rocknrobn26 Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Guilty only on 4-5 false info charges. I don't like it...but no hard core evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Worst part, she'll be a millionaire by next week. All for killing her daughter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 not guilty....a disgrace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelBunz Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) It's the "CSI effect".....it's awfully hard to get a guilty verdict on a purely circumstantial case anymore. Â There was truly no "smoking gun" in this case.....other than her NOT reporting her child missing for 30 days. Which is unconscionable. Edited July 5, 2011 by SteelBunz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted July 5, 2011 Author Share Posted July 5, 2011 I hope someone stabs the pos on her way out of the court house. Jeebus, you've got to be kidding me. I don't know why I'm stunned, jurors in this country have been shown to be idiots....the jury system is a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 That is some OJ Simpson chit right there . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelBunz Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 We need a new definition of "reasonable doubt"......seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I'm still somewhat in shock... Â Really, it took these guys 1 day, really not even that long, to determine she was innocent? Evidently the prosecution did a lot poorer of a job than what was reported or the defense did a much better job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 We need a new definition of "reasonable doubt"......seriously. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck. Â Shocked to say the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelBunz Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck. Shocked to say the least. Apparently they thought it was a magpie....imitating a duck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 It's the "CSI effect".....it's awfully hard to get a guilty verdict on a purely circumstantial case anymore. Â There was truly no "smoking gun" in this case.....other than her NOT reporting her child missing for 30 days. Which is unconscionable. No kidding. There was a ton of circumstantial evidence besides that, but I guess the defense did a good enough job painting the whole family as dysfunctional to try to explain why she made up lies and fake people for over a month while her daughter was missing and she was partying... Just ridiculous... Â I wish this damn jury would have realized that a boatload of circumstantial evidence that suggests it could have only gone down one way is just as good one piece of hard evidence. Was the hair that matched Caylee's DNA in a trunk that smelled like human decomposition really not good enough? Â Only plus side is she could still do good time for lying to police, and she isn't going to be living the good life when she gets out either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Not guilty is not the same thing as innocent  I haven't followed the trial very close at all so I need to review the transcripts before really making any comments on the verdict Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 No kidding. There was a ton of circumstantial evidence besides that, but I guess the defense did a good enough job painting the whole family as dysfunctional to try to explain why she made up lies and fake people for over a month while her daughter was missing and she was partying... Just ridiculous... Â I wish this damn jury would have realized that a boatload of circumstantial evidence that suggests it could have only gone down one way is just as good one piece of hard evidence. Was the hair that matched Caylee's DNA in a trunk that smelled like human decomposition really not good enough? Â Only plus side is she could still do good time for lying to police, and she isn't going to be living the good life when she gets out either... She will make money off of book deals, movie deals, Im sure she will sue the state for keeping her in jail for 3 years. She will become rich, and live a "good" life IMO. But she also will always have to look over her shoulder because there will be someone at every place she goes that wants to beat the living shiiit out of her. Im certainly one of those people. I am just absolutely sick to my stomach with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) Not guilty is not the same thing as innocent I haven't followed the trial very close at all so I need to review the transcripts before really making any comments on the verdict There are better quick summaries, but if you're bored and got some time on your hands, I spent a couple hours reading this full timeline of the evidence they have against her last night. You might have to skim over some of the BS, but pretty damning stuff. (BTW: I wouldn't read this if you're one of the ones pissed about the verdict like me).  Full timeline of known evidence  The case was highly circumstantial, but the actions and events weren't consistent with an accident (only feasible explanation the defense could put forward to explain everything), and while her parents were worried sick about Calie, she was going about her business like nothing happened and then continued to lie to police to search for her kidnapper that didn't exist. I think it was more that the prosecution didn't do a good enough job hammering it all home. Edited July 5, 2011 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I never thought she did it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelBunz Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 No kidding. There was a ton of circumstantial evidence besides that, but I guess the defense did a good enough job painting the whole family as dysfunctional to try to explain why she made up lies and fake people for over a month while her daughter was missing and she was partying... Just ridiculous... Â I wish this damn jury would have realized that a boatload of circumstantial evidence that suggests it could have only gone down one way is just as good one piece of hard evidence. Was the hair that matched Caylee's DNA in a trunk that smelled like human decomposition really not good enough? Â Only plus side is she could still do good time for lying to police, and she isn't going to be living the good life when she gets out either... I totally agree. But the fact is there was no video.....none of Casey's DNA on anything (go figure after 6 months in the elements)...no witnesses. In my mind, not listening to anything the talking heads have said for 3 years, there is just NO way she wasn't responsible. I didn't think they'd get the 1st degree charge....but what was not emphasized enough was the fact that it doesn't matter how good a parent everyone feels you were, child abuse only needs to take