http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43636855/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43636855/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/)
Just hours after the 4th of July ends, just hours after the peak of our patriotism, hours after the fireworks and bombs finally end, a bomshell is dropped on our hearts and minds.
I know all about the OJ case, but I wasn't alive for it so it never hit me as hard as this one. This one destroyed any sense of faith I had remaining in our justice system - there wasn't that much left - less than half a day after I was screaming "USA" in the streets downtown.
To find her "not guilty" of even child abuse (she didn't report her own daughter missing for 31 days, and was spotted partying after the report was finally filed) is absurd. They found her guilty of lying to investigators, but apparently lying to investigators isn't enough to prove that she's a liar.
So, yeah, patriotism is shunted at least for another 364 days. We may have a better system than most countries but in the end the good ole USA is made out of the same humans as the rest of the world's countries. I celebrated our independence, and then laughed in its face, all in a matter of hours. I'm a little emotional to say the least.
What kind of country is this where a mom can get away with killing her daughter but can't get away with lying to investigators?
Stunned. It may only hit me this hard because it was so unexpected. All reports told me that she was screwed from every way possible, like a fucking 14 person gang bang. She comes out a virgin.
Don't they do those health checks where they check for tissues of sperm and etc?
(At first, I thought you meant the Karma system >.<)
The USA thinks it can claim .com domain names from people in other countries running websites in those contries that are legal in those countries and that are hosted on servers in those countries. The only link is the .com domain name. Lame.
Quote from: frvge on July 05, 2011, 10:10:30 PM
The USA thinks it can claim .com domain names from people in other countries running websites in those contries that are legal in those countries and that are hosted on servers in those countries. The only link is the .com domain name. Lame.
WHAT THE FUCK!? Say it again, without
countries!?
(https://community.projectstealthgame.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F204.45.110.156%2Fbin%2F1236952162_girl_playing_with_escalator.gif&hash=fcc9af9e7b6245897ab54abb6a54988dd1744d3c)
Example: If you run a (legal poker website/insert random other thing that's apparently not allowed in the USA) in (Spain/insert other country) on a .com domain then the USA can claim the domain name.
Quote from: Farley4Fan on July 05, 2011, 09:57:13 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43636855/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43636855/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/)
To find her "not guilty" of even child abuse (she didn't report her own daughter missing for 31 days, and was spotted partying after the report was finally filed) is absurd. They found her guilty of lying to investigators, but apparently lying to investigators isn't enough to prove that she's a liar.
Stunned. It may only hit me this hard because it was so unexpected. All reports told me that she was screwed from every way possible, like a fucking 14 person gang bang. She comes out a virgin.
yep...we should have been on the jury to screw it over. but then we would be sequestered for a long time. :o :o :o
I'd rather have courts and juries decide on a verdict based on evidence, not useless bullshit emotions and 'gut' feelings. I haven't really heard about any of this until recently, but from I've read the physical evidence wasn't there and everything the prosecution had was circumstantial at best
Well to change anything, you would have to remove the rule of "someone is innocent until it is proven otherwise". You would have to change it to "Anyone suspicious, is (potentially) guilty, until he is proven innocent". If that happens, there will be more trials with a "guilty" at the end...
However then you would also have more innocent people, that go to jail, although they didn't commit the crime...
So choose:
Sacrifice some innocent people, to bring justice to more murderers,
or
let some murderers go, to save innocent people from going to prison/getting death sentence.
Which of these do you think is more important?
Quote from: Justus on July 06, 2011, 07:49:53 PM
I'd rather have courts and juries decide on a verdict based on evidence, not useless bullshit emotions and 'gut' feelings. I haven't really heard about any of this until recently, but from I've read the physical evidence wasn't there and everything the prosecution had was circumstantial at best
I'm getting a strong LA Noire vibe from this.
