Latest on MJJC

The most infamous trial since O.J. Simpson's murder trial ; Casey Anthony

Mikage Souji said:
No, he wouldn't. The evidence was primarily circumstantial, and the prosecution failed to prove how Casey would have murdered her daughter. No proof, no conviction. Simple enough. Her DNA wasn't even found anywhere on Caylee's body, nor was the method of death able to be conclusively proven. It has nothing to do with sexism, celebrity (Anthony is not even a celebrity--why are people comparing her trial to O.J. Simpson's?), etc. At the end of the day, there were enough holes in the prosecution's case to cast very reasonable doubt as to whether or not Anthony murdered Caylee. Therefore, I agree with the verdict.
Click to expand...

scott peterson? So have the jury given an interview they think its normal for her not to report her child missing and give twenty diff stories.someone murdered that poor child.seems the pros over charged went for all or nothing and lost. Doesnt give u much hope for mj.the justice system isnt about the truth its about what u can prove.this case sums that up
 
Last edited:
elusive moonwalker said:
scott peterson? So have the jury given an interview they think its normal for her not to report her child missing and give twenty diff stories.someone murdered that poor child.seems the pros over charged went for all or nothing and lost. Doesnt give u much hope for mj
Click to expand...

They were not trying her for negligence, though (if I recall rightly, one of the additional charges was aggravated child abuse). They tried her for murder, and her not reporting her daughter missing and lying about her whereabouts, while completely erratic and strange, does not in itself prove that she murdered Caylee. Since the prosecution was unable to directly link her to the crime (DNA, etc.), there was enough reasonable doubt to clear her of the charge. I don't know whether she did it or not--I wasn't with her. However, the jury has spoken, and their verdict is the only one that matters.

We ought to honour the justice system and respect their decision.

As for the Murray trial, it's completely different from this one. I'm sick of people who don't agree with the Anthony verdict saying there's "not much hope" for Murray's trial. There is plenty of non-circumstantial evidence in Murray's trial, he's being tried for manslaughter and negligence, and on top of that he's a doctor--already in a position of authority and therefore especially responsible for his patient's welfare than Casey Anthony, who was just an average civilian. The cause of death in the Murray trial is well-known, and there is an existing link between Murray and the Propofol, through his own confession of its administration, whereas there was no known cause of death in the Anthony case, and no way to tie Casey to the death as described by the prosecution.
 
Its a dangerous thing if u dont question your justice system and act that it is always right.yes the evidence was circumstantial but many cases are tried and convicted on that.peterson is similar.and in this case there was alot of circumstantial evidence.yes in the eyes of the law the jury may have thought there was enough to convict but when it comes to circumstantial cases thats a thin line.she wad obvioulsy involved the question is to what level.which is what the pros couldnt prove

In compairing murray its the same interms of did mj inject etc etc.interms of proving murray injected.no eye witness it comes down to whos story do u believe
 
In the end of the day you have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt which the prosecution failed to do. There was no DNA evidence linking Anthony to the crime, albeit her behaviour during the period when Caylee went missing is very strange. Personally I feel that until the US gets rid of the death penalty the justice system cannot evolve. Juries are all human beings-its easier to send someone to prison than it is to send them to their death.
 
Sophielo said:
In the end of the day you have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt which the prosecution failed to do. There was no DNA evidence linking Anthony to the crime, albeit her behaviour during the period when Caylee went missing is very strange. Personally I feel that until the US gets rid of the death penalty the justice system cannot evolve. Juries are all human beings-its easier to send someone to prison than it is to send them to their death.
Click to expand...
true.. Personally I'm against the death penalty.. just let people rot in prison for life, without parole. death sentence is not necessary imo.
 
Thought jurrors decide.how did work in this case
 
elusive moonwalker said:
Its a dangerous thing if u dont question your justice system and act that it is always right.yes the evidence was circumstantial but many cases are tried and convicted on that.peterson is similar.and in this case there was alot of circumstantial evidence.yes in the eyes of the law the jury may have thought there was enough to convict but when it comes to circumstantial cases thats a thin line.she wad obvioulsy involved the question is to what level.which is what the pros couldnt prove

In compairing murray its the same interms of did mj inject etc etc.interms of proving murray injected.no eye witness it comes down to whos story do u believe
Click to expand...

The nature of the drug (anesthesia-inducing) requires that someone injects it for you, however. If Michael thought he could inject himself, what was the whole purpose of keeping Murray around? Moreover, this goes beyond the administration of the propofol itself--after Murray found Michael, he waited ages to call the police, administered CPR incorrectly, etc. Since he is a doctor, he will be looked at with more scrutiny than a regular civilian like Casey Anthony.

While I agree that we ought to question everything to some degree, I don't think that's applicable in this case. The justice system is not infallible, however, as far as anyone is concerned, this case was pretty much entirely built upon circumstantial evidence. Conjuring Scott Petersen is hardly a good technique--for every one highly publicized case where it turns out a guilty man walked free, there are unnamed cases where the prosecution clearly was either maliciously attempting to frame the defendant, or else they were "blindly" prosecuting someone for a crime they couldn't even prove happened, as in this case. No, we don't know whether Anthony is truly innocent or guilty, but Scott Petersen has nothing to do with Casey Anthony, so don't mix the two cases together. In the eyes of the law, she's innocent, and that's all that will ever matter.

Naming other cases makes one look like one of those idiots who is quick to name the OJ Simpson trial whenever a celebrity is acquitted in court. Although these things do happen, and we all ought to accept the system is imperfect, unless there is much reason to suspect the verdict as stated by the jurors and contrasted by the prosecution's allegation, we ought to honour it.
 
