-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Casey Anthony found Not Guilty.
- Thread starter Tayla
- Start date
okay any of you people calling the prosecution's case "bad" obviously didn't follow the case or know shit about forensics and think criminal investigations are like the shit you see on csi
i'm no professional (well, i have a degree with a forensics minor lol and i'll be a MS in criminology in a couple months but meh) but the facts STRONGLY suggest that casey anthony is guilty, though it's questionable whether you could rule for "beyond reasonable doubt" because the physical evidence wasn't great (as opposed to non-existent for the peterson case).
evidence in criminal cases is almost never clear-cut. smoking guns DO NOT appear in 95% of cases. cases need to be looked at in context, based on the collection of facts. there are rarely definites in criminal cases, just "strongly likelies". there were plenty of "very likely" pieces of evidence.
- it is very likely that casey was searching for how to make chloroform (somebody in her house was)
- it is very likely that casey did not care that much about her daughter (how much do you care about your child if you don't report her missing for 31 days)
- it is very likely that there was a dead body of SOME sort in her car (or you can just be a (BAN ME PLEASE) and plug up your ears and scream JUNK SCIENCE like baez did)
- it is very likely that there was chloroform in the car
- it is very likely that caylee anthony was in the trunk of that car, whether dead or alive (one of her hairs were there, but again you can shut your ears and go JUNK JUNK JUNK IM NOT LISTENING)
- it is very likely that it was a homicide (why would accidental death have duct tape wrapped tightly around the skull)
- it is very likely that the items at the crime scene originated from anthony's house
- it is very likely that casey anthony has zero credibility (based on the number of times she changed her story)
- it is very likely that casey anthony is a bad person in general who is willing to say anything or hurt anyone for her own benefit (accusing her father of molestation who was literally going to the mat for her, what the fuck)
Does this equate to "proof" beyond a reasonable doubt? Maybe not. But it is MUCH, much stronger than the Peterson case, and probably stronger than the OJ case (well, not really, if not for how the LAPD botched it).
don't like it? tough shit. this is the stuff REAL cases are decided on. not fucking smoking guns that don't exist in the vast majority of cases. beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean they have to prove the case 100%, they have to prove that the most plausible possible explanation is that she did do it.
i'm no professional (well, i have a degree with a forensics minor lol and i'll be a MS in criminology in a couple months but meh) but the facts STRONGLY suggest that casey anthony is guilty, though it's questionable whether you could rule for "beyond reasonable doubt" because the physical evidence wasn't great (as opposed to non-existent for the peterson case).
evidence in criminal cases is almost never clear-cut. smoking guns DO NOT appear in 95% of cases. cases need to be looked at in context, based on the collection of facts. there are rarely definites in criminal cases, just "strongly likelies". there were plenty of "very likely" pieces of evidence.
- it is very likely that casey was searching for how to make chloroform (somebody in her house was)
- it is very likely that casey did not care that much about her daughter (how much do you care about your child if you don't report her missing for 31 days)
- it is very likely that there was a dead body of SOME sort in her car (or you can just be a (BAN ME PLEASE) and plug up your ears and scream JUNK SCIENCE like baez did)
- it is very likely that there was chloroform in the car
- it is very likely that caylee anthony was in the trunk of that car, whether dead or alive (one of her hairs were there, but again you can shut your ears and go JUNK JUNK JUNK IM NOT LISTENING)
- it is very likely that it was a homicide (why would accidental death have duct tape wrapped tightly around the skull)
- it is very likely that the items at the crime scene originated from anthony's house
- it is very likely that casey anthony has zero credibility (based on the number of times she changed her story)
- it is very likely that casey anthony is a bad person in general who is willing to say anything or hurt anyone for her own benefit (accusing her father of molestation who was literally going to the mat for her, what the fuck)
Does this equate to "proof" beyond a reasonable doubt? Maybe not. But it is MUCH, much stronger than the Peterson case, and probably stronger than the OJ case (well, not really, if not for how the LAPD botched it).
don't like it? tough shit. this is the stuff REAL cases are decided on. not fucking smoking guns that don't exist in the vast majority of cases. beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean they have to prove the case 100%, they have to prove that the most plausible possible explanation is that she did do it.
Well said Ancien Regime, well said.
Besides that, I'm shocked at how much coverage this got. I thought somehow cameras weren't allowed in courtrooms. When did that change, or is that a Florida thing?
Besides that, I'm shocked at how much coverage this got. I thought somehow cameras weren't allowed in courtrooms. When did that change, or is that a Florida thing?
If she were a father he'd be deciding if he preferred the chair, the needle, or a firing squad.
Exactly.
It means they have to prove it to the point that you cannot reasonably believe that the defendant didn't do it. "Very likely" is not even close to beyond reasonable doubt that a given version of events occurred, beyond reasonable doubt doesn't mean "this is what most likely happened" it means "this is what happened and there is no reason to doubt this version of events", your definition of "beyond reasonable doubt" is actually the definition of "on the balance of probabilities" which is a far lower standard of proof.
What reason was there to doubt that version of events? What reason was there to NOT believe Casey was guilty? Virtually every piece of evidence pointed in that direction. Almost none of the evidence pointed in any other direction. Yes, you could try to "discredit" the evidence (though a lot of the "discrediting" was "let's hope the jurors don't know how forensics works) but that's it.
