Authors.com

Authors, Writers, Publishers, and Book Readers

Casey Anthony found not guilty of murder. WHAT!?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/05/us-crime-anthony-idUSTRE7...

I don't know about you but I think those jurors need questioning and checked out for corruption and or insanity. Honestly, who was her lawyer? Phoenix Wright!?

Views: 109

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I was kind of outraged that common sense was thrown out the window. As I have commented on blogs, it was a legal decision and the law is very contraversial at times because there are inconsistencies throughout. If the law was based on real logic and truth, she would be convicted.
 

Before anyone freaks out on ME, I would like to say that I believe she should be punished for at LEAST child neglect, but I'm not 100% sure she did it anyway, but let me explain something. They had NO real proof that she did it, so they couldn't convict her without a prejudiced decision.

That jury was told to make their decision solely on the evidence presented, not a prejudice! The Prosecution NEVER presented ANY actual evidence, so they actually couldn't prosecute her.

There was NO, I repeat NO real evidence against her. They had NO real proof that she did it, so they couldn't convict her without a prejudiced decision.

Now on another note, think about what you believe she did and think about how many people get away with it EVERY day. What about all of those people? They're never even suspected of killing their child! Why not worry about them?

Casey Anthony was pronounced not guilty. That won't change! She could stand up and confess and they wouldn't be aloud to convict her for it! Just leave it at that! You can't change it, and neither can anyone else!

I can say that child neglect makes so much sine too. She ignored the fact that her child was missing and went out partying. According to the law, that is showing disregard for the health and warefare of your child. People lose their children over things like that. This is why that should have been considered as evidence. I have argued that this same court had no evidence against Scott Peterson other than a body and a theory. They could not connect him to the body or the death, but the same defense his lawyers gave is what Casey's lawyers gave. He was convicted based on his demeanor  and attitude and the fact that he committed adultery. That sounds like prejudice as well, but no one cried foul either. People cheered at his conviction.

Callie Leah said:
 

Before anyone freaks out on ME, I would like to say that I believe she should be punished for at LEAST child neglect, but I'm not 100% sure she did it anyway, but let me explain something. They had NO real proof that she did it, so they couldn't convict her without a prejudiced decision.

That jury was told to make their decision solely on the evidence presented, not a prejudice! The Prosecution NEVER presented ANY actual evidence, so they actually couldn't prosecute her.

There was NO, I repeat NO real evidence against her. They had NO real proof that she did it, so they couldn't convict her without a prejudiced decision.

Now on another note, think about what you believe she did and think about how many people get away with it EVERY day. What about all of those people? They're never even suspected of killing their child! Why not worry about them?

Casey Anthony was pronounced not guilty. That won't change! She could stand up and confess and they wouldn't be aloud to convict her for it! Just leave it at that! You can't change it, and neither can anyone else!

Not reporting your daughter being missing is MORE than enough evidence in my book.
agreed.

Aries said:
Not reporting your daughter being missing is MORE than enough evidence in my book.
Actually, she admitted on the first day in court that her daughter was never missing, Caley had been dead since the first day she 'disappeared' but Casey never told anyone, and that's not a felany. You're not required by law to tell anyone your daughter is dead. However, I agree, if Caley HAD been missing and not dead, that would be completely different.

Aries said:
Not reporting your daughter being missing is MORE than enough evidence in my book.
I never said I agreed with what happened, I'm telling you what DID happen. However, I believe the jury decided right ONLY because they never presented real evidence, and maybe they had more sense this time than in the Scott Peterson case, but this isn't Scott Peterson accused of murder, it's Casey Anthony.

Larry A Cochran said:
I can say that child neglect makes so much sine too. She ignored the fact that her child was missing and went out partying. According to the law, that is showing disregard for the health and warefare of your child. People lose their children over things like that. This is why that should have been considered as evidence. I have argued that this same court had no evidence against Scott Peterson other than a body and a theory. They could not connect him to the body or the death, but the same defense his lawyers gave is what Casey's lawyers gave. He was convicted based on his demeanor  and attitude and the fact that he committed adultery. That sounds like prejudice as well, but no one cried foul either. People cheered at his conviction.

Callie Leah said:
 

Before anyone freaks out on ME, I would like to say that I believe she should be punished for at LEAST child neglect, but I'm not 100% sure she did it anyway, but let me explain something. They had NO real proof that she did it, so they couldn't convict her without a prejudiced decision.

