Caylee's Law

1988RedT2 wrote: This was a case where the jury had to step up and do the right thing. Okay, so the prosecution didn't dot their i's and cross their t's. So what? You can take one look at the woman and know that she did it.

I agree that it was a case of the jury having to do the right thing. One of them stated that they were all in tears about having to make that decision, but they had to because there WAS a reasonable doubt. Now, your second comment implies that our justice system doesn't work. Is that really what you think? Personally, I suspect that she did do it, but I wouldn't say that absolutely because while it seems likely, there wasn't proof, and that means there's a chance she didn't do it.

bravenrace wrote:

1988RedT2 wrote: This was a case where the jury had to step up and do the right thing. Okay, so the prosecution didn't dot their i's and cross their t's. So what? You can take one look at the woman and know that she did it.

I agree that it was a case of the jury having to do the right thing. One of them stated that they were all in tears about having to make that decision, but they had to because there WAS a reasonable doubt. Now, your second comment implies that our justice system doesn't work. Is that really what you think? Personally, I suspect that she did do it, but I wouldn't say that absolutely because while it seems likely, there wasn't proof, and that means there's a chance she didn't do it.

I agree and disagree. I think it was a coverup and there were more people involved. But yes, the jury did the right thing. The charges should have been different and there needed to be better evidence. Either way, she can still be charged with other crimes if they find evidence and it doesn't interfere with the double jeopardy clause.

She probably would have gotten put away on 2nd degree charges...

I know I'm a terrible person and I shouldn't be so hard on baby killers. I'm funny that way.

Some people just cannot think objectively.

bravenrace wrote: Some people just cannot think objectively.

I'm sure you weren't referring to me, but I'm the most objective person I know.

i'm one of those people that think that Caylee's death was accidental, and that Casey went into a form of shock and tried to cover it up. the lies about where her kid was and the partying at the clubs were a part of her trying to put on a "normal" face for the world while she tried to process what had happened and figure out what to do next.

everyone likes to judge her actions and say that they would never do the things that she did, but the truth is that no one knows how they would react if the same thing was to happen to them. ultimately, it's a tragedy no matter how you look at it, but i think the jury made the right choice.

In reply to novaderrik:

I think more importantly is that no matter what anyone thinks, nobody knows for sure what really happened.

In reply to novaderrik:

I am thinking along these lines, but I also agree with bravenrace.

It shocks me that some people say they'd be willing to convict someone of premeditated murder and send them to the electric chair based almost entirely on their women's intuition (even dudes).

Otto Maddox wrote: It shocks me that some people say they'd be willing to convict someone of premeditated murder and send them to the electric chair based almost entirely on their women's intuition (even dudes).

I've gotten a lot of "BUT IF YOU HAD CHILDREN YOU'D UNDERSTAND!" fired my way.

novaderrik wrote: i'm one of those people that think that Caylee's death was accidental, and that Casey went into a form of shock and tried to cover it up. the lies about where her kid was and the partying at the clubs were a part of her trying to put on a "normal" face for the world while she tried to process what had happened and figure out what to do next. everyone likes to judge her actions and say that they would never do the things that she did, but the truth is that no one knows how they would react if the same thing was to happen to them. ultimately, it's a tragedy no matter how you look at it, but i think the jury made the right choice.

I think this is the most likely case too. However I still think it's incredibly callous and unthinkable that she dumped her child's body rather than laying her to rest.

Am I the only one who thinks a law like this wouldn't be all bad?

^Yes, don't you know all gov't regulation/interference/laws are completely intrusive and serve absolutely no good for society!