(https://community.projectstealthgame.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi756.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx210%2FMTCronky%2FLA-Noire-The-Fighting-Sixth-00.jpg&hash=0791620424c3242fbd186e8b2f33452502b651c1)
Quote from: Justus on July 06, 2011, 07:49:53 PM
I'd rather have courts and juries decide on a verdict based on evidence, not useless bullshit emotions and 'gut' feelings. I haven't really heard about any of this until recently, but from I've read the physical evidence wasn't there and everything the prosecution had was circumstantial at best
I agree Zed. But then I look back at the Peterson case and the lack of "real evidence" against him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson#Evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson#Evidence)
The dude got the death penalty and is currently on death row. The lack of an alibi, a presence of motives, and a surplus of lies (all present in the Anthony case) is what got him the chair. This is what I call soft evidence, and a ton of it can turn hard quickly (I have a problem talking without double entendre). The fact that one jury can fall head over heels for soft evidence and another one cannot is kinda fucked up. Inconsistency is the worst thing you can possibly have in a "Justus" system (see what i did there?).
Is it because Casey Anthony cried the whole 3 years the investigation went on and played the pity party? Maybe. But then, if this jury was a compassionate one how did they not see the pictures of little Caylee and lay the hammer down on someone who obviously neglects her daughter? She was responsible for her daughter's death, whether directly or not, and should get some sort of punishment.
Instead we are treated to the sight of a monster of a woman, mother, human, drinking with the defense and celebrating her Not-guiltiness. This is the 2nd time I've seen her partying since her daughter's death, and not once have I heard her express true sadness for her daughter. She's expressed sadness for her own situation but not her daughter.
You blame the justice system when you should be blaming the lawyers for things like this.
All a lawyer has to do is plant one seed of reasonable doubt in the jury and they can't
convict. They double talk and confuse the jury with smoke and mirrors and when it comes
time to deliberate they can't get past reasonable doubt.
Speaking of Casey Anthony, here are some evidence pictures.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anthony_trial/slideshow/casey-anthony-trial-evidence-photos-13724467
Quote from: Bubbaganoosh on July 07, 2011, 03:20:44 PM
You blame the justice system when you should be blaming the lawyers for things like this.
All a lawyer has to do is plant one seed of reasonable doubt in the jury and they can't
convict. They double talk and confuse the jury with smoke and mirrors and when it comes
time to deliberate they can't get past reasonable doubt.
Lawyers are part of the whole justice system, as is the concept of reasonable doubt. I guess it would be more fair to point the finger at the lawyers in this particular case but then I think of consistency. It's strikingly similar to the Scott Peterson case, and yet you get completely opposite results based on what? A roll of the dice on the jury? The fact that the justic system - as a whole - can produce different results for similar cases without much explanation why, it leads to criticism that I think is well justified.
I guess one could say I'm being pessimistic and that I should be thankful we aren't doing things like the Salem witch trials anymore, but when a killer/liar walks away and parties because of some exploits in the system it makes me a little sick.
Let me get this straight...
There is a dead girl with no forensic evidence to support how she died, no forensic evidence to support she was actually murdered, and even if there was, no forensic evidence to support that Casey Anthony did the killing. Yet you are upset that the jury acquitted the defendant of murder?
The only thing that the prosecution proved is that this lady is a bad mother. For better or worse, that's not against the law.
This is proof that our justice system is working as it is supposed to. Yes, there is a dead girl. Yes, someone is to blame for it, but we can't prove who. That's ultimately the part that gets people all emotional about it -- there's a dead girl and goddamnit, it's someone's fault! In a somewhat similar fashion as OJ, the defendant was able to get acquitted without successfully blaming another actual person, which is a large reason why people have a hard time stomaching the result. However, unlike the OJ case, there wasn't any hard evidence to support the claim that she killed the child.
Also, what if this woman is actually innocent? She just lost 3 years of her life to the justice system while she went through a gut wrenching trial. Her reward is going to be people who shun her and assume she is guilty anyway. She won't be able to find employment anytime soon, if ever, her relationship with her parents is probably ruined, and she no longer has her child.
