ALifeson85 Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Wow. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughedatbytime Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 QUOTE (ALifeson85 @ Jul 5 2011, 12:33 PM) Wow. That is all. you forgot the words..."according to the jury." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALifeson85 Posted July 5, 2011 Author Share Posted July 5, 2011 QUOTE (laughedatbytime @ Jul 5 2011, 01:34 PM) QUOTE (ALifeson85 @ Jul 5 2011, 12:33 PM) Wow. That is all. you forgot the words..."according to the jury." Very true... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeOhBe Bob Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 unbelievable well she'll spend a lil time in FLA's finest assisted living quarters and maybe a couple sistas in the house will make a statement for Caylee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALifeson85 Posted July 5, 2011 Author Share Posted July 5, 2011 QUOTE (BeOhBe Bob @ Jul 5 2011, 01:43 PM) unbelievable well she'll spend a lil time in FLA's finest assisted living quarters and maybe a couple sistas in the house will make a statement for Caylee True...she may have been spared the death penalty, but she is still at EXTREMELY high risk, esp. in prison. If inmates know you murdered a child, your as good as gone. Hopefully she has whats coming to her... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeOhBe Bob Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 QUOTE (ALifeson85 @ Jul 5 2011, 02:50 PM) QUOTE (BeOhBe Bob @ Jul 5 2011, 01:43 PM) unbelievable well she'll spend a lil time in FLA's finest assisted living quarters and maybe a couple sistas in the house will make a statement for Caylee True...she may have been spared the death penalty, but she is still at EXTREMELY high risk, esp. in prison. If inmates know you murdered a child, your as good as gone. Hopefully she has whats coming to her... guess what I just heard on Nancy Grace. She's already done time waiting for the trial. Hmmm processing time and she's out But is she free? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D3strukt Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) Jesus f***ing christ, IT WAS CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE. I HAVE NOT ONCE SEEN ANYTHING TYING HER TO THE DEATH OF HER KID. Her car. That's the ONLY thing that *MIGHT* be. I'm sick and f***ing tired of people screaming "NO JUSTIC". f**k you. Justice was served, you just wanted to see someone die to quell your concerns, and fetishes. Edited July 5, 2011 by D3strukt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColdFireYYZ Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 This is f***ing ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Casey is free and poor Amanda Knox is still in prison. WOW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rushman14 Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 QUOTE (D3strukt @ Jul 5 2011, 11:59 AM) Jesus f***ing christ, IT WAS CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE. I HAVE NOT ONCE SEEN ANYTHING TYING HER TO THE DEATH OF HER KID. Her car. That's the ONLY thing that *MIGHT* be. I'm sick and f***ing tired of people screaming "NO JUSTIC". f**k you. Justice was served, you just wanted to see someone die to quell your concerns, and fetishes. someone has a child killer crush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shredder2 Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 This is bullsh*t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
librarian Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Caylee The whole thing is disgusting. Truly disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babycat Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Poor Caylee... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
circumstantial tree Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Well, if she didn't do it, then who did? Even if she is innocent, Justice is NOT served if a killer, whomever that may be, is still roaming free. But, we'll just sweep this one under the rug, I guess and pretend there's nothing more to worry about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Presto-digitation Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) Karma doesn't give two shits about "reasonable doubt". Take comfort in knowing that. Not guilty doesn't mean "innocent". I respect the lack of evidence to convict, but I suspect she's got some bad shit coming her way...sufficient evidence or not. Watch. The bitch killed her daughter and will get hers. But now that she's "not guilty" and all, prosecutors will surely seek rape/mollestation charages against her father and brother...and I also hope they go after the father for "covering up" and accidental death and "willfully and fraudulentlty" making it appear to be a homicide. Right? I mean, she wouldn't lie about all that, so they'll go after them. Please tell me they will. Edited July 5, 2011 by Presto-digitation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D3strukt Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Rushman14 @ Jul 5 2011, 02:11 PM) QUOTE (D3strukt @ Jul 5 2011, 11:59 AM) Jesus f***ing christ, IT WAS CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE. I HAVE NOT ONCE SEEN ANYTHING TYING HER TO THE DEATH OF HER KID. Her car. That's the ONLY thing that *MIGHT* be. I'm sick and f***ing tired of people screaming "NO JUSTIC". f**k you. Justice was served, you just wanted to see someone die to quell your concerns, and fetishes. someone has a child killer crush. I HAVE an 8 month old, damn you~ She's an idiot, and would never be seen with my kid. Ever. Edited July 5, 2011 by D3strukt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Presto-digitation Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (D3strukt @ Jul 5 2011, 01:59 PM) Jesus f***ing christ, IT WAS CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE. I HAVE NOT ONCE SEEN ANYTHING TYING HER TO THE DEATH OF HER KID. Her car. That's the ONLY thing that *MIGHT* be. I'm sick and f***ing tired of people screaming "NO JUSTIC". f**k you. Justice was served, you just wanted to see someone die to quell your concerns, and fetishes. Like I said, Karma will meter things out in the end. "Not guilty" doesn't mean innocent. Should she be struck down by a wayward vehicle or ousted from her town and driven into anonymity or driven insane by folks who think she walked, don't feel too badly for her. Justice was done in that it appears this particular jury could not convict on the evidence presented, but