You think that’s enough?
I say they chase her out of Florida altogether. A fucking posse run her ass right out of town, and that cocky ass Defense attorney. I can’t even hate on him, he got lucky enough to find 12 mouth breathers to sit on the same moronic jury.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I say they chase her out of Florida altogether. A fucking posse run her ass right out of town, and that cocky ass Defense attorney. I can’t even hate on him, he got lucky enough to find 12 mouth breathers to sit on the same moronic jury. [/quote]
Yeah, seriously, fuck that guy for doing his job as his ethical duty requires. I mean honestly, why would he do the job he was payed to do? What is this world coming to?
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
You think that’s enough? [/quote]
Based on the fact the prosecution had no direct evidence? Definitely.
I’m not convinced she killed her kid beyond reasonable doubt.
People love to ignore the multiple examples of people who were WRONGLY put in prison because the jury considered minimal evidence adequate for a conviction.
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I say they chase her out of Florida altogether. A fucking posse run her ass right out of town, and that cocky ass Defense attorney. I can’t even hate on him, he got lucky enough to find 12 mouth breathers to sit on the same moronic jury. [/quote]
Yeah, seriously, fuck that guy for doing his job as his ethical duty requires. I mean honestly, why would he do the job he was payed to do? What is this world coming to?[/quote]
x2
MaximusB’s post is nothing but irrational. The woman had her day in court, was found not guilty and the attorney was just doing his job.
As I sad earlier, people are too emotionally invested in the fact a 3 year old girls is dead to think clearly.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I say they chase her out of Florida altogether. A fucking posse run her ass right out of town, and that cocky ass Defense attorney. I can’t even hate on him, he got lucky enough to find 12 mouth breathers to sit on the same moronic jury. [/quote]
Yeah, seriously, fuck that guy for doing his job as his ethical duty requires. I mean honestly, why would he do the job he was payed to do? What is this world coming to?[/quote]
x2
MaximusB’s post is nothing but irrational. The woman had her day in court, was found not guilty and the attorney was just doing his job.
As I sad earlier, people are too emotionally invested in the fact a 3 year old girls is dead to think clearly.[/quote]
I may be projecting here, but I think Maximus’ problem with the defense attorney is that only a piece of shit would willingly choose to argue from the side of the courtroom that, when doing his job to the fullest, could very well lead to a murderer walking. The problem isn’t with how he represented her as much as it is with the fact that he chose to be a defense attorney and took this case on in the first place.
basically I agree with the posts of Jewbacca, ZEB, and therajraj.
it’s very possible that she murdered the child. But if it were that easy based on the evidence presented in this case, there would be a LOT more wrongly convicted people on death row/in jail for first degree murder right now. Our judicial system is not perfect, but it makes damn sure that most people convicted of first degree murderers are, in fact, murderers, that have more than just circumstantial evidence presented in the court.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I say they chase her out of Florida altogether. A fucking posse run her ass right out of town, and that cocky ass Defense attorney. I can’t even hate on him, he got lucky enough to find 12 mouth breathers to sit on the same moronic jury. [/quote]
Yeah, seriously, fuck that guy for doing his job as his ethical duty requires. I mean honestly, why would he do the job he was payed to do? What is this world coming to?[/quote]
x2
MaximusB’s post is nothing but irrational. The woman had her day in court, was found not guilty and the attorney was just doing his job.
As I sad earlier, people are too emotionally invested in the fact a 3 year old girls is dead to think clearly.[/quote]
yup. I agree with a lot of what you say Max, but not this one. I’m actually a little happy for Baez. The media ripped him apart, calling him amateur many times, blah blah blah, even by other lawyers. And that smirk he had when the jury read ‘not guilty’ was well-deserved. He’s a talented guy… just watch his closing arguments. Great public speaker.
in France, i think she would not have been charged of murder in the first place. Not without a body nor physical evidences.
But she would certainly have been convicted of something.
probably “negligence criminelle” (criminal neglect). at the very least.
here it seems the State tried to play “double or nothing”. And won nothing.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
You think that’s enough? [/quote]
Based on the fact the prosecution had no direct evidence? Definitely.
I’m not convinced she killed her kid beyond reasonable doubt.
People love to ignore the multiple examples of people who were WRONGLY put in prison because the jury considered minimal evidence adequate for a conviction.
[/quote]
See this is the mindset the jurors had. I understand if they had major reservations about putting someone on death row based largely on circumstantial evidence, but to acquit her of all charges - that’s where ‘reasonable doubt’ and this whole notion of evidence is abused. They did not connect the dots, it’s like they marginalised their perspective.
Let’s summarise the context of the case: A little girl is DEAD - and ONLY 3 PEOPLE could have been responsible (or working together/ 2 working together). 1, 2 or 3 of those people have blood on their hands. Even if it is an accident, there’s a girl in the ditch with the tape - they turned an accident into murder. All signs point to C.A. Take the partying, the 31 days, the convos, the lies, the tape, the chloroform, etc and put it in a box - she deserves time (maybe not death but time and we ain’t talkin’ just 3 years).
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
You think that’s enough? [/quote]
Based on the fact the prosecution had no direct evidence? Definitely.
I’m not convinced she killed her kid beyond reasonable doubt.
People love to ignore the multiple examples of people who were WRONGLY put in prison because the jury considered minimal evidence adequate for a conviction.
