|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| |||||||||||||||
Date: 7/6/2011 5:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 15228
I totally agree.  |
Date: 7/6/2011 5:33:00 AM
From Authorid: 4995
I'll admit I was shocked when I heard the outcome due to public opinion. I personally have to confess I as a juror could not take someone else's life in my hands and do the death penalty. I don't know whether I believe in it or not but I couldn't take the responsibility of having someone else's life in my hands.  |
|
Date: 7/6/2011 6:31:00 AM
From Authorid: 15228
She was over charged to begin with. No cause of death, no witnesses...she should have gotten a reduced charge such as manslaughter. |
Date: 7/6/2011 6:36:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 2335
I just get tired of people freaking out and saying the justice system is terrible. It's not terrible, it's flawed, and anyone that didn't see this coming is blind.  |
|
Date: 7/6/2011 6:44:00 AM
From Authorid: 15228
It's one thing to sit in front of the tv and watch the trial and know in your gut she is guilty, another thing to be a juror having to deal with the burden of proof. Like I said on another post, guilty people walk free all the time. |
Date: 7/6/2011 6:49:00 AM
From Authorid: 36901
I do agree with both you and Kelly. It still makes me sick, though, that she is walking around free when we all know that SOMETHING happened to that baby and no one is being held responsible. At the least, she should be held accountable for not reporting her missing (or the accident in the pool if that is true). That goes way beyond lying to the police.  |
|
Date: 7/6/2011 6:59:00 AM
From Authorid: 63026
The only thing that makes me upset is that we'll never know how she died. If she wants to really clear her name and concious she should take a lie detector test. Plus her life is ruined anyways, and even though she was found not guilty, there are many who may not associate themselves with her.  |
Date: 7/6/2011 7:03:00 AM
From Authorid: 15157
If it would have been the Dad on trial...he would have been found Guilty.  |
Date: 7/6/2011 7:49:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
Good post.  |
Date: 7/6/2011 8:32:00 AM
From Authorid: 23075
Well said Etox  |
Date: 7/6/2011 9:13:00 AM
From Authorid: 998
I think you phrased your ideas on this subject very well ETOX. I didn't watch the trial or much on the news about this case, but I do know that we as the public have been riled up by the press about this case. That has not happened, or at least shouldn't have happened to the jurors. They are suppose to remain with objective minds and make their decisions. I hope they made the best choice for all concerned.  |
Date: 7/6/2011 10:09:00 AM
From Authorid: 62220
I respect your opinions in your post, but I disagree about "finding a mirror". I do NOT vote, but I do pay taxes, so I don't see how I'm to blame that they didn't find her guilty. Please don't accuse those of us who didn't pick the politicians...where is OUR fair trial?  |
|
Date: 7/6/2011 10:27:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 2335
Well, when you kill someone, or are accused of it, I'm sure you'll get your fair trial. Planning something? |
|
Date: 7/6/2011 10:28:00 AM
From Authorid: 998
We try to choose our politicians if we vote, and still we might find that they do not do what they promised in the election propaganda. For the jury trial, I can offer this perspective. I have been involved in a trail of 12 jurors. I was the injured innocent party of a car accident. The driver who hit me and caused me to have shoulder surgery said he was picking up papers from the floor of his car, and hit me. I'm not sure why he wanted to lawyer-up and take this to court, but that is the way it went. As I sat there each day for the entire week of court, we could see blatantly why our system is a bit broken. The items the judge allowed into evidence were suspect. Such as the huge 4'x4' blow up photo of my van. The judge asked if it was my van, and the image was so grainy that I couldn't determine if it were mine. But the judge allowed it to be shown to the jury. Why? I don't know. Second, the jury wasn't told many other things ... such as the string of lawyers representing the guy who hit me, were from his insurance company. The jury doesn't get to know anything about lots of things that you think they should to make an informed decision on the case. We won anyway and all my medical bills were paid. But I will always be shocked that our 'justice' system works this way. |
|
Date: 7/6/2011 12:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 31765
Although my gut says she's guilty, my logic must believe in the judicial system. She was acquitted. And like OJ, criminally, not guilty. Morally may be an entirely different story, but if the prosecution fails to prove reasonable doubt, then I have to breathe a sigh of relief that if I should ever be put on trial, then reasonable doubt must prevail. This is a sad story, all the way around. A child's life ended. Many other lives were shattered. But when it goes to court, emotion can't rule.  |
|
Date: 7/6/2011 2:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
I have more faith in our system now, then ever. The crime of murder was never proven, and, in fact, no cause of death has ever been determined. I think all the "CSI" shows on TV have given the general public a misconception with regard to forensic evidence and the weight it is given. I also think some of these television personalities that take a case like this and make it the reason for spewing out their opinion has done a grave disservice to the regular, perhaps more humdrum, cases, but also to the great liberty we have been given to have the freedom to do our own thinking. God Bless.  |
|
Date: 7/6/2011 4:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
I agree with Deb. Pretty sure that's a sign of the end times. |
Date: 7/6/2011 6:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 4144
it may not be a failure on the part of the justice system but it proves that you don't have to have common sense or intelligence to serve on a jury. now jurror #3 is saying she didn't say that casey anthony was innocent. well duh.....  |
Date: 7/6/2011 7:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 11097
Yes, your right, she did have the right to a fair trial... but, I also have the right to my opinion under the first amendment and I think this case was a circus media event where money talked as a lawyer that resulted in a pathetic verdict. JMO, no personal attack against anyone.  |
|
Date: 7/6/2011 8:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 4144
does anybody remember the last trial of the century? OJ? remember all the attention that jury got after the trial? one alternate and juror #3 has already talked to the press. this trial had nothing to do with justice for that little girl. it was all about mommy. looks to me like it always has been. |
Date: 7/6/2011 9:33:00 PM
From Authorid: 40979
She had a right to a "fair" trial, and I have a right to voice my opinion. That woman may not have been the one to kill her daughter, but she sure had something to do with it.  |
Date: 7/7/2011 4:15:00 PM
From Authorid: 21839
I do not believe it should have went to trial yet if they did not have solid evidence to convict her. You can't convict on reasonable doubt. I know I would not want to be on that jury.. she is label for a long time...I hate that the Caylee's killer was not caught... whether its the mom or who it is.. I do believe the mother had something to do with it... but still believe she very well could be guilty  |
Date: 7/7/2011 7:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 31255
Everything always works out in the end. It's good to know that an objective decision was made over a subjective decision. I think everyone in America FEELS she is guilty, but that's not what our legal system is about. I don't know why this whole thing got so much media attention in the first place. So, let me continue to lay down and twiddle my thumbs with my passive attitude. This mirror is looking better every day; may we all age like fine wine.  |
Date: 7/8/2011 5:22:00 AM
From Authorid: 45630
At the end of the day a trial tells us not wether someone is innocent or guilty but simply how well an attorney does their job. It is always harder for a prosecutor because they have to prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. The defence only has to prove doubt, no more no less! This is the case in most western countries. The burden of work has to be layed down with the prosecution. This is to try and stop innocent people being found guilty. Who is to blame? Probably the prosecuting attorneys for not being thorough enough with their job and not anticipating attempts by the defence to prove doubt!  |
Date: 11/7/2014 6:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 61013
Actually the justice system was flawed in her case. Her case was so high profiled that it would be nearly impossible to find an unbiased jury. They found her daughters blood in her car. She also stated on facebook she was out looking for her daughter while she was really at work. Plus she never reported her daughter missing.  |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