As far as cross-comparing cases, our justice system ensures that you have a trial by your peers. That is naturally going to breed inconsistency in results. A jury from AZ is going to have different values and different expectations of behavior than a jury from NJ. The two places are also going to have different laws, and similar laws are likely to be worded differently.
For every case of someone being wrongfully acquitted, there are a lot more where the person was wrongfully convicted, especially if you factor in coercive confessions and plea bargains out of fear of trial.
Quote from: Spekkio on July 08, 2011, 12:27:38 AM
Let me get this straight...
There is a dead girl with no forensic evidence to support how she died, no forensic evidence to support she was actually murdered, and even if there was, no forensic evidence to support that Casey Anthony did the killing. Yet you are upset that the jury acquitted the defendant of murder?
The only thing that the prosecution proved is that this lady is a bad mother. For better or worse, that's not against the law.
This is proof that our justice system is working as it is supposed to. Yes, there is a dead girl. Yes, someone is to blame for it, but we can't prove who. That's ultimately the part that gets people all emotional about it -- there's a dead girl and goddamnit, it's someone's fault! In a somewhat similar fashion as OJ, the defendant was able to get acquitted without successfully blaming another actual person, which is a large reason why people have a hard time stomaching the result. However, unlike the OJ case, there wasn't any hard evidence to support the claim that she killed the child.
Also, what if this woman is actually innocent? She just lost 3 years of her life to the justice system while she went through a gut wrenching trial. Her reward is going to be people who shun her and assume she is guilty anyway. She won't be able to find employment anytime soon, if ever, her relationship with her parents is probably ruined, and she no longer has her child.
As far as cross-comparing cases, our justice system ensures that you have a trial by your peers. That is naturally going to breed inconsistency in results. A jury from AZ is going to have different values and different expectations of behavior than a jury from NJ. The two places are also going to have different laws, and similar laws are likely to be worded differently.
For every case of someone being wrongfully acquitted, there are a lot more where the person was wrongfully convicted, especially if you factor in coercive confessions and plea bargains out of fear of trial.
QFE
Dude. She looked up how to break a neck and the effects of/how to obtain chloroform, lied about where her daughter was and did not report her missing for 31 days (which, in my completely unprofessional opinion, seems like the amount of time someone would think forensic evidence takes to disappear), said Caylee was with a nonexistent "nanny named Zanny", her mother (iirc) said that Casey's car smelled like a decomposition, was photographed drinking/partying/dancing at a bar after she reported her daughter missing, said later that it was an "accident that snowballed out of control", reportedly regretted mothering a child at that stage in her life, accused her dad of helping her dispose the body after the "accident", and was proven by the court of law to be a liar when convicted of lying to investigators.
There has to be something therein which makes her guilty of something more than "lying to investigators".
And yet, because of a lack of "forensic" evidence, you think the justice system is doing its job by letting this chick walk. Because of her transgressions, because of the way she lied blatantly to investigators, she set herself up for a trial where people believe Guilty Until Proven Innocent. It's her fault.
And don't even try to get me to feel sorry for her. In 10 years she'll write a book entitled "If I Did It, this is how I would have done it", become richer than you or I ever will be, live a life on an island where people have probably never even heard of her, probably never feel the guilt of murdering her daughter because she is an obvious sociopath, probably continue banging Jose Baez (her lawyer) in a hut on the beach of Fiji, and together create children born out of injustice and self pity.
I guess if I murder someone I'll be sure to do it in Florida. I guess so long as I wear a hairnet and gloves I cannot be convicted of murder.
Justice System=Doing its job, sure - never said it wasn't. All I said, spek, was FUCK IT.
Again, everything that you just cited is circumstantial. And while Casey might be a liar, the prosecution still didn't have anything definitive to say that she killed the child. They just had a dead child and a mound of evidence that this lady is a bad mother. This is why she got acquitted.
