LMFAO,. are you kidding me? Studying that jury decision, when more than a few are now on record as basically saying they would not convict on circumstantial evidence (CSI Effect anyone?) isn't a way to learn about the justice system. That was the point I was making earlier that, surprisingly, went over your head. They suspended rational logic to determine if the alternative made sense to create reasonable doubt, as some here have done (even while saying they believe she did it). As I've said several times, there's nothing here to give someone REASONABLE doubt (which, again, does not mean asbolutely unequivocally no doubt, which you would know if you understood the justice system) when plenty of circumstantial evidence points to no one but here. Even if you want to entertain the little green men bullshit proffered, it still points back to her.dwccrew;824985 wrote: Where did you get that I was saying all juries get it right out of my post? Again, study how the justice system works and maybe you'll understand why she was found not guilty. You claiming you know more about the justice system than most on this thread doesn't prove ****. Maybe she wore gloves when handling the tape? Where are the gloves then? You can't just keep creating stories to try and prove her guilt, you have to have proof. You saying maybe she used gloves is just like someone saying maybe Caylee drowned. There is no proof either way.
A juror doesn't even need reasonable doubt to not convict.gut;827712 wrote:... As I've said several times, there's nothing here to give someone REASONABLE doubt (which, again, does not mean asbolutely unequivocally no doubt, which you would know if you understood the justice system) when plenty of circumstantial evidence points to no one but here. ...
Con_Alma;827721 wrote:A juror doesn't even need reasonable doubt to not convict.
Which they did not according to the unanimous verdict.gut;827727 wrote:If the state doesn't prove it's case...
gut;827727 wrote:If the state doesn't prove it's case, but when you have a child found in the woods with duct tape foul play is obvious and in this case it points to Casey Anthony and only Casey Anthony. Had she reported the child missing immediately,then you could reasonably say the kid may have been abducted, but that didn't happen and you have the defense basically acknowledging that is was CA who covered it up, maybe with or because of her father which is bull**** and therefore makes the cover-up theory neither credible nor with any merit.
Someone could say "well, they didn't prove to me little green men didn't do it" and that's not an example of the justice system working it's just an example of an idiot juror.
enigmaax;827735 wrote:I'm still curious as to how much of the trial you actually watched. I mean, it's cool you stole the "little green men" comment from Nancy Grace and all, but is that the only source for your opinion?
You really think that it should be interpreted as such only sometimes? Which times would that be?Tiernan;827747 wrote:Reasonable doubt should sometimes be interpreted as "Reasonable Intelligence"....
Nothing went over my head, your argument is just stupid. There was no evidence to convict her of the charges she was facing which was MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE. To charge and convict someone with that you need evidence, which they did not have. Yes, they had a dead body and it is obvious that someone tried to cover something up, but that doesn't lead to Casey with the evidence presented.gut;827712 wrote:LMFAO,. are you kidding me? Studying that jury decision, when more than a few are now on record as basically saying they would not convict on circumstantial evidence (CSI Effect anyone?) isn't a way to learn about the justice system. That was the point I was making earlier that, surprisingly, went over your head. They suspended rational logic to determine if the alternative made sense to create reasonable doubt, as some here have done (even while saying they believe she did it). As I've said several times, there's nothing here to give someone REASONABLE doubt (which, again, does not mean asbolutely unequivocally no doubt, which you would know if you understood the justice system) when plenty of circumstantial evidence points to no one but here. Even if you want to entertain the little green men bull**** proffered, it still points back to her.
With regard to the body, they basically chose an affirmative defense (why don't you look that one up, justice system expert) which makes the fingerprints/gloves a moot point. Now, the claim is she covered it up because of an abusive father, but there is NOTHING to support that 11th hour hail mary. And that a retired POLICE OFFICER would feel a need to cover-up an accidental death or help her do so is, again, wholly unbelievable when there is nothing to suggest he did or would do that.
Con_Alma;827731 wrote:Which they did not according to the unanimous verdict.
Reasonable doubt is not required to choose to not convict.
Evidence pointing to someone, even over and over again, is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt to me. When the death penalty is on the table I need more than evidence pointing towards someone.
enigmaax;827735 wrote:I'm still curious as to how much of the trial you actually watched. I mean, it's cool you stole the "little green men" comment from Nancy Grace and all, but is that the only source for your opinion?
WebFire;827744 wrote:And with gut's legal advice, why weren't the little green men convicted?
Con_Alma;827748 wrote:You really think that it should be interpreted as such only sometimes? Which times would that be?
If they wanted the law to be applied as reasonable intelligence shouldn't they have simply written that language in?
Maybe they considered it and chose not to.
The sheriff also revealed that authorities are investigating a witness tampering allegation. He would not elaborate.
j_crazy;828248 wrote:with witness tampering can she be re-tried? or is this like a double jeopardy thing still?
i'd think if their was witness tampering the first go around would be declared a mistrial. but i'm not sure of that.
Midstate01;828283 wrote:She can never be retried. No matter what.
Not for murder of her daughter. I figure you know that, but some might not.Con_Alma;828430 wrote:Not for murder.
Double jeopardy.