AcuWill 45 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 AcuWill very well could be. Other than that I agree with everything you said. I have never said anything to indicate such a thing. I have simply advocated for justice as it is defined by the laws that we live by. I have been disgusted during these weeks by the media and social execution of this person who is INNOCENT until proven guilty. Justice was served that she was acquitted based on the evidence presented at the trial. The media and the general populace should be ashamed of themselves; all these calls "for justice" outside of the bounds of the law are equally disgusting. You are one of those people. YOU have advocated to punish a person found innocent by the law outside of the bounds of law. YOU are pathetic example of this and I have a question for you: What is so special about you, what makes you so magnificent, so perceptive and knowledgeable that makes you SO much more qualified than the total culmination of the American Justice System? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cactus 83 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 Came in expecting a bunch of Nancy Grace knee jerk reactionaries, leaving surprised. A dangerous precedent could of been set today for murder convictions. But the correct verdict was made, no matter how much I think she did it. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trey Time 186 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 Trey and Ed - and this isn't a smartass question, I swear, but do you guys see the implications of what you're advocating on cases where the defendant may actually be innocent? Not just not guilty but completely innocent? Do you not see how easily we could sentence an innocent person to die if we don't have strict standards for proving guilt in cases where the death penalty is on the table? If so, are you ok with that? However infuriating it might be on the most basic level, it's imperative that we be absolutely sure about these things before we execute someone. If that means we aren't able to kill everyone we want to, that's still a whole lot better than possibly killing people who are innocent. I abhor the death penalty being used for any reason, but it seems that we're stuck with it and if that's the case we better be damn sure that the person we're killing actually did what we say they did. I think I've pretty much stated how I felt. I'm okay with people (like you, Jareth, and others) being okay with how the trial went because it went by the book. It was AcuWill saying justice was served that irked me. This is the biggest injustice since OJ, which also went by the book, and the Michael Jackson case. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trey Time 186 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 If people ever cared to read my posts (and I realize I'm setting myself up big time for Jareth to come in with a joke) but I am one of the LEAST knee jerk reaction type of person on this forum. But this has been downright disgusting how someone could get off with murder, and I don't know whether to be more mad at the system or the prosecution. Most people who have been saying the jury did the right thing have also said that they believe she did it, that's sickening that the prosecution did such a piss poor job. For the millionth time, what has irked me in this thread is AcuWill saying justice was served, it wasn't. A little girl is dead, and the killer will never go punished, because the killer got off due to a piss poor prosecution and a jury that had to go by the book, even though they most likely (like Jareth, Gene, ect) are going home today thinking they let a murderer go. That's not justice. Should I appreciate that the system is the way it is in case myself or a loved one gets put in a position like that when they're innocent. Well, I guess I should, but that doesn't change that what happened today sucks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VCplusD12 91 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 Sometimes everything points at one person and they didn't do it (not saying this is the case, but jussayin' ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
E27 33 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 I wasn't surprised that she was found not guilty. There just wasn't enough evidence to convict. It's obvious that SOMETHING happened to Caylee, but we'll never know what. If they went after her for neglect, however, they would have had a strong case. Prosecution just got greedy and went for murder. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VCplusD12 91 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 Prosecution just got greedy and went for murder. Law Abiding Citizen Little justice is better than no justice Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crazyhorse81 247 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 Trey and Ed - and this isn't a smartass question, I swear, but do you guys see the implications of what you're advocating on cases where the defendant may actually be innocent? Not just not guilty but completely innocent? Do you not see how easily we could sentence an innocent person to die if we don't have strict standards for proving guilt in cases where the death penalty is on the table? If so, are you ok with that? However infuriating it might be on the most basic level, it's imperative that we be absolutely sure about these things before we execute someone. If that means we aren't able to kill everyone we want to, that's still a whole lot better than possibly killing people who are innocent. I abhor the death penalty being used for any reason, but it seems that we're stuck with it and if that's the case we better be damn sure that the person we're killing actually did what we say they did. I'm sorry, but innocent people do not lie to law enforcement when their very lives are on the line. Innocent people do not change their stories over and over and over depending on what lie needs to be told. Innocent people do not have signs of decomposing bodies in their