QuoteShe looked up how to break a neck and the effects of/how to obtain chloroform
Did she admit this, or is this something the prosecution said she did but could not prove?
Quotelied about where her daughter was and did not report her missing for 31 days (which, in my completely unprofessional opinion, seems like the amount of time someone would think forensic evidence takes to disappear), said Caylee was with a nonexistent "nanny named Zanny",
Would a reasonable person fear being wrongly prosecuted for the death of her child if her alibi (child fell in the pool) is true? At the very least, she would have dealt with an investigation. I just read a story of a West Point cadet who got arrested after some hack half-celebrity had her body guards jump him and beat him to stitches/concussion because he was standing too close to her luggage. While it sounds dumb to some innocent, law abiding citizens, it's somewhat reasonable that she would hide the body in fear of prosecution.
Quoteher mother (iirc) said that Casey's car smelled like a decomposition,
Actually, it was more than her mom; however, lab tests of the air apparently couldn't prove it.
Quotewas photographed drinking/partying/dancing at a bar after she reported her daughter missing,
Again, proof of being a bad mother, although I ask how long does one have to wait before it's acceptable to leave the house for entertainment after a tragedy?
Quotesaid later that it was an "accident that snowballed out of control" ... accused her dad of helping her dispose the body after the "accident",
The "accident" refers to the child falling in the pool, so you are taking this out of context.
Quotereportedly regretted mothering a child at that stage in her life, and was proven by the court of law to be a liar when convicted of lying to investigators.
Yep, bad mother and a liar, but it's on the prosecution to prove her guilt, not the other way around.
You can watch any of the myriad of court shows on TV, where the standard of evidence is lower than criminal court. In a good deal of those cases, the defendant doesn't even need to speak. That's because it really doesn't matter whether or not the defendant is a liar, the prosecutor had no legal case.
Quote from: Spekkio on July 08, 2011, 03:53:47 AM
Again, everything that you just cited is circumstantial. And while Casey might be a liar, the prosecution still didn't have anything definitive to say that she killed the child. They just had a dead child and a mound of evidence that this lady is a bad mother. This is why she got acquitted.
QuoteDid she admit this, or is this something the prosecution said she did but could not prove?
Investigators found this on her computer. The mom later testified that she looked up chloroform on her daughter's computer by basically stumbling upon it. Okay.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/23/casey-anthony-cindy-anthony-chloroform-google-wikipedia_n_883541.html#s294277&title=Casey_Anthony_Personal (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/23/casey-anthony-cindy-anthony-chloroform-google-wikipedia_n_883541.html#s294277&title=Casey_Anthony_Personal)
QuoteWould a reasonable person fear being wrongly prosecuted for the death of her child if her alibi (child fell in the pool) is true? At the very least, she would have dealt with an investigation. I just read a story of a West Point cadet who got arrested after some hack half-celebrity had her body guards jump him and beat him to stitches/concussion because he was standing too close to her luggage. While it sounds dumb to some innocent, law abiding citizens, it's somewhat reasonable that she would hide the body in fear of prosecution.
Not if the alibi is true. Not if she doesn't blatantly lie to investigators. Not if she handles it the right way and reports the death, doesn't dispose of her body, and then lie about not knowing where the body is. Not if she has nothing to fear, spek, and she obviously did fear something with her non-stop crying pity/lie party. She seemed to have something to celebrate afterwards, so that's nice.
QuoteActually, it was more than her mom; however, lab tests of the air apparently couldn't prove it.
I'm curious where you think the importance of consistent testimonies from various people ends, and when the obviously unreliable tests start to hold the highest importance when proving something. When her own mother says the car smelled like a dead person, is it not damning? I guess not if chronic lying without purpose is a genetic trait inherited from the mother.
QuoteAgain, proof of being a bad mother, although I ask how long does one have to wait before it's acceptable to leave the house for entertainment after a tragedy?
