Page 1 of 2
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 12:01 am
by Broodwich
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 12:06 am
by NightRychune
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 7:43 am
by Malicious Wraith
She did it.
But there was reasonable doubt.
People are calling it the next OJ, but this isn't close. If you read the details of the case, you will clearly see a lot of holes in the prosecutions argument. They just didn't have the information, or connecting evidence.
I would rather that clueless bitch get off on her charges than live in a country with a legal system that leads me to fear being accused, and NOT being given the benefit of reasonable doubt.
Besides, shes going away for a whole other slew of charges that are pretty serious.
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 7:59 am
by Duckwarrior
I like the thinking behind her alibi. If she uses people who don't actually exist, then how are the police going to question them to prove her guilt?
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:02 am
by Malicious Wraith
The problem was that the nanny did exist.
She also claimed in police reports that she worked at a Universal Studios... and when the cops went and asked them, they said she hadn't worked there for two years.
It wasn't clever, and it wasn't fake. It was stupid lies.
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:48 am
by peet
Who is she and what did she do?
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:53 am
by notjarvis
Casey Anthony - was accused of killing her 2 year old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Caylee_Anthony
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:45 am
by Duckwarrior
Neil Entwistle has launched an appeal based on a search warrant technicality.
Who is paying for this pus-bags lawyers?
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 2:07 pm
by takingarms1
The prosecution had a pretty tough case. From what I've read and heard, there wasn't any real evidence to connect Casey to the crime or to rule out accidental death or murder by one of the parents.
From what I can tell, everyone is assuming she was guilty based on her failure to report her child missing for 30+ days and her party girl antics during said 30+ days. Unfortunately, that evidence doesn't prove she committed murder, only that she's a @#(!ty human being and there are as yet no laws against that.
People are also calling the defense attorney a genius but honestly from what I've read and heard, he didn't do anything special other than being a basically competent defense attorney.
So hey, get mad and whatever, but remember our system is biased in favor of letting a few guilty mofos go free so that there's a better chance that the innocent don't get condemned. Seems like it's working according to plan to me, and I would rather we not change it because this scumbag of a human being didn't get nailed on flimsy evidence.
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 2:20 pm
by NightRychune
justice is a human thing, and as such any systems derived from the concept will always be fallible