Not guilty?

Originally Posted by dw3fan

NO you are not allowed to make a verdict on common sense.... or else both OJ simpson and Casey would have been guilty. We just dont know the truth and we will never know so its not guilty by constitution. The duct tape and smell of decomposition isnt hardcore evidence that can make someone think she did it for sure. PPL like u are judging in a case when u are only supposed to use evidence. Go study law and make a verdict on this case by following every step of law and the constitution then come back telling me shes guilty....

need reading it all just saying the truth hopefully comes out before she is dead. and if we didn't have to go by the constitution in this fucking trial your ass wouldn't be saying this. your just a mr know it all right now.

since there is no proof and we might never know 100% whether she did it or not, God knows and if she did do it, He will determine what happens after she dies...

and for those who dont believe in God: we dont know 100% if she is guilty r not, and might never know, but its not really our business anyways so y does everyone care...?

Originally Posted by XxAussy1995xX

need reading it all just saying the truth hopefully comes out before she is dead. and if we didn't have to go by the constitution in this fucking trial your ass wouldn't be saying this. your just a mr know it all right now.

wtf are u retarted or something. Mr know it all? I learned about court and Law in 8th grade. EVERY CASE requires the use of constitution not my fucking fault. You have to chose a verdict this way not by being a moron like you and saying shes guilty because of ur "common sense" or emotions with no fucking proof

Ignorance.
There is no proof that she actually murdered her own daughter.
Just because she was accused, you here "Mother murdered daughter" and you blindly accuse her of the act, without any consideration.
She could of, or couldn't of. Since there is no evidence of whoever killed her yet, maybe it was somebody else, or maybe it was the mother.

constitutions should include a clause called common sense :/

OJ killed a white bitch for cheating on him. Thats common sense right? But he gets not guilty because of crappy evidence and no true proof that he did it. I bet the juriors for both OJ and Casey think she did it but cannot use their common sense they must use law.

Originally Posted by dw3fan

NOT guilty is the right verdict. The burden of proof is on prosecutions side and prosecution had No Real evidence Casey murdered her. You cant just get the emotions of the jury with pics and shit with no real evidence... Jose Baez did a great job in saying "If you dont know who killed Caylee 100% Then Casey is not guilty." I studied this stuff a while back and I think the verdict is absolutely right and ppl are just pissed cause they wanted to see her die for entertainment and shit. This should have never been a high profile case. There is no real evidence she killed her and by LAW you cannot judge someone by feeling, only by evidence. Our U.S. constitution saved her.....

She had enough circumstantial evidence against her to convict Dillinger three times over.

And he was assassinated.

She should have been declared guilty. The defense played on the jury's doubt that a woman would murder her own child, and attacked her father instead.

It was a circus trial, and I loathed every minute of it.

Originally Posted by B0ttl3

She had enough circumstantial evidence against her to convict Dillinger three times over.

And he was assassinated.

haha showing pictures of her drunk and saying the car smelled like shit is circumstantial evidence? Ok then the pictures of Casey playing with her daughter and the videos of them playing and laughing is also evidence? Thats fucking bullshit. The best evidence in this case was the duct tape which cannot be proven that Casey placed it.

Originally Posted by dw3fan

Thank you for what you've said.
What @dw3fan is saying is true.
U guys mad that a daughter has been murdered and the mother was wrongly accused?

Originally Posted by dw3fan

You, apparently, don't have a grasp on what circumstantial evidence is.

Unfortunately, they wanted hard evidence for a conviction. And, while I'm sure the innocent who are declared so are happy, it's very bitter when the guilty slip away.

She denied that her child was missing.

Later, she said the babysitter stole the child.

Afterward, she admitted there was no babysitter, but she didn't know where the child was.

After that, she blamed her parents, and said that they killed the baby. On accident.

poor little girl.

i didn't follow the case enough to really judge the accused person.

Problem is that you can't just accuse someone of a crime because they don't have an alibi.

Originally Posted by Empire

Problem is that you can't just accuse someone of a crime because they don't have an alibi.

However, when they have four and they constantly change...

She was guilty. At the very least of a huge cover-up involving someone else's murder.

But, circumstantial evidence. *shrug*

yep just because there 12

you had me at america.

Not guilty?

Post a Reply

Tags for this Thread