Yes, there were flaws in the prosecution (though i think not being able to determine a cause of death is just a silly reason not to convict - the body spent 6 months in a hot swamp, that pretty much makes determining a cause of death virtually impossible), but the flaws were by no means gamebreaking (again, you do not need overwhelming physical evidence to convict, especially with a body with very little physical evidence to use).
Yes, there were flaws in the prosecution (though i think not being able to determine a cause of death is just a silly reason not to convict - the body spent 6 months in a hot swamp, that pretty much makes determining a cause of death virtually impossible), but the flaws were by no means gamebreaking (again, you do not need overwhelming physical evidence to convict, especially with a body with very little physical evidence to use).
A) Innocent until proven guilty.
B) We were not in the court room and therefore haven't heard all the evidence.
Seeing as a cause of death couldn't even be established it's pretty hard to prove it was a homicide, if you don't have a method it's pretty hard to say it's a murder.
People do irrational shit all the time, in Australia we had a toddler die who could've lived if given basic first aid.
How do you expect to establish a cause of death in a 100% decomposed body with no blunt force trauma? And frankly, the duct tape is consistent with the idea of suffocation (how else would duct tape be on the skull other than a homicide? Tell me what other possible explanations fit.)
Shitfests that dont need a lick of religion to be created?
Ho ho, a forum, you surely have expanded your repertoire
Ho ho, a forum, you surely have expanded your repertoire
Who knows, maybe they were trying to mummify the kid or something. I dunno how many people you've seen suffering from severe lack of oxygen but they're not what I'd call easy to look at.
This being said we are not in court and didn't hear evidence, shouldn't jump to conclusions.
posting to say you're full of shit. that is all.
honestly I didn't care I was just tired of hearing about it on TV thank god its over
oh and I had no opinions about her guilt but I am surprised she was found not guilty.
oh and I had no opinions about her guilt but I am surprised she was found not guilty.
This 100%. I would have been annoyed if she did get prosecuted, essentially because people "feel" she did it. There simply wasn't enough evidence to do much of anything against her.
see post 28.
people seem to think "reasonable doubt = NO doubt" when that simply isn't the case.
the evidence against anthony was strong to overwhelming depending on how strong you feel the physical evidence is (we can't determine if there was a dead human body in the car, but we CAN determine there was a dead body in the same trunk as was found chloroform, a substance that the prime suspect was actively searching for prior to the disappearance of the child)
maybe you could question going for capital murder (though god knows the bitch deserved it) but it wasn't wholly unrealistic to get capital murder based on the evidence and the crime accused, and the consensus among most legal minds was that the death penalty was entirely possible
the thing is that there were no real problems with the prosecutions case outside presentation, and lack of clear cause of death (which you will almost certainly not get with a little body 6 months rotting in a hot swamp sans blunt force trauma) while the OJ case had REAL, systemic problems including endemic racism within elements of the LAPD and some of the worst forensics work ever seen, going up against the best lawyers on the planet at the time
the jury botched it worse than OJ, because there were reasons to not convict OJ based on the evidence at the time and the shoddy forensics work, even though the overall body of evidence was way stronger
people seem to think "reasonable doubt = NO doubt" when that simply isn't the case.
the evidence against anthony was strong to overwhelming depending on how strong you feel the physical evidence is (we can't determine if there was a dead human body in the car, but we CAN determine there was a dead body in the same trunk as was found chloroform, a substance that the prime suspect was actively searching for prior to the disappearance of the child)
maybe you could question going for capital murder (though god knows the bitch deserved it) but it wasn't wholly unrealistic to get capital murder based on the evidence and the crime accused, and the consensus among most legal minds was that the death penalty was entirely possible
the thing is that there were no real problems with the prosecutions case outside presentation, and lack of clear cause of death (which you will almost certainly not get with a little body 6 months rotting in a hot swamp sans blunt force trauma) while the OJ case had REAL, systemic problems including endemic racism within elements of the LAPD and some of the worst forensics work ever seen, going up against the best lawyers on the planet at the time
the jury botched it worse than OJ, because there were reasons to not convict OJ based on the evidence at the time and the shoddy forensics work, even though the overall body of evidence was way stronger
Besides, I could easily see it being someone close to her and she doesn't want to rat that person out.
The evidence (according to post 28) points to her car, house, and that she's not caring (though children that young are irritating, still she could have reported it before 31 days). Except that other people could have been in her car/house. So I don't think it's beyond reasonable doubt, but I do think she is most likely.
The evidence (according to post 28) points to her car, house, and that she's not caring (though children that young are irritating, still she could have reported it before 31 days). Except that other people could have been in her car/house. So I don't think it's beyond reasonable doubt, but I do think she is most likely.
why is this news?
It's been established that nobody but Casey had access to her car. As for her house, the only people at that house at a regular basis were her parents and brother.
Again, "reasonable doubt" isn't "make up random hypotheticals based on zero evidence to create doubt.
frankly, i think the prosecutor laughing at baez cost them the case.
it got national attention before jersey shore kept everyone occupied
I mean I know a lot of people get murdered in america, but really, baby murders are always going to be newsworthy..
Have a nice day.
she was a shitty daughter and a shitty mother