"Justice For Caylee" - The Casey Anthony Trial

[Myles]

I haven't been following this case, but how can people who weren't the jury with all the evidence and information provided in a non-biased way and being there in-person for every witness' testimony, think they know better than every member of the jury when they only have some, anecdotal evidence and it's provided in a biased way over the news? :S

 

[Nameless.]

I haven't been following this case, but how can people who weren't the jury with all the evidence and information provided in a non-biased way and being there in-person for every witness' testimony, think they know better than every member of the jury when they only have some, anecdotal evidence and it's provided in a biased way over the news? :S

The part I bolded is why the point you're trying to make won't really reach. The entire trial was on TV, so we essentially became another jury that was able to judge based off her actions, and her lies. The jury is unable to consider her guilty because there isn't enough evidence. I'm sure they know she's guilty too. If you had been watching, you'd understand the outrage. Since you weren't, well... it doesn't help your point much.
​

 

[Sydian]

I haven't been following this case, but how can people who weren't the jury with all the evidence and information provided in a non-biased way and being there in-person for every witness' testimony, think they know better than every member of the jury when they only have some, anecdotal evidence and it's provided in a biased way over the news? :S

YO. That's a really long run on sentence. Had to read that about three times to understand what you were saying. Anyway, the trial was televised. We saw what the jury saw and we heard what the jury heard. If anything, our knowledge is equal. But you did say you haven't been following the case, so I guess you weren't aware.

 

[Myles]

Sorry, I lost a bit a clarity there, but technically it wasn't a run on sentence because of the bold parts: :P

I haven't been following this case, but how can people who weren't the jury with all the evidence and information provided in a non-biased way and being there in-person for every witness' testimony, think they know better than every member of the jury when they only have some, anecdotal evidence and it's provided in a biased way over the news? :S

subject have object but subject think comparison than comparison when subject have object and subject biased object

It still doesn't change the fact that juries aren't allowed to watch any news coverage of their case so as to not see biased information. And from what I've heard in this topic there wasn't any evidence so you can't say she got off on a 'technicality' like not managing warrants for obtaining evidence correctly or something.

 

[Sydian]

It still doesn't change the fact that juries aren't allowed to watch any news coverage of their case so as to not see biased information. And from what I've heard in this topic there wasn't any evidence so you can't say she got off on a 'technicality' like not managing warrants for obtaining information correctly or something.

That's not what you brought up, though. You claimed that we, who are not jurors, don't have as much evidence as the jurors. Now you're talking about how the jurors couldn't watch/read any media on the trial. So yes, that is true they couldn't do that when most of us would rush to HLN after the trial was done for the day, but even though some of us did watch trial coverage that wasn't the trial directly, that doesn't mean we're all swayed by the bias. Yes, I'm upset with the verdict, but you don't see me obsessing over it like Nancy Grace or any of the people protesting outside the courthouse, nor am I chastising the jurors.

The evidence was there, just wasn't presented properly by the prosecutors. In the end, they just kept claiming Casey was a partying hoe, and that just wasn't enough. Defense poked holes all in that. The tracks in this case were covered up so well, it's crazy.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

When you're on a jury, you are trained to throw your emotions out of the window and base your decision purely on the evidence. That is crucial in order for justice to be served.

 

[Livewire]

So, uh, who killed Caylee then? The verdict being not guilty doesn't change the fact that the kid is dead. Hmmm.

 

[Sydian]

When you're on a jury, you are trained to throw your emotions out of the window and base your decision purely on the evidence. That is crucial in order for justice to be served.

We've established they've done that.

So, uh, who killed Caylee then? The verdict being not guilty doesn't change the fact that the kid is dead. Hmmm.

obv zanny the nanny. v_v Honestly Nick, I don't think we're ever gonna know the truth. :/

 

[Myles]

That's not what you brought up, though. You claimed that we, who are not jurors, don't have as much evidence as the jurors. Now you're talking about how the jurors couldn't watch/read any media on the trial. So yes, that is true they couldn't do that when most of us would rush to HLN after the trial was done for the day, but even though some of us did watch trial coverage that wasn't the trial directly, that doesn't mean we're all swayed by the bias. Yes, I'm upset with the verdict, but you don't see me obsessing over it like Nancy Grace or any of the people protesting outside the courthouse, nor am I chastising the jurors.

The evidence was there, just wasn't presented properly by the prosecutors. In the end, they just kept claiming Casey was a partying hoe, and that just wasn't enough. Defense poked holes all in that. The tracks in this case were covered up so well, it's crazy.

No, I made a bunch of points and you didn't refute them all (note I mentioned 'bias' twice in the original post) and I was just noting that. Also, I've never heard of a televised trial; last I checked it was illegal to have cameras in a court room in the US.

 

[Sydian]

No, I made a bunch of points and you didn't refute them all (note I mentioned 'bias' twice in the original post) and I was just noting that. Also, I've never heard of a televised trial; last I checked it was illegal to have cameras in a court room in the US.

A bunch of points? Where did you make "a bunch" of points?

I haven't been following this case, but how can people who weren't the jury with all the evidence and information provided in a non-biased way and being there in-person for every witness' testimony, think they know better than every member of the jury when they only have some, anecdotal evidence and it's provided in a biased way over the news? :S

This it? That's not a bunch of points. That's just one big point to which I've already replied with that we know just as much as the jury if we've kept up with the trial.