In reply to novaderrik:

But if we accept we don't know how we would react, how can we ride our high horse in from Mt Sanctimonius and preach to the troglodytes and philistines that inhabit the world!

novaderrik wrote: i'm one of those people that think that Caylee's death was accidental, and that Casey went into a form of shock and tried to cover it up. the lies about where her kid was and the partying at the clubs were a part of her trying to put on a "normal" face for the world while she tried to process what had happened and figure out what to do next. everyone likes to judge her actions and say that they would never do the things that she did, but the truth is that no one knows how they would react if the same thing was to happen to them. ultimately, it's a tragedy no matter how you look at it, but i think the jury made the right choice.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't go clubing and getting a tattoo that reads "beatiful life". Who covers up an accident by making it look like a murder?

dankspeed wrote: I'm pretty sure I wouldn't go clubing and getting a tattoo that reads "beatiful life". Who covers up an accident by making it look like a murder?

Ding. What she did literally makes no sense, and now she is getting charged ANYWAYS with obstruction of justice. As I said before, she is GUILTY of something, but we'll probably never know.

dankspeed wrote:

novaderrik wrote: i'm one of those people that think that Caylee's death was accidental, and that Casey went into a form of shock and tried to cover it up. the lies about where her kid was and the partying at the clubs were a part of her trying to put on a "normal" face for the world while she tried to process what had happened and figure out what to do next. everyone likes to judge her actions and say that they would never do the things that she did, but the truth is that no one knows how they would react if the same thing was to happen to them. ultimately, it's a tragedy no matter how you look at it, but i think the jury made the right choice.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't go clubing and getting a tattoo that reads "beatiful life". Who covers up an accident by making it look like a murder?

Meh. White trash will do what white trash will do. I have a friend who used to work for Child Protective Services who had a whole filing cabinet full of 'Casey Anthonys' and the state wouldn't even give her the budget to go after them all. But do we really need a 24/7 All Casey Anthony All the time News Channel? Isn't Cops and all those reality shows enough. I think it would be funny if she just leaves jail, changes her name and disappears. No interviews. No book deals. No reality shows. No more fodder for Nancy Grace to rant at. Nobody for all those protesters out there to hate. No more big ratings for CNN.

Snowdoggie wrote:

dankspeed wrote:

novaderrik wrote: i'm one of those people that think that Caylee's death was accidental, and that Casey went into a form of shock and tried to cover it up. the lies about where her kid was and the partying at the clubs were a part of her trying to put on a "normal" face for the world while she tried to process what had happened and figure out what to do next. everyone likes to judge her actions and say that they would never do the things that she did, but the truth is that no one knows how they would react if the same thing was to happen to them. ultimately, it's a tragedy no matter how you look at it, but i think the jury made the right choice.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't go clubing and getting a tattoo that reads "beatiful life". Who covers up an accident by making it look like a murder?

Meh. White trash will do what white trash will do. But do we really need a 24/7 All Casey Anthony All the time News Channel? Isn't Cops and all those reality shows enough. I think it would be funny if she just leaves jail, changes her name and disappears. No interviews. No book deals. No reality shows. No more fodder for Nancy Grace to rant at. Nobody for all those protesters out there to hate. No more big ratings for CNN.

No we don't ! I don't have cable so I don't get sucked into all that crap. I'll read stuff online but thats it. I do think waiting 30 days to report your child missing should bring some charges against you though.

dankspeed wrote:

novaderrik wrote: i'm one of those people that think that Caylee's death was accidental, and that Casey went into a form of shock and tried to cover it up. the lies about where her kid was and the partying at the clubs were a part of her trying to put on a "normal" face for the world while she tried to process what had happened and figure out what to do next. everyone likes to judge her actions and say that they would never do the things that she did, but the truth is that no one knows how they would react if the same thing was to happen to them. ultimately, it's a tragedy no matter how you look at it, but i think the jury made the right choice.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't go clubing and getting a tattoo that reads "beatiful life". Who covers up an accident by making it look like a murder?

And that's not proof. If you ignore that there's no proof, then you also are saying you don't believe in our criminal justice system. Is that the case? Not a trick question, I'm just wondering.

bravenrace wrote:

dankspeed wrote:

novaderrik wrote: i'm one of those people that think that Caylee's death was accidental, and that Casey went into a form of shock and tried to cover it up. the lies about where her kid was and the partying at the clubs were a part of her trying to put on a "normal" face for the world while she tried to process what had happened and figure out what to do next. everyone likes to judge her actions and say that they would never do the things that she did, but the truth is that no one knows how they would react if the same thing was to happen to them. ultimately, it's a tragedy no matter how you look at it, but i think the jury made the right choice.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't go clubing and getting a tattoo that reads "beatiful life". Who covers up an accident by making it look like a murder?

And that's not proof. If you ignore that there's no proof, then you also are saying you don't believe in our criminal justice system. Is that the case? Not a trick question, I'm just wondering.

My comment has nothing to do with "proof" just simply commenting that I damn sure wouldn't react the way she did if my child came up missing. Then again I wouldn't wait 30 days to report my kid missing or make up stories about her being with a "babysitter". Never did I say there wasn't reasonable doubt , and there was proof just not enough to convict obviously. I still think she's guilty same as OJ. As far as our justice system goes it is flawed (ryan widmer). If ever I am found guilty of a crime I didn't commit I don't wish to have a jury of twelve. I'll just ask the judge to hear the case and let him rule.

In reply to dankspeed:

And I didn't say there wasn't any proof, just that what you said wasn't proof. I may have made an assumption about you I shouldn't have, but lot of people here talk like she should have been convicted. These people are dealing in emotion and not facts. I realize our justice system isn't perfect, but I've yet to hear anyone propose an alternative that I believe is any better. Especially in a murder case that could easily result in the death penalty, the proof has to be conclusive, not just pointing at guilt. People like to take things that don't make sense to them and make a conclusion from it. But just look at all the strange things people think, say and do. Are you really that confident that her actions justify condeming her as guilty, even though she was found not guilty in court? I'm not saying I think she is innocent, but I sure wouldn't make the decision that she's guilty just because she's a weird person that behaved the same way. So you'd rather have one person make the decision instead of 12 people that all have to agree? Not me.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to dankspeed: And I didn't say there wasn't any proof, just that what you said wasn't proof. I may have made an assumption about you I shouldn't have, but lot of people here talk like she should have been convicted. These people are dealing in emotion and not facts. I realize our justice system isn't perfect, but I've yet to hear anyone propose an alternative that I believe is any better. Especially in a murder case that could easily result in the death penalty, the proof has to be conclusive, not just pointing at guilt. People like to take things that don't make sense to them and make a conclusion from it. But just look at all the strange things people think, say and do. Are you really that confident that her actions justify condeming her as guilty, even though she was found not guilty in court? I'm not saying I think she is innocent, but I sure wouldn't make the decision that she's guilty just because she's a weird person that behaved the same way. So you'd rather have one person make the decision instead of 12 people that all have to agree? Not me.

I'd rather have one educated person who has a depth of knowledge about the law judge me as opposed to twelve people who may or may not know what they're supposed to do. After seeing what happened in the Widmer trial ( local cincinnati case) I'd never trust that those twelve people know what they're supposed to do.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/13/us-crime-anthony-idUSTRE76C51420110713

As a follow up, I still can't believe some people think she didn't do it. THE BODY AND REMAINS WERE FOUND NEAR THE HOME.

She was found not guilty by a jury of her peers.

I can't believe people can't deal with that.

1988RedT2 wrote: You can take one look at the woman and know that she did it. Thirty years I've been a registered voter and not once called to jury duty. I can hardly wait...

Wow. Not one, but 2 truly frightening statements. The stuff that witchhunts are made of.

dankspeed wrote: <I'd rather have one educated person who has a depth of knowledge about the law judge me as opposed to twelve people who may or may not know what they're supposed to do.

Oh look- another scary statement!

Juries don't judge- you do understand that, right? What the jury is supposed to do is hear the case, and follow the instructions of the court. They are not supposed to be lawyers.