dansyr2514
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
Just curious...how is anyone that is concerned about someone else being shallow?
No jury finds anyone innocent. They are instructed to say guilty or not guilty. Inferring a "not guilty" verdict as "we think the accused is guilty you just didn't prove it" is disgusting...
Although it wasn't my initial intent on this thread, personal attacks and snide remarks deserve comments at some point.
I'm sorry, once again it's been proven that there are one set of rules for regular people, and another for moderators and the "chosen few". If I made similar comments to yours about people here, I would be penalized or banned.
Your bulletin board, your rules. Try following them sometimes.
I don't think being upset about the verdict is wasted energy. If, as I suspect it will, this verdict prompts a new law that makes it a felony not to report your child's disappearance, Caylee will have maybe saved some other children from harm.
I really don't understand why people are so upset that there is a lot of attention to this trial. How can there not be? It's so unique in so many ways. It gets people talking about the judicial process, about the court system, about relationships within families, etc.
Additionally, these type of trials are events that mark generations. People who were old enough remember the OJ trial. If you're old enough you'll remember the Menendez trial, and before that Son of Sam. In some ways, the people of a nation unite amidst unspeakable horrors like these.
To think that people are so swept up by it that they are distracted from what's important is a bit silly, IMO. Do you really think people have stopped going to work and have stopped working with charities because they want to talk about the Casey Anthony trial?
http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...iserable-postscript-for-a-casey-anthony-juror
This is what happens to jurors when the public thinks it knows better than the justice system. The poor woman was just doing her duty and now she can't even go back home.
This verdict has been bugging me all week, I've read every single response on this thread and no one else said it, but I will, it's all I've thought about...
Scott Peterson case"
There was no cause of death determined. As with Caylee, the body was in too far an advanced state of decomposit*ion to determine cause of death. The prosecution argued in their closing that in all "likelihood" she was probably strangled.
As the coroner did in this case, the cornoner in the Peterson case came to the conclusion that manner of death was murder, based upon where the body was found, circumstances surrounding her disappearance, etc.
The ONLY piece of forensic evidence was ONE single strand of Laci's hair wrapped in a pair of pliers on Scott's boat.
It was a case with far less hard evidence than in this case, yet that jury took 7 days to come to a verdict. They looked at and reviewed the evidence, asked the judge questions, viewed documents, requested read back of testimony. The Anthony jury did none of that.
Scott Peterson was convicted based on his lies and actions, hhhmmm
just like Casey, but she is walking, so very sad
I agree. People have been convicted of murder in cases where there has not even been a body. The Scott Peterson case was similiar in evidence to Casey Anthony. His attorney Mark Geragos in his opening statement put out the theory that Laci was kidnapped by a van full of hippies. Different jury. No way to really explain it.
Really.
Is that how you focus your attention on making yourself happy and making a difference?
Just askin.....
And I get an infraction for sarcasm? Really? None on your part at all.
Just askin.....
Next time you want to punish someone for having a difference of opinion, be man enough to do it yourself, don't tell a minion to do it.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I'm in Hawaii.
And I have no problem telling you what I think.....but I'm guessing you know that.
be man enough to do it yourself.