Casey Anthony - Predict Verdict

LOL agreed. Seriously though, I can definitely understand why a lot of people are upset. I know we've all heard this in a movie, tv, etc.. But its not what ya know, it's what you can prove. My common sense leads me, personally, to believe that she's guilty. Mostly by her actions. BUT. The majority of the trial was based on circumstantial evidence.. Our nation is so "politically correct" these days, they ask jurors to throw away their common sense, and focus on the facts laid out in front of them.. Can't hate on em for that.

 

I have to agree that although our justice system may have flaws it's still the best in the world...I've spent a lot of time in various parts of the world and believe you me, the innocent until proven guilty concept is a mighty nice thing.

My personal feelings based on what the media feeds us is she probably is guilty. If the evidence presented was not compelling enough to sway the jury though I can't complain about the verdict. There have been enough cases where people have been convicted and served time only to find out many years later they were truly innocent, that we can't expect a jury to render a guilty verdict unless the evidence show some reasonalbe proof.

 

She should get something for not reporting her missing. Lets pretend someone actually took her..., with each passing day there is less of a chance if finding your child alive. Her not reporting it for 31 days sealed her fate. She should get something for that.

That's if she were taken, I however feel she was not.

----------------
Sent from Tapatalk, so please forgive grammar and spelling

 

Guess that didn't go the way most wanted..

 

I would've been much happier if she had gotten something.

 

I guess Lizzy Borden and OJ Simpson aren't the only two that can get away with murder...

 

I was surprised the burden didn't shift which, I believe, would have changed the verdict.

 

The fact that she had the tape only means that she had the tape. There is no proof that we know of on how it came to be in her possession. A direct link means nothing. That statement is similar to one of your animals died therefore you are a bad reefer. While her actions were wrong it does not mean she killed the child or had anything to do with causing the death. The rule of law is based on the evidence and reasonable doubt. A jurors emotional response to the case is not allowed to be considered. This jury put aside their emotions and and went by the facts as presented to them. Always be wary of the information you receive from other people it is always tainted by their bias. By the way she was not found innocent but not guilty. When you decide the person's fate it is only guilty or not guilty.

 

Hum, what? The burden of proof is always on the prosecution, period.

This went the way it should have, if there's any doubt of the charges.

"it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer" - Ben Franklin's version of a principle that's been around for far longer.

Just for reference on that point, and why our justice system follows that principle (rather than conviction via the mass gut feeling), from Wikipedia: "But more authoritarian personalities are supposed to have taken the opposite view; Bismarck is believed to have stated that "it is better that ten innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape;"[1] and Pol Pot[8] and Wolfgang Schäuble[9] have made similar remarks"

 

"To condone perjury is to make a mockery of the courtroom."

"To ignore common sense is to make blind justice deaf and mute."

-Pastey's principle of whimsical rantings that hasn't been around that long.

I'm not saying she should have been found guilty of all charges punished to the extent of the law but she obviously has lied along with some of her family. Little more than slap on the wrist is in order.