trunks. Innocent people do not go to parties if their children are missing. My honest question for the whole "justice was served" crowd is: Are any of ya'll parents?? This case has sickened me to no end watching picture after picture of this woman living it up and partying while her CHILD is missing, allegedly kidnapped by a nanny who was proven to not even exist. I would leave my wife in a heartbeat if our son (God forbid) went missing and she went to a party. To me, all of the evidence pointed toward her guilt. She was the last one to see her daughter alive. She was the one who lied every chance she got to anyone who asked questions about her daughter's whereabouts. I guess I just don't need to see a confession to see she's the one who did it. As for the death penalty, I can't see any reasons against it. What other means can we use as a deterrent for future crimes? It's obvious from the amount of people we have in prison that prison doesn't scare anyone anymore. With weightlifting, TVs, and other amenities added to comfort prisoners, it's no wonder the average criminal doesn't mind going there. Furthermore, I am definitely of the belief that life is sacred, and that if you take life in the act of a crime, your own should be forfeit. Obviously, I'm not talking about self-defense or the like. The difference in opinion it seems between me/Trey, and some of you, is just the fact that we believe sufficient evidence WAS presented. At least in our own eyes. I'm trying to get my head wrapped around how someone couldn't see what I'm seeing. All fingers point to her. There is no one else, there are no other possibilities that I'd believe. This is due to my upbringing and my views on things. I can't buy an accidental drowning. There was no 911 call, which as a parent I can't get past. From a common sense standpoint, I can't get past ANYONE trying to make an accident look like a murder. As such, I am highly upset that a jury of what's supposed to be intelligent people can't look at what looks like a simple fact. If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. The impossible was eliminated in my eyes, in that no one else had Motive and Opportunity to commit the crime. I had the feeling she wasn't going to get Murder 1 no matter what, but I was certain she would get one of the lesser charges that would put her away for a long time. I'm a lot calmer now than I was before, but I am still saddened by what I feel is that basically 12 people saw all the parts of an M16 rifle sitting on front of them, but because it wasn't all put together they said there wasn't an M16 rifle. Crude analogy, but it's the best I could come up with. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jareth Cutestory 678 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 Present to me proof she killed her daughter without reasonable doubt. Not just because you think she did. Or because she didn't call 911. Present to me the hard evidence that without a shadow of a doubt shows she was the one that killed Caylee. You can't. They couldn't. That is what was needed in order to get Casey found guilty. I don't see how YOU can't wrap your head around it. The impossible was eliminated in my eyes, in that no one else had Motive and Opportunity to commit the crime Well for ***** sake I hope I'm never on trial with you as a juror. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheREALBrooksThompson 157 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 Well for ***** sake I hope I'm never on trial with you as a juror. Fortunately, he most likely wouldn't make it on to a jury in a capital case in the first place. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Catman 380 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 She's going to get a VH1 show and be rich. LOL..shows how little you know about TV. VH1 pays for sh!t son. Trust me. If people want to be mad about this, they need to direct their anger towards the prosecution who pushed for the death penalty. That was a horrible decision. You really need an irontight case to get that win. The prosecution failed. I mean..have you ever abandoned a car because it ran out of gas? Really? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crazyhorse81 247 Report post Posted July 5, 2011 Present to me proof she killed her daughter without reasonable doubt. Not just because you think she did. Or because she didn't call 911. Present to me the hard evidence that without a shadow of a doubt shows she was the one that killed Caylee. You can't. They couldn't. That is what was needed in order to get Casey found guilty. I don't see how YOU can't wrap your head around it. Well for ***** sake I hope I'm never on trial with you as a juror. How do you not see the chloroform and decomposition of what could only have been Caylee in HER car, tape over her mouth and nose to prevent breath, and not see proof she is the one who did it? Like I've been saying, and even you said. It's REASONABLE doubt, not NO doubt. It doesn't have to be 100%. If it had to be 100%, the wording would be "beyond ANY doubt", someone in the law field can maybe correct me, but me seeing REASONABLE means you don't have to have a video of the crime being commited. You should be able to look at 2 and 2 and 2 and 2 and come up with the answer of 8 without having to look in the back of the book. That's my whole point. And yeah, if you're on trial for murder, and you've been lying to LE since Jump Street, and some of the remains were found in YOUR car, and the body was found in a swamp less than a mile from your house, and inside the trash bags that the body was found in contained a laundry basket from your house, tape from your house, and bedding/clothing from your house, I'd think you were the one who did it. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's not a rabbit. You guys are looking for some kind of air-tight, 100% proof positive, and that's just not what I think the law calls for in this situation. Yes, even for capital crimes, it's still REASONABLE doubt, not NO doubt. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
