mrduna01
Well-Known Member
What are your thoughts on this? Can't say I'm surprised.
Nope. Although most people agree she is probably guilty, the prosocution has to prove it BEYOND a reasonable doubt. There case mostly circumstantial. Obviously not enough for those 12 people.
She's definitely guilty, but not beyond a reasonable doubt.
beerloaf said:Exactly! I personally think that she is a POS however if she murdered that child, it cannot be proven. The problem arose when the coroner could not even establish an actual cause of death. Everything in this case is speculation which sucks because that little girl will not get any justice.
beerloaf
Couldn't there have been some additional charges brought up, not sure what they could have been, but even going with her story isn't knowing somebody dumped a body kind of a crime? Attempt to cover up a crime or something? Or would the prosecutors have to admit that her BS story was legit to go that route? I think every juror probably assumes she's guilty of something, maybe the prosecution should have tried to rack up more charges. She can't be re-tried for any of her acquitals but what about new lesser charges, any possibility?
Manslaughter maybe?
motobrewer said:so, wait, wtf?
defense says she died in a pool - that's child neglect/abuse, then? shouldn't she get rung up on that?
seriously, everyone's entitled to a defense, but Baez just used this to boost his career. what a pathetic man.
iaefebs said:I've sat as a juror in a murder trial. It is definitely an eye opener. When I saw that the jury makeup was seven women I knew that there would be no conviction for murder in the 1st degree against a woman when the jurors had a slight reasonable doubt. Baez threw spaghetti against the wall till something stuck. I wonder how a person could live with themselves when they know a client is guilty but will say or do anything to get a win.
Hi, my name is Jose Baez, and today I just put a child killer back on the street. Who wants to buy me a coke?
I just wish at least one juror would have held out for a hung jury. That way if there was any new evidence/testimony that came to light, then they could have retried her.
Nope. Although most people agree she is probably guilty, the prosocution has to prove it BEYOND a reasonable doubt.
Just doing his job, as nasty as it was. Jurors are the ones to blame. Your/my peers.
Hophead75 said:Yeah, watching CNN and one of the legal analysts said she can go out tomorrow and sit on the court steps and declare she did it and laugh her ass off at the jury. I get the double jeopardy thing, but something seems just so wrong about that.
Any chance for a civil suit? That's what happened to OJ right?
I don't believe that. he was clearly using this case as a springboard for his firm.
Casey Anthony who?
IrregularPulse said:I didn't follow the trial, but he's a lawyer. He was hired to do a job. That job was to use the legal system to prove his client not guilty without reasonable doubt. That's what he did. I don't think that makes him a bad man, I think it makes him good at his job.
I still think it's horrible the girl died, that isn't changed by anything.
I didn't follow the trial, but he's a lawyer. He was hired to do a job. That job was to use the legal system to prove his client not guilty without reasonable doubt. That's what he did. I don't think that makes him a bad man, I think it makes him good at his job.
I still think it's horrible the girl died, that isn't changed by anything.
Just doing his job, as nasty as it was. Jurors are the ones to blame. Your/my peers.
you don't think the guy who got a child killer (yeah yeah....at the very least, child abuser) off the hook is a bad man?
what's your definition of "bad man"?
you don't think the guy who got a child killer (yeah yeah....at the very least, child abuser) off the hook is a bad man?
what's your definition of "bad man"?
There was a similar thing that happened here where I live years ago. Dude killed a girl, brutally torturing her, raping her and killing her. He was found not guilty. Years later the person that lived in his former house found pictures in the floor board of the entire killing that the dude took while he was in the act. They convicted him of purgery and put him away for a few years. Point is I'm sure they could get her with some kind of charge if she laughed and confessed to the world.
Airborneguy said:Gotta call BS on this one. NO ONE can be convicted of perjury for defending themselves, its the essence of the 5th Amendment. Plus, that would clearly fall under double jeopardy anyway, even with the new evidence unless the original trial was a mistrial or a hung jury.
The prosecution should have never tried for the full monty on a case that lacks the definitive evidence needed to sentence someone to death.
if I were on the jury, I would have probably had a hard time convicting her on the full count also but I thought I had heard something about there being a lesser manslaughter charge in there that would not have met the requirements for the death penalty. I am surprised (if I am correct about the manslaughter charge) that the jury couldn't find enough evidence in what was presented not to find her guilty of that.
1 year for each count of lying to investigators. There were 4 counts. She has already served just about 3 years. she will walk on thursday. Sentencing guidelines will call for less than 4 years.
Enter your email address to join: