Crazyhorse81 247 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 REASONABLE DOUBT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS NO DOUBT! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheREALBrooksThompson 157 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 REASONABLE DOUBT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS NO DOUBT! Correct. And the state did not prove its case beyond that reasonable doubt. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crazyhorse81 247 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 Then who did it? Caylee? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AcuWill 45 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 I am surprised and proud of the response from this board compared to what is going on social media outlets. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Hi-Top 791 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 If she was guilty, she'd be found guilty. .. Followed by... I think she did/had something to do with the murder of her child. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheREALBrooksThompson 157 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 Then who did it? Caylee? I don't know and neither do you. That's why we didn't sentence someone to die for it. Because we don't know. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trey Time 186 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 I am surprised and proud of the response from this board compared to what is going on social media outlets. ****, you're the dumbass that is saying justice was served. The people debating Ed (Berto, Jareth, Gene) are merely saying that if you go by the book, the jury couldn't convict her. NOT THAT JUSTICE WAS *****ING SERVED. Ass clown. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AcuWill 45 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 Followed by... Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Innocent or not-innocent is not the same thing as guilty or not-guilty. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Hi-Top 791 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 Not guilty does not mean the same thing as innocent. I don't honestly doubt that she was responsible for the death of her child, directly, but that doesn't mean much if you can't prove it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheREALBrooksThompson 157 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 Followed by... Which is it? You can't have it both ways. You actually can. You can believe that she probably killed the kid, but not have sufficient evidence to convict her. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AcuWill 45 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 ****, you're the dumbass that is saying justice was served. The people debating Ed (Berto, Jareth, Gene) are merely saying that if you go by the book, the jury couldn't convict her. NOT THAT JUSTICE WAS *****ING SERVED. Ass clown. If there is no evidence to support a murder conviction, there should be no murder conviction. That is justice. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crazyhorse81 247 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 I am surprised and proud of the response from this board compared to what is going on social media outlets. I'm actually NOT surprised. We as a society have long since forgotten what is right and what is wrong. I am ashamed that I am associated with a bunch of people who need their hands held through something and can't just think for themselves. Some of you keep saying there was no evidence. Ya'll must've been watching some different trial I guess. I saw plenty of evidence that she killed her child. I actually weep for the lack of education being presented by some of you on here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