So with all this proof of being a bad mother, why is this woman not facing - at the very least - child neglect charges? To answer your question, I'm sure our reasonable opinions on that subject would differ from Casey's. Usually, as in 99% of the time, the accidental death of a 2 year old can cause people to grieve for multiple months. I had a professor whose wife had a miscarriage. He took the rest of the term off (2 months) to grieve the loss of an unborn infant. He couldn't work, I doubt he partied. It's ridiculous of you to downplay PARTYING at a nightclub by saying "leaving the house", as if dancing on a pole is the same thing as showing your face in public without the fear of breaking down randomly. Tell me, do you think she only partied after she filed the missing person's report?
QuoteThe "accident" refers to the child falling in the pool, so you are taking this out of context.
So, she basically admits to hiding the body. That has to be some kind of crime other than lying to investigators spekkio. Sounds like forensic testing isn't so reliable after all, the body must have been in the car at some point. I guess I'm to believe automatically that Caylee fell into an above-ground pool? Why? Because Casey says so? Why did we only hear this story after she spent time in jail with another woman who used the same exact story?
QuoteYep, bad mother and a liar, but it's on the prosecution to prove her guilt, not the other way around.
I guess you can get away with murder so long as no one can "prove it". You can almost admit to doing it (See OJ) but not be found guilty. If anything was proven during this case, it's that forensic evidence is unreliable - the irony is that she was found not guilty because of the newfound importance of forensic evidence. Why is it so fucking important? Sometimes it doesn't even matter when you DO have it (See OJ).
QuoteYou can watch any of the myriad of court shows on TV, where the standard of evidence is lower than criminal court. In a good deal of those cases, the defendant doesn't even need to speak. That's because it really doesn't matter whether or not the defendant is a liar, the prosecutor had no legal case.
Thanks for reminding me why our justice system fucking blows. Everything these days is either "circumstancial" or due to "insanity". You can lie, lie, lie, lie, be found guilty for lying, but then watch the jury ignore the lies as evidence. There's no accountability. Your alibi can be full of more holes than Osama's face so long as there is no blood under you fingernails.
The notion that it is doing its job is moot and beside the point, I question its job as a whole.
QuoteThanks for reminding me why our justice system fucking blows. Everything these days is either "circumstancial" or due to "insanity". You can lie, lie, lie, lie, be found guilty for lying, but then watch the jury ignore the lies as evidence. There's no accountability. Your alibi can be full of more holes than Osama's face so long as there is no blood under you fingernails.
I think you've ran away with this too much. The fact you seem to think you can plead insanity easily just shows that you've prolly got most of your knowledge from TV shows. Do you
want evidence we consider circumstantial to be non-circumstantial? Do you realise how stupid that would be?
If you don't have that 'definitive' piece of evidence, you could be putting away an innocent person for something they didn't do, or worse in America, to death. I think most of your argument is going on the fact that the person is always secretly guilty (again, tv shows). There are other reasons that people lie to the police and the courts. I think even I'd lie if I accidentally cause a death of someone if I thought I could get clean off with it, you can't look at it with the solid state of mind you have now, you've just killed someone. All her weird behaviour after her death
could just be her trying to normalise to deal with it.
QuoteI guess I'm to believe automatically that Caylee fell into an above-ground pool? Why? Because Casey says so? Why did we only hear this story after she spent time in jail with another woman who used the same exact story?
The onus is on you to prove she did so (killed her daughter), not for her to prove she did not. You can be suspicious all you want but you need proof. The fact the woman in jail had the same story doesn't mean anything because what if they did coincidentally have the same story? It's nothing definitive.
In my opinion it could go either way, but even trying to get neglect (not reporting her 'missing') would probably go down as diminished responsibility if she was going a bit batshit after the accident. She could have killed her, could not have, but they definitely needed more evidence to try getting a murder charge, no clue what would wrap it all up though.
