|
Post by rick3 on Jun 28, 2011 19:40:29 GMT -5
Tot Mom's family coverups apparent accidental drowning?Baby spends a month or so in trunk of family car?
Tot Mom's family uses Psychic to find body of little Caylee and sends PIs to look for body on basis of a tip from Psychic; Jeanette Matacia Lucas: Paranormal Advisor.com? But come up empty...but very near to final site 2 blocks from family home? Jeanette uses remote-dowsing to locate body.eg dream incubation...
Meter Reader Roy Kronk moves Caylee's skull by poking it with a stickin the eye socket? "I really cant tell you my feelings at the time"--Roy Kronk charged with moving body? Calls Crime Stoppers to report finding body on 3 separate occasions?
Caylee's body has been cremated...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 30, 2011 17:53:28 GMT -5
Lots to learn by watching only a little bit of this. Still two sides of just about everything. Even now, with all of this technology and science they cannot prove she was murdered.
Great job by the Defense throwing everything at the wall because some things did stick. Reasonable doubt is a tricky burden to prove. It's too bad - she's guilty as hell.
The only chance for murder now is if the Jury ignores the reasonable doubt and votes with their hearts.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 6, 2011 12:16:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 6, 2011 15:35:12 GMT -5
Well I certainly disagree.
Let me first end any debate and say I believe she's guilty.
However, I don't see how the Jury finds this any other way. They don't even know how the child was killed, yet, they intend to prove murder?
They didn't.
Sure, 99.9% of everyone believes she did, but belief is not the burden of proof - and here it certainly was not met.
Then you have bogus evidence being presented and what that does is cause a reasonable person to pause and say to themselves: "this could be me facing this BS." Next you have people testifying to the contrary of others... well that evidence is now a wash. I smell death....no, I smell a lack of creditable evidence.
Internet search anyone? What that did was scare the hell out of anyone who uses the computer. Then, once it sunk in - it insulted them. It proved they got that aspect wrong but were willing to use it....either by stupidity or malice.
She killed her child. Wait her out, tap her phones, pay an informant to befriend her and wear a wire - just don't pull this and expect a jury to convict. Because if they do - it isn't because the burden of proof was met.
Again, she's guilty - but this was the right verdict. Now she's off the hook forever.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 7, 2011 7:36:59 GMT -5
Well, you just said you believed she is guilty. That should be enough. Reasonable doubt is just what it says, reasonable. There are always unanswered questions in any case. It seems as if all the defense has to do these days is throw out a couple of idiotic claims with absolutely no proof and somehow that constitutes "reasonable doubt". Ok, the child "drowned" ( I didn't realize drowning victims need to be duct taped.) No, the child was with nanny Zanny. Wait, it was the fathers fault due to incest. Yeah, I can see how the prosecution would have to work to overcome these "reasonable doubts".
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 7, 2011 15:49:10 GMT -5
I'd rather debate the Lindbergh Case, however, its important for me to try to explain my position better.....
I did say I believed she was guilty, and I still do. But its not enough. "Beliefs," "probablys," "most likelys," and "beyond most doubts" isn't the burden of proof that's needed to be met. If at the end of the day, there is "a" reasonable doubt then you cannot find her guilty. The verdict isn't saying she's innocent - its saying the burden of proof was just not met to the level in which the law requires in order for a guilty verdict to come back.
It's a fail safe measure based upon this burden of proof.
The Defense didn't have ANY burden to meet. They didn't have to put on one single Witness. But in doing what they did, they showed the weaknesses and flaws in the Prosecutions case.
How did the child die? How? Was she, for example, left in a hot car with the windows rolled up? Is that murder? Who left her in that car? Did she crawl into the pool and drown? Was she suffocated? Was she chloroformed? Was she starved?
We have absolutely no idea, and frankly, my imagination doesn't count.
Was the duct tape put on post mortem? Does one need to duct tape a child in order to suffocate them? Who put the duct tape on, and does it mean they are the one responsible for the death?
We have absolutely no idea, and again, my imagination doesn't count.
Was this "person" a liar? Yes, beyond a reasonable doubt she absolutely was. Is she a disgusting human being? Yup. Was she molested? Well, I don't know but something happened to her. Does that disprove something? No, but it could give rise to reasonable doubt concerning a certain behavior.
So yes, we all hate her, know in our hearts she "did it" but in reality we still do not know what "it" was and what's in our hearts doesn't mean anything in Court. Besides, its not unreasonable to think, this child was not murdered. Again, we just do not know.
I'll give you the last word Kevin....
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jul 8, 2011 13:30:23 GMT -5
Casey's swept-up hair and dour expressions during the trial remind me of Lizzie Borden. For weeks, I have also been thinking about the similarities between the Anthony and Borden cases.
househttp://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/crime_files/bob-ward-column-casey-anthony.-the-modern-lizzie-borden-20110705
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jul 8, 2011 13:31:41 GMT -5
Casey's swept-up hair and dour expressions during the trial remind me of Lizzie Borden. For weeks, I have also been thinking about the similarities between the Anthony and Borden cases.
househttp://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/crime_files/bob-ward-column-casey-anthony.-the-modern-lizzie-borden-20110705
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jul 8, 2011 13:32:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by vovina on Jul 9, 2011 10:47:07 GMT -5
As regards the Borden case, check out the court testimony of Hyman Lubinsky, a 24 year-old ice cream peddler who provides Lizzie with a time alibi, but somehow doesn't manage to see the large hat that she supposedly wore to go to and from the barn hunting for fishing tackle. Given the fact that Hyman was handy with an ice ax as part of his trade, and rumors that he and Lizzie were involved on the sly, one would not be surprised if Lizzie was innocent of murder, but guilty of conspiracy to commit !
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jul 10, 2011 20:22:14 GMT -5
The ice cream guy was BS.
They think alot of different people did it.
What about the rumor that Bridget the maid and Lizzie were caught in bed together?
Did Casey's lawyers get ideas for her frumpy looks from Lizzie Borden pictures?
|
|