That jury was told to make their decision solely on the evidence presented, not a prejudice! The Prosecution NEVER presented ANY actual evidence, so they actually couldn't prosecute her.

There was NO, I repeat NO real evidence against her. They had NO real proof that she did it, so they couldn't convict her without a prejudiced decision.

Now on another note, think about what you believe she did and think about how many people get away with it EVERY day. What about all of those people? They're never even suspected of killing their child! Why not worry about them?

Casey Anthony was pronounced not guilty. That won't change! She could stand up and confess and they wouldn't be aloud to convict her for it! Just leave it at that! You can't change it, and neither can anyone else!

I can give you that one. Trust me, everyone is kind of right and kinda of wrong. Also, even one of the jurors has come out to say that they thinks she is guilty, but they could not convict based on the lack of evidence presented. Hey, you should read my blog post on it called Justice is not equal, but it is fair:

 

http://www.authors.com/profiles/blogs/justice-is-not-equal-it-is

Callie Leah said:

I never said I agreed with what happened, I'm telling you what DID happen. However, I believe the jury decided right ONLY because they never presented real evidence, and maybe they had more sense this time than in the Scott Peterson case, but this isn't Scott Peterson accused of murder, it's Casey Anthony.

Larry A Cochran said:
I can say that child neglect makes so much sine too. She ignored the fact that her child was missing and went out partying. According to the law, that is showing disregard for the health and warefare of your child. People lose their children over things like that. This is why that should have been considered as evidence. I have argued that this same court had no evidence against Scott Peterson other than a body and a theory. They could not connect him to the body or the death, but the same defense his lawyers gave is what Casey's lawyers gave. He was convicted based on his demeanor  and attitude and the fact that he committed adultery. That sounds like prejudice as well, but no one cried foul either. People cheered at his conviction.

Callie Leah said:
 

Before anyone freaks out on ME, I would like to say that I believe she should be punished for at LEAST child neglect, but I'm not 100% sure she did it anyway, but let me explain something. They had NO real proof that she did it, so they couldn't convict her without a prejudiced decision.

That jury was told to make their decision solely on the evidence presented, not a prejudice! The Prosecution NEVER presented ANY actual evidence, so they actually couldn't prosecute her.

There was NO, I repeat NO real evidence against her. They had NO real proof that she did it, so they couldn't convict her without a prejudiced decision.

Now on another note, think about what you believe she did and think about how many people get away with it EVERY day. What about all of those people? They're never even suspected of killing their child! Why not worry about them?

Casey Anthony was pronounced not guilty. That won't change! She could stand up and confess and they wouldn't be aloud to convict her for it! Just leave it at that! You can't change it, and neither can anyone else!

They should get her for negligence at least.
There is a petition on facebook to change the law. It would allow parents to be charged for not reporting their child missing within 48 hours of them knowing the facts surrounding their childs abduction, disappearance, or other death. Its called Caylees Law and it is close to having the signatures it needs to become put on the books. It is from a company called change.org. You should sign it, I did.

Viviana Arteaga said:
They should get her for negligence at least.
That isn't law already!? (╯╬ ಠ益ಠ)╯︵ ┻━┻

sad to say it is not,that is the real reason she walked. She had no legal obligation to tell the law enforcement officers either story, she chose to lie, which is on the books as a law. That is why her sentence and acquital are so controversial to so many people. The law says "no evidence", but is should have infered her guilt by the lack of informing the officers of the missing childs whereabouts from day one. If she was with a nanny that actually existed, then she would be innocent, but if the nanny never existed, the law would then infer that as reason to a motive. That motive is seen when people try to hide the truth or manipulate it.

 

In other criminal cases, those lies have served to cause definite conviction, but in this one, that was never admitted as sure fire evidence. If it were, it could still be rejected because the law does not currently say that it is mandatory for parents to talk one way other the other. That is sad.

 

Where I live, there is a woman who is getting away with that right now, her two daughters have been missing for 10 years and she refuses to cooperate with police properly. The only difference is that her daughters bodies have never been found.

Aries said:

That isn't law already!? (╯╬ ಠ益ಠ)╯︵ ┻━┻

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2020   Created by Authors.com.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service