place ONE time....in this case, it was fatal. But even that charge I thought was going to be tough to prove. Â The prosecution really should have pushed 2nd degree/manslaughter/abuse of a corpse maybe a little harder. I've seen more circumstantial evidence in murder cases where a body was never found....than this one. Â And I don't think the "family" was all that dysfunctional. Baez threw a ton of crap against the wall and though a fan.....apparently some of it stuck. Â If that child is IN your care.....and goes missing for 30 days without you notifying anyone (and lying about her whereabouts)....then ends up murdered......you sure as hell have SOMETHING to do with it. I'll never feel any differently. Â I NEVER felt the Ramsey's had ANYTHING to do with Jon Benet's death......THAT was a miscarriage of media coverage and a true failure of law enforcement. THIS is another can of worms entirely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 So 12th term abortion is okay now huh? Okay then. Â Here's hoping the skank gets herpes and aids on her first gang-bang after the trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borge007 Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 "if the glove doesn't fit-must acquit" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 If that child is IN your care.....and goes missing for 30 days without you notifying anyone (and lying about her whereabouts)....then ends up murdered......you sure as hell have SOMETHING to do with it. I'll never feel any differently. Â I agree. When my son Ryan was 15 months old and really just getting used to crawling because of his disorder, I was sitting down stairs and my wife upstairs and she called down to me about something. Ryan's head popped up from the staircase to look down at me and then he tumbled head over heels, smashing his face against the banister at the bottom. When we took him into the ER I can't even begin to tell you the trial we were put on with suspected abuse. Granted it is the hospitals duty (just like teachers) to report anything resembling abuse but still it was a little over the top. Â As a mother it is your responsibility to care for your children unconditionally and when that social norm is breached, it tends to get really ugly. In this situation, I am making the assumption that the prosecutor didn't properly structure the charges and the evidence so that she would receive a lesser charge of child endangerment/neglect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsfan Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I served as a juror on a murder case several years ago. We deliberated for 2.5 days, and asked the court to clarify several points. The judge recommended that we not review testimony/data because it would skew our knowledge gained during the trial. We were to base our judgment solely on what was presented in the courtroom. We ended up with a verdict of guilty of murder because the defense did not do a very good job with the facts and was pushing to get their client off with not guilty. Had the defense taken a different tact, and tried for a lesser crime, it may have been a different story. What I am trying to say, is that the jury ONLY has the information obtained from the courtroom to deliberate on. In this trial, I can see a not guilty verdict coming out because most of the evidence were not really facts, but hear-say and circumspect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I served as a juror on a murder case several years ago. We deliberated for 2.5 days, and asked the court to clarify several points. The judge recommended that we not review testimony/data because it would skew our knowledge gained during the trial. We were to base our judgment solely on what was presented in the courtroom. We ended up with a verdict of guilty of murder because the defense did not do a very good job with the facts and was pushing to get their client off with not guilty. Had the defense taken a different tact, and tried for a lesser crime, it may have been a different story. What I am trying to say, is that the jury ONLY has the information obtained from the courtroom to deliberate on.In this trial, I can see a not guilty verdict coming out because most of the evidence were not really facts, but hear-say and circumspect. Â ding ding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) As a mother it is your responsibility to care for your children unconditionally and when that social norm is breached, it tends to get really ugly. In this situation, I am making the assumption that the prosecutor didn't properly structure the charges and the evidence so that she would receive a lesser charge of child endangerment/neglect. Â She was acquitted of that, also, I believe (child endaangerment). Â ETA: I was wrong, the lesser charges were man slaughter and aggravated child abuse of which she was acquitted. Edited July 5, 2011 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 The jurors refused to appear before the media and want to maintain their privacy. Big shock there. Â They wondered too when Casey is released in two days where she will go since she threw her entire family under the bus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Makes you wonder why only two weeks ago the defense was trying to get her to be found incompetent for trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelBunz Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I served as a juror on a murder case several years ago. We deliberated for 2.5 days, and asked the court to clarify several points. The judge recommended that we not review testimony/data because it would skew our knowledge gained during the trial. We were to base our judgment solely on what was presented in the courtroom. We ended up with a verdict of guilty of murder because the defense did not do a very good job with the facts and was pushing to get their client off with not guilty. Had the defense taken a different tact, and tried for a lesser crime, it may have been a different story. What I am trying to say, is that the jury ONLY has the information obtained from the courtroom to deliberate on.In this trial, I can see a not guilty verdict coming out because most of the evidence were not really facts, but hear-say and circumspect. Totally agree here. That's why I said what I did about 'not listening to the talking heads'. Any of my statements made about evidence is about evidence actually presented. Not stuff Vinnie Politan or Nancy Grace said was presented or their take on it. There's a whole lot of stuff that never made it into the courtroom. But the jurors can't go by that and hopefully, never heard any of that if they abided by the rules. Â Again.....I go back to the prosecution trying too hard to get a 1st degree charge. Â Therefore anything that could actually be proved got a little lost in the shuffle. Â JMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.