you think the parents staged and acted out multiple discussions with Casey to ask about her missing daughter, knowing she was already dead?
one thing i dont believe is that the father molested her when she casey was younger. Why would she allow him to care for her daughter if her father abused her???////
After all this trial was to give justice to Caylee.
No, this trial was to decide the guilt or innocence of Casey Anthony.
Quote:
Why didn't Mason call to catch the real killer if his client didn't do it! Where is the drosning proof, sex abuse proof and he is the one calling other people names....wow!
but there is no PROOF she did it so how can you give someone life for a crime you can not prove? I sure hope you don't end up arrested for something you did not do and end up in the electric chair.
There is no way the jury could have convicted her of frist degree murder but they could have convicted her of manslaughter. There is no doubt she had something to do with her daughter's death and that meets the criteria for manslaughter. Manslaughter doesn't differentiate between accidentally causing a death and deliberate actions that cause one but it assumes you didn't intend to cause one. While I'm not sure that's the case, there is no doubt she was involved between her lying about where her daughter was, the odor of decomposition in her trunk and her behavior in the days after her daughter disappeared.
For first degree they would have had to prove not only that she had something to do with her daughter's death but that she deliberately caused her daughter's death. Without a cause of death, that is a very tall order to fill.
They should have at least added "Abuse of a Corpse" to the charges...the prosecution was just feeling like the jurors were at least sensible. No one could imagine that she would be found not guilty on all charges except lying to police...no one with any sense...the law is not that complicated. The problem is that the jurors did not review the evidence, and actually understand anything...
They should have at least added "Abuse of a Corpse" to the charges...the prosecution was just feeling like the jurors were at least sensible. No one could imagine that she would be found not guilty on all charges except lying to police...no one with any sense...the law is not that complicated. The problem is that the jurors did not review the evidence, and actually understand anything...
was there any proof that she abused the corpse i dont think so
No, because they could not "prove" that she is the one who placed the child in the garbage bag...
I wonder, in these days of video and tv, that people need things spoon fed to them, like they need to see a video of it to realize it happened. Back in the old days, a person was tried by a jury of their peers, and there was some sense to it...the law has not become more complicated, nor are people less educated...perhaps all the new evidence with being able to test air, and maggots..and all that stuff clouds the real picture...a child was thrown away in a trash bag. And maybe people just can't fathom how to sort through all the "evidence"...maybe the presentation has become more complicated, not the law.
No, because they could not "prove" that she is the one who placed the child in the garbage bag...
I wonder, in these days of video and tv, that people need things spoon fed to them, like they need to see a video of it to realize it happened. Back in the old days, a person was tried by a jury of their peers, and there was some sense to it...the law has not become more complicated, nor are people less educated...perhaps all the new evidence with being able to test air, and maggots..and all that stuff clouds the real picture...a child was thrown away in a trash bag. And maybe people just can't fathom how to sort through all the "evidence"...maybe the presentation has become more complicated, not the law.
Wow, interesting statement. You have a major point here.
Yes, my new plan...to reduce the deficit, and court problems...and complicated trials with complicated evidence with all these conflicting "experts"...all trials have an 8 hour limit...3 hours for each, prosecution, and defense...with time for summations after the presentations...
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.