And unless this whole thing is just a figment of my imagination, it was televised. Everyday. They've had cameras in court rooms tons of times.

 

[Myles]

It may have, ill-advisedly, been one sentence but there were multiple points. You only addressed the fact that:

- People got to see all the evidence.

And not that:

- People got biased information.
- People got anecdotal information.
- People didn't get to be there in-person for witness' testimonies.

As for the camera thing. It appears that the varying state laws has got me again. In Florida, it's allowed under certain circumstances.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

So, uh, who killed Caylee then? The verdict being not guilty doesn't change the fact that the kid is dead. Hmmm.

This is true, but we cannot even be sure that her death was a homicide at all. Coroners can be mistaken, as has happened in several past cases. I'm in law school and have worked with police officers, prosecutors, defense attorneys, coroners, investigators, etc. extensively. These kinds of cases are tragic, but we cannot allow blind emotion to inject itself into the justice system, or we will compromise it's integrity.

 

[Livewire]

This is true, but we cannot even be sure that her death was a homicide at all. Coroners can be mistaken, as has happened in several past cases. I'm in law school and have worked with police officers, prosecutors, defense attorneys, coroners, investigators, etc. extensively. These kinds of cases are tragic, but we cannot allow blind emotion to inject itself into the justice system, or we will compromise it's integrity.

It's not blind emotion, it's frustration because the jury failed to convict the murderer of the child in question. Maybe the prosecution team was a bit lacking, because there was a mountain of evidence leading to the fact that Ms. Anthony killed, or at the very least, was involved, in the murder. The body of Caylee was found mere miles from thier home. Within walking distance. The forensics on the family computer showed research on Chloroform recipies, neck breaking, and death. Ms. Anthony's car smelled of death/decay. The evidence is plainly all there to see.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

It's not blind emotion, it's frustration because the jury failed to convict the murderer of the child in question. Maybe the prosecution team was a bit lacking, because there was a mountain of evidence leading to the fact that Ms. Anthony killed, or at the very least, was involved, in the murder. The body of Caylee was found mere miles from thier home. Within walking distance. The forensics on the family computer showed research on Chloroform recipies, neck breaking, and death. Ms. Anthony's car smelled of death/decay. The evidence is plainly all there to see.

The jury is the one who decides whether she was indeed the murderer, not us. We were not selected for the jury, filtered through the process of jury selection for bias, sat and watched all of the evidence, and received jury instructions from the judge.

If you were called in for jury duty, you'd be weeded out rather quickly since you seem to have already decided the case beforehand. That kind of bias is exactly what we cannot allow in our justice system. The prosecution lacking is exactly what lead to the verdict. You mentioned how she was "at the very least, was involved, in the murder". Many legal experts believe that they prosecution could have gotten a conviction if they went with lesser charges. Instead, the sought the ultimate charge that carries the ultimate penalty, for which the utmost standard of due process is warranted.

 

[Bluerang1]

She's only getting 6 days xD This case has turned to be slightly a joke.

May Caylee rest in peace though.

I'm I the only open-mined one about the verdict, if they got nothing on her, well...

I mean I know she was involved but perhaps not the death, just the transportation of the body.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

She

She's only getting 6 days xD This case has turned to be slightly a joke.

May Caylee rest in peace though.

I'm I the only open-mined one about the verdict, if they got nothing on her, well...

I mean I know she was involved but perhaps not the death, just the transportation of the body.

She's already served three years. The 6 days came about after credit for time already served.

 

[dante1w]

from the fact presented here, looks like she is guilty. How does someone do that. I mean i have a younger brother, or actually brothers, and i love them more than myself. I cherish their lives more than mine. How does someone have his own kid, the love of whome is supposed to be more than one's love to his brother, then kill him/her.

Personally, i think it's possible, cause it has happened before, but it's highly unlikely to happen. :( .

This is a sad story :'( :'(

EDIT: Just noticed it turned out she's not guilty, yet it's still sad a death of a child :( .

[FONT=a9a777c99c11e1a70a452b78#180900]This case has turned to be slightly a joke.[/FONT]

What part of this could be a joke. A child is dead. :( Have a heart, really !

 

[Netto Azure]

I really do wonder why all the hype surrounding this case. They're are similar cases like this around the country. TBH there are much more pressing judicial cases than this that need more attention. :/

 

[dante1w]

I really do wonder why all the hype surrounding this case. They're are similar cases like this around the country. TBH there are much more pressing judicial cases than this that need more attention. :/

true, but the death of a child doesn't go easy even if hundreds more die daily :( :( but seriously, this story reall made me heavy :( :'(

 

[Guy]

Casey Anthony gets out next week on the 13th, and before you know it, she'll be collecting millions of dollars for interviews, books, and possible movie renditions of her case. I guess she'll have a lot of fun partying and hanging out with that money having a "beautiful life."

...how nice. :|

I wouldn't be shocked if she doesn't use the money for any beneficial purposes either, such as trying to pursue a new law or look for the "real" murderer of her daughter. Of course, she wouldn't go out looking for said person if she really is her daughter's killer.

Regardless, there's nothing that's going to change about the outcome. There wasn't enough evidence to prove she was the murderer (was there enough to prove she wasn't? Nope.) and she apparently served enough time with good behavior to get out early. That's some justice right there.

The only thing I wish for now is for that young, innocent girl named Caylee to rest in peace.

I have nothing more to say about Casey though.