I find it amusing how everyone takes on the role of private detective.
Being a private detective is only scheduled for PS2.0. So like in... 2020.
One interesting thing to note is that most murder cases come down to a question of motive. There usually is significant evidence that a person is dead and that death was caused by the person on trial, but the prosecution has to prove that the defendant planned the killing.
This case didn't revolve around motive, it revolved around whether the death was actually murder in the first place. They couldn't even get to motive. Not a very good place to start.
Quote from: Tidenburg on July 09, 2011, 09:35:12 AM
I think you've ran away with this too much. The fact you seem to think you can plead insanity easily just shows that you've prolly got most of your knowledge from TV shows. Do you want evidence we consider circumstantial to be non-circumstantial? Do you realise how stupid that would be?
Do you have forensic evidence of that claim Tidenburg?
QuoteIf you don't have that 'definitive' piece of evidence, you could be putting away an innocent person for something they didn't do, or worse in America, to death. I think most of your argument is going on the fact that the person is always secretly guilty (again, tv shows). There are other reasons that people lie to the police and the courts. I think even I'd lie if I accidentally cause a death of someone if I thought I could get clean off with it, you can't look at it with the solid state of mind you have now, you've just killed someone. All her weird behaviour after her death could just be her trying to normalise to deal with it.
As I said before, she set herself up to go through a trial where people believe guilty until proven innocent. With her non-stop lying, crying, partying, why in the hell should we believe her? As far as I'm concerned, if you are going to lie straight to the courts and be convicted of it, then you better prove your own innocence.
QuoteThproof. The fact the woman in jail had the same story doesn't mean anything because what if they did coincidentally have the same story? It's nothing definitive.e onus is on you to prove she did so (killed her daughter), not for her to prove she did not. You can be suspicious all you want but you need
This I agree with to an extent. The prosecutors failed. However, Tidenburg, there are too many "coincedences" in this case to be considered reasonable. Oh, "she just happened to be" is what I hear over and over and over again - and I believe that means she has some explaining to do. She hasn't explained anything. Just cried in the corner while her lawyer said "zanny just happens to rhyme with nanny". How many coincendental pieces of evidence (Yes, this is evidence) is needed before you start to question the unreliable forensic tests?
QuoteIn my opinion it could go either way, but even trying to get neglect (not reporting her 'missing') would probably go down as diminished responsibility if she was going a bit batshit after the accident. She could have killed her, could not have, but they definitely needed more evidence to try getting a murder charge, no clue what would wrap it all up though.
That may be, but then again, another jury may not have needed more evidence. That's why I'm pissed at the system. I cited the Scott Peterson case because there was a similar amount of evidence to go off of and he got the death penalty (Casey walks). It's not the worst system, but it strikes me as immoral time and time again.
@Spek, I thought the motive was rather clear. She regretted her child.
http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-national/casey-anthony-regretted-having-a-child-so-young-drugged-daughter-caylee-according-to-inmates (http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-national/casey-anthony-regretted-having-a-child-so-young-drugged-daughter-caylee-according-to-inmates)
Looking up "chloroform/how to break a neck" on google and then inmates testifying that she admitted to regretted the child and using chloroform means she planned it and probably follwed through with it.
To me it does. And because evidence means different things to different people we are stuck looking at someone who I think probably got away with murder. I guess I'm expecting too much from people. You can't expect justice in a world made up of people like us. Yeah, I'm probably being over dramatic, yeah, it's probably the best system our world has, but does that mean it's immune to criticism?
I bet some new law will come out of this case, and hopefully our system will improve.
There are plenty of young mothers who regret or second guess having their child, yet they don't commit murder.
So what the fuck would be a motive for murdering a child then?
Scott Peterson's alleged motive was that he wanted to start a new relationship with the woman he was cheating on his wife with. But then, there are plenty of young men who cheat on their wives, yet they don't commit murder.