No, we don't know whether Anthony is truly innocent or guilty, but Scott Petersen has nothing to do with Casey Anthony, so don't mix the two cases together. In the eyes of the law, she's innocent, and that's all that will ever matter.
Click to expand...
we are talking about cases charged and prosecuted on circumstantial evidence and someone made the comment on if this had been a man he would have been convicted. peterson case was against a male and based on circumstantial evidence and he was convicted. thats why i mentioned it because of the connection nothing more. if u cant see the connection between the two cases interms of them both being circumstantial then fine. It had nothing to do with oj etc but that the cases were similar due to the circumstantial evidence.

she's innocent,
Click to expand...
she not gulity in the eyes of the law. not innocent. thats two different things
 
Last edited:
elusive moonwalker said:
we are talking about cases charged and prosecuted on circumstantial evidence and someone made the comment on if this had been a man he would have been convicted. peterson case was against a male and based on circumstantial evidence and he was convicted. thats why i mentioned it because of the connection nothing more. if u cant see the connection between the two cases interms of them both being circumstantial then fine. It had nothing to do with oj etc but that the cases were similar due to the circumstantial evidence.
Click to expand...

I know it has nothing to do with OJ, but god I've heard some people try to compare this case to OJ's, even! :no:

Yeah, you make a good point in saying the gender was pretty irrelevant by citing S. Peterson. I wasn't the one who made that comment, though--I forget who it was now.


elusivemoonwalker said:
she not gulity in the eyes of the law. not innocent. thats two different things
Click to expand...

In American courts, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. Therefore, she remains innocent in the eyes of the law. In the "court" of public opinion, this is obviously quite different.
 
I agree Casey Anthony deserves the benefit of a doubt

id14713345lan1uoa9.jpg
 
^I'd be relieved too if I just avoided the death penalty. People's facial expressions prove nothing in regards to guilt or innocence. I'm sure Anthony knows more than she's willing to let on regarding Caylee's death, however, the fact still remains: the prosecution was unable to tie her in to Caylee's death as a perpetrator, therefore, she's innocent in the eyes of the law.

As for someone deserving the benefit of the doubt, I was directing that statement at the jurors.
 
When someones aquited they are declared not guilty.they arent declared innocent.

Every democracy in the world has the presumption of innocence.the usa didnt create it! But that has nothing to do with legal terminology of being not guilty being very different to being innocent.hence why u are found not guilty in court and not innocent.

As i said the justice system isnt about the truth its about what u can prove.the pros overcharged this case and went for all or nothing and blew it.the woman is obiously sick in the head regardless of whether she did it but the pros should have had the option of say m.s aswell and not gone for the death penalty.
 
So I don't understand why & how Casey can be charged with lying to police.... did the jury think that she was sleepwalking then?? It goes hand-in-hand.. you can't just charge someone with lying to police because there is a video of it. But why she was lying to police is also important..... The jury are complete morons & I'm glad that restaurant had that sign out not allowing them to come in.
 
elusive moonwalker said:
When someones aquited they are declared not guilty.they arent declared innocent.

Every democracy in the world has the presumption of innocence.the usa didnt create it! But that has nothing to do with legal terminology of being not guilty being very different to being innocent.hence why u are found not guilty in court and not innocent.

As i said the justice system isnt about the truth its about what u can prove.the pros overcharged this case and went for all or nothing and blew it.the woman is obiously sick in the head regardless of whether she did it but the pros should have had the option of say m.s aswell and not gone for the death penalty.
Click to expand...

I never said the U.S. created it. Stop making assumptions about what I say. The only reason I cited U.S. courts is because it was under their jurisdiction that the trial took place. Therefore, if not proven guilty, one is presumed innocent. Keyword: presumed, not proven.

I never said the justice system was about truth--however, the system exists so that one cannot be charged with a crime unless it is proven one committed the offence. Therefore, if not proven guilty, one is still presumed to be innocent.

I think we both agree that Anthony's not the healthiest tool in the shed--her constant lying is a red flag as far as her mental stability is concerned, however, it does not prove she killed her daughter. Therefore, until someone can prove that, she should be presumed innocent of the crime.
 
September 13th, 2011 Today in 2-Part series
Casey Anthony's parents speak out on murder trial with Dr. Phil

7b6ad81988949114f80e6a706700c37c.jpg


In this Aug. 3, 2011, image released by CBS Television Distribution

By Torrey AndersonSchoepe | The Newsroom – 9 hrs ago


Casey Anthony has been hiding in an undisclosed Florida location since she was acquitted in July of murdering her daughter Caylee and was released from jail. But her parents are speaking out for the first time since the trial in a no-restrictions interview with Dr. Phil.

He asks George and Cindy Anthony to explain questionable events from their perspective, like why did Cindy post a message on MySpace that Caylee was missing 12 days before she called 9-1-1, and what did they think was the strong odor coming from Casey's car?

When asked directly about the smell, which prosecutors used as key evidence in their case, Cindy said she didn't know what it was from, while George answered, "Do I want to believe that Caylee was back there? I don't want to believe it, but I'm going by what investigators have told me. All I know is Caylee isn't with us anymore."

Dr. Phil says he did not pay the Anthonys for the interview and instead is making a donation to Caylee's Fund, a charity being created to support grandparents' rights and missing and abused children.

Watch clips from Dr. Phil's interview below:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/ad/57753



Sources:

View Photos from Trial

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/casey-...hhBHBzdGNhdAMEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdlBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/newsroo...speak-out-on-murder-trial-with-dr--phil-.html
http://www.drphil.com/feature/





 
Michael Jackson:

Imitated... Impersonated

But NEVER duplicated... we love? you Michael Jackson... RIP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top