[/quote]
See this is the mindset the jurors had. I understand if they had major reservations about putting someone on death row based largely on circumstantial evidence, but to acquit her of all charges - that’s where ‘reasonable doubt’ and this whole notion of evidence is abused. They did not connect the dots, it’s like they marginalised their perspective.
Let’s summarise the context of the case: A little girl is DEAD - and ONLY 3 PEOPLE could have been responsible (or working together/ 2 working together). 1, 2 or 3 of those people have blood on their hands. Even if it is an accident, there’s a girl in the ditch with the tape - they turned an accident into murder. All signs point to C.A. Take the partying, the 31 days, the convos, the lies, the tape, the chloroform, etc and put it in a box - she deserves time (maybe not death but time and we ain’t talkin’ just 3 years).[/quote]
What do you think she deserves? What should she have been convicted of?
If all signs point to Casey Anthony there would be direct evidence. Once again everything mentioned was circumstantial.
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
You think that’s enough? [/quote]
Based on the fact the prosecution had no direct evidence? Definitely.
I’m not convinced she killed her kid beyond reasonable doubt.
People love to ignore the multiple examples of people who were WRONGLY put in prison because the jury considered minimal evidence adequate for a conviction.
[/quote]
See this is the mindset the jurors had. I understand if they had major reservations about putting someone on death row based largely on circumstantial evidence, but to acquit her of all charges - that’s where ‘reasonable doubt’ and this whole notion of evidence is abused. They did not connect the dots, it’s like they marginalised their perspective.
Let’s summarise the context of the case: A little girl is DEAD - and ONLY 3 PEOPLE could have been responsible (or working together/ 2 working together). 1, 2 or 3 of those people have blood on their hands. Even if it is an accident, there’s a girl in the ditch with the tape - they turned an accident into murder. All signs point to C.A. Take the partying, the 31 days, the convos, the lies, the tape, the chloroform, etc and put it in a box - she deserves time (maybe not death but time and we ain’t talkin’ just 3 years).[/quote]
Maybe she deserves time and if the DA had gone for manslaughter or something similar he might have got it.
The fact is he did not and he overplayed his hand with murder.
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I say they chase her out of Florida altogether. A fucking posse run her ass right out of town, and that cocky ass Defense attorney. I can’t even hate on him, he got lucky enough to find 12 mouth breathers to sit on the same moronic jury. [/quote]
Yeah, seriously, fuck that guy for doing his job as his ethical duty requires. I mean honestly, why would he do the job he was payed to do? What is this world coming to?[/quote]
I guess you missed my part about “I can’t even hate on him…”
To all you bipedal mouth breathers…
You are supposed to use critical thinking when on a jury. If you live in the fantasyland of Law and Order, or CSI, and think you will get every single detail of a case, then you are smoking crack. You are not going to get a smoking gun sometimes, and it is your job to look passed the smoke and mirrors that defense attys use to create doubt.
Just listen to some of the drivel by jurors…
“We thought she was a great mother.” Really. Great moms wait 30 days to report their child missing? Nope. Great moms go partying while their child is missing? I doubt it.
“We did not have enough to convict her for murder, but we also didn’t think she was totally innocent.” Then why not convict her of manslaughter ? Not even child negligence ?
What is a prosecutor supposed to do, if a dead body has decomposed to the point where things like “how she was killed” cannot be determined. SHE WAS KILLED. The blueprint has not been established for murderers to walk, just hope the body has withered to the point of nothingness.
My beef is with jury selection, not the defense atty. He did his job, yea. They were locked 6-6 for manslaughter at one point, so why did 6 cave in at one point ?
You are basically suggesting that FBI forensic experts who testified that air samples showed that decomposed remains of a human body were found in the trunk of their car, are less qualified than the jurors who have NO training or experience in these matters ?
I can see why she might walk for murder 1, but to walk on manslaughter, oh please.
Professional jurors would solve all of these problems.
I heard this morning that a restaurant owner has banned members of the jury from his restaurant. He’s free to do what he wants, but in my opinion that’s going too far. I think they did the best they could, given the instructions from the judge on their role as jurors.
But yeah. At the end of the day a little girl is dead, and justice has not been served. It’s times like these that I wish there was a god to guarantee ultimate justice.
I was thinking the same thing DB. There needs to be some type of testing involved to be on a jury. Getting 12 possible idiots together to decide someone’s fate seems like a terrible idea.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
“We did not have enough to convict her for murder, but we also didn’t think she was totally innocent.” Then why not convict her of manslaughter ? Not even child negligence ?
[/quote]
Because she was charged with first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse and misleading police in the investigation and only the latter could be proven?
[quote]forlife wrote:
…and justice has not been served. I[/quote]
What happened here is the very definition of justice. Innocent until proven guilty.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. They failed.
Justice was served.
The people blaming the jury for the fault of the prosecution need to pull their head out of their ass.
[quote]StevenF wrote:
I was thinking the same thing DB. There needs to be some type of testing involved to be on a jury. Getting 12 possible idiots together to decide someone’s fate seems like a terrible idea.[/quote]
It’s basically societal rejects with nothing better to do than sit in a fucking jury box all day for weeks on end that end up becoming jurors. They should at least start paying jurors an amount equal to their daily salary so that people who are actually halfway educated have a chance of ending up on a jury. When they say a jury of your peers, well…as pretentious as it sounds I’ll be goddamned if I have to accept that the people on these juries are my peers.