don't presume that means she's necessarily innocent. Those two things don't necessarily go arm-in-arm. She can indeed be both acquitted and guilty as hell. OJ Simpson? Robert Blake? Michael Jackson? Joran van der Sloot? The latter only went on to kill someone else. Isn't that a hoot? Edited July 5, 2011 by Presto-digitation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILSnwdog Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Jul 5 2011, 03:11 PM) Like I said, Karma will meter things out in the end. Just ask OJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D3strukt Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Jul 5 2011, 03:11 PM) QUOTE (D3strukt @ Jul 5 2011, 01:59 PM) Jesus f***ing christ, IT WAS CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE. I HAVE NOT ONCE SEEN ANYTHING TYING HER TO THE DEATH OF HER KID. Her car. That's the ONLY thing that *MIGHT* be. I'm sick and f***ing tired of people screaming "NO JUSTIC". f**k you. Justice was served, you just wanted to see someone die to quell your concerns, and fetishes. Like I said, Karma will meter things out in the end. "Not guilty" doesn't mean innocent. Should she be struck down by a wayward vehicle or ousted from her town and driven into anonymity or driven insane by folks who think she walked, don't feel too badly for her. Justice was done in that it appears this particular jury could not convict on the evidence presented, but don't presume that means she's necessarily innocent. Those two things don't necessarily go arm-in-arm. She can indeed be both acquitted and guilty as hell. OJ Simpson? Robert Blake? Michael Jackson? Joran van der Sloot? The latter only went on to kill someone else. Isn't that a hoot? I'm saying she's innocent of murder, not of being an idiot who doesn't deserve to have kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Presto-digitation Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) She's innocent as charged on the evidence as it was presented, not necessarily innocent of murder. You can be both. I believe the evidence wasn't there to convict, but that she did it. Karma is the ultimate justice. Better than any 12-person jury. Edited July 5, 2011 by Presto-digitation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micgtr71 Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Wow...lot of anger here. As pointed out by Presto-Digitation, one can be acquitted and still have committed the crime. One guy up my way was put away for 18 years for murdering a girl and was set free when his parents pushed for dna testing a few years back. I would rather see a killer go free than an innocent do time for no crime. This poor guy got a few million in a settlement. 3 mil for 18 years...not worth it. I would need more. Besides, if she did it, she will screw up in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 No mother who waits 30 days to report her 3 year daughter missing could possibly have the word innocent attached to them. There isn't any logical reason to wait 30 minutes. She either killed her child or arranged for someone else to do it. Either way, she knows exactly what happened to Caylee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Presto-digitation Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (tick @ Jul 5 2011, 03:33 PM) No mother who waits 30 days to report her 3 year daughter missing could possibly have the word innocent attached to them. There isn't any logical reason to wait 30 minutes. She either killed her child or arranged for someone else to do it. Either way, she knows exactly what happened to Caylee. Agreed. Why would anyone make a tragic pool accident -- and if it happened that way, would indeed have been TRAGIC -- appear to be murder? And supposedly Casey's dad is the one covering it up...a former cop? You call 911 and say "My precious granddaughter has drowned. Please get here quickly!!" Not "....and so it is that one must know. I know, I'll put her in the trunk." The only thing less convincing than the apparent lack of physical evidence was the entire defense's utterly ridiculous and completely baseless explanation of what happened. Edited July 5, 2011 by Presto-digitation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Principled Man Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 QUOTE (micgtr71 @ Jul 5 2011, 03:32 PM)As pointed out by Presto-Digitation, one can be acquitted and still have committed the crime. It is a common occurence in our courtrooms, and that's the way it should be....to be honest. The fundamental rule of the Criminal Trial is this: The prosecution MUST convince a jury that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Only then is the accused declared Guilty. If the prosecution cannot convince the jury, then the accused is deemed Not Guilty. In my opinion, the ambiguous phrase Not Guilty should be changed to Not Proven Guilty. That could eliminate the confusion and/or outrage over the accused's being set free. It would also take the burden off the jury's back and back onto the prosecution, where it rightfully belongs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Presto-digitation Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Workaholic Man @ Jul 5 2011, 03:54 PM) QUOTE (micgtr71 @ Jul 5 2011, 03:32 PM)As pointed out by Presto-Digitation, one can be acquitted and still have committed the crime. It is a common occurence in our courtrooms, and that's the way it should be....to be honest. The fundamental rule of the Criminal Trial is this: The prosecution MUST convince a jury that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Only then is the accused declared Guilty. If the prosecution cannot convince the jury, then the accused is deemed Not Guilty. In my opinion, the ambiguous phrase Not Guilty should be changed to Not Proven Guilty. That could eliminate the confusion and/or outrage over the accused's being set free. It would also take the burden off the jury's back and back onto the prosecution, where it rightfully belongs. It is...and I respect that they felt they couldn't return a guilty verdict as it was presented. I just want to clarify the two. Not guilty simply means as charged and as tried under this evidence. It does not mean "innocent" or "not guilty of the crime" even. Just not acquitted under these circumstances. I think some people will take this with "oh I guess she didn't do anything" and that's not necessarily so. I believe the evidence wasn't there AND that the bitch killed her daughter. Edited July 5, 2011 by Presto-digitation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now