+whiteknight06604 934 Posted July 5, 2011 all I'll say is not guilty..........wow. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+CrazyhorseB34 937 Posted July 5, 2011 Baez is now GOD. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+whiteknight06604 934 Posted July 5, 2011 yep he found the golden ticket.he will be writing his own checks for sure. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+CrazyhorseB34 937 Posted July 5, 2011 Aint that something................ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+daddyairplanes 10,257 Posted July 5, 2011 Baez is now GOD. no just johnnie cochran for the 21st century. maybe her and OJ can look for the real killers now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+CrazyhorseB34 937 Posted July 5, 2011 And Roger.................. And Roger.................. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rotarycrazy 4 Posted July 5, 2011 Amazing.................. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted July 6, 2011 Except she was found guilty of lying, 4 separate counts. She may or may not have done it, but she's covering up big time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
UK_Widowmaker 571 Posted July 6, 2011 what are you all talking about? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+whiteknight06604 934 Posted July 6, 2011 sertain young lady here was acused of killing her baby and was just found not guilty.It was just assumed that she would be found guilty I guess 99% of the experts were wrong. http://news.yahoo.com/casey-anthony-trial-acquittal-death-caylee-anthony-still-214100601.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ruggbutt 45 Posted July 6, 2011 I doubt anyone will know the truth, but from what I've seen the prosecution didn't make it's case. Which is a shame cuz it sure looked like mom was guilty as sin. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted July 6, 2011 I think the mom and dad know what happened and they did it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted July 6, 2011 The baby's grandma didn't know, or she wouldn't have reported the girl missing in the first place. Their reaction at the verdict reading was very telling...they were UNhappy. They were hoping the trial would bring out the truth, but of course, it didn't. The reason she got off was quite simple--the defense attorney successfully redefined "reasonable doubt" for the jurors and they went with that. By his definition, if you don't know cause of death you can't pin the murder on anyone because you can't even say it was murder. There exists "reasonable doubt" unless you know. The whole thing of motive, means, and opportunity, all of which the mother had, is meaningless. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
macelena 1,070 Posted July 6, 2011 It seems that this case needed to be more worked out. Newspapers are not much accurate when dealing trials. I would bet she did it, but the State failed to prove it beyond the reasonable doubt. The defendant manipulating the jury is one of the reasons why some cases should be judged by a professional jury, that is, a number of judges, instead of people wich, while most capable, are not that literate in law and "lawfare" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Jug 99 Posted July 9, 2011 The American justice system demands a high degree of proof for a capital conviction and the state did not offer it up to the satisfaction of the jurors who heard and considered all of the testimony (each of us would certainly approve of this if we were falsely accused of a crime we did not commit). We, as outside observers, got what the media fed us and, it is my opinion that the media had already convicted this person. Thus all of the hoopla when the jury didn't see it that way. I applaud the jury in its verdict and, despite the best efforts of the media and hollywood, our justice system works. Please note that I did not say that justice was served, I am only saying that the system worked as it is supposed to. If the woman killed her own child, she will have to live with that the rest of her life. She will, however, live it as a free woman, because the evidence did not support the allegations against her that would have led to a conviction. That's it. Move on folks...... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ONETINSOLDIER 2 Posted July 16, 2011 So, lesser offenses require less proof? At least thats how I took your opening statement, maybe you meant something else. I do understand the rest of what you said, but then others have been convicted on purely circumstansial (sp) evidence. All I know is that I can now add another name to my list of people to visit if i ever find out I have an incureable disease. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
UK_Widowmaker 571 Posted July 17, 2011 (edited) Well, dunno about you guys, but I think it's better if 10 criminals walk free, than one innocent person getting convicted. That's how the Law should work (IMHO) Most criminals don't stop..So you get them next time around anyhow Edited July 17, 2011 by UK_Widowmaker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted July 17, 2011 Except if they're a murderer, would you like to be their next target? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lexx_Luthor 57 Posted August 18, 2011 OMG I missed this. Thanks Jug and UK! Jug:: The American justice system demands a high degree of proof for a capital conviction and the state did not offer it up to the satisfaction of the jurors who heard and considered all of the testimony (each of us would certainly approve of this if we were falsely accused of a crime we did not commit). We, as outside observers, got what the media fed us and, it is my opinion that the media had already convicted this person. Thus all of the hoopla when the jury didn't see it that way. I applaud the jury in its verdict and, despite the best efforts of the media and hollywood, our justice system works. Please note that I did not say that justice was served, I am only saying that the system worked as it is supposed to. If the woman killed her own child, she will have to live with that the rest of her life. She will, however, live it as a free woman, because the evidence did not support the allegations against her that would have led to a conviction. That's it. Move on folks...... Emphasis added. Jedi, I'm thinking that the first thing a strong society does is protect the freedom, independence, and liberty of innocent souls. It sounds simple, but its very hard to do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eraser_tr 29 Posted August 18, 2011 OMG I missed this. Thanks Jug and UK! Jug:: Emphasis added. Jedi, I'm thinking that the first thing a strong society does is protect the freedom, independence, and liberty of innocent souls. It sounds simple, but its very hard to do. Especially in our society of "We must punish anyone who might have done something wrong" And yes, lesser crimes require alot less proof. A cop's word is enough for a common ticket, even if all the evidence points to the contrary. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lt. James Cater 62 Posted August 19, 2011 Especially in our society of "We must punish anyone who might have done something wrong" And yes, lesser crimes require alot less proof. A cop's word is enough for a common ticket, even if all the evidence points to the contrary. For one thing, tickets and such are a joke. Also, it depends on the discretion of the cop. For minor league BS, the last thing the majority of cops want to do is make an issue of it if there are more important things to be concerned about in the area. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites