F*** YOU Justice Sytem.

William-CL · **Joined:** Feb 2007 **Posts:** 7363 **Location:** N/A

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1K6L29.DTL

This is one of those "We know she's guilty, but we can't prove it so we let her go"
You don't Farking Sedate your 2 year daughter which leads to her death. You don't stick her in your Farking car trunk wrapped in 3 plastic bags and Dump her in the woods to leave her to rot for 6 months if your Innocent.

Mirosuke · **Posted:** Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:36 am

BRB killing this random person who pisses me off...

But seriously, that's insane...

strangelove · **Joined:** Aug 2007 **Posts:** 1255 **Location:** no

Easy there, Nancy Grace. If justice functioned on assumptions we'd have much bigger problems. I didn't follow the trial much, but from what I did gather, the evidence was almost entirely circumstantial. Do I agree with the verdict? Not entirely. I don't know enough to draw an honest opinion on the matter. However, my opinion and the opinion of everyone else should be irrelevant when arriving at a verdict. Only if and when the prosecution presents evidence such that one could know "beyond a reasonable doubt" would it be safe to assume a guilty verdict.

It's unbelievable to see how much people would rather watch someone burn than care about a functioning justice system which they depend upon on a daily basis.

Breed · **Posted:** Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:18 am

And that should be /thread

.curve · **Posted:** Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:26 am

strangelove wrote:

Easy there, Nancy Grace. If justice functioned on assumptions we'd have much bigger problems. I didn't follow the trial much, but from what I did gather, the evidence was almost entirely circumstantial. Do I agree with the verdict? Not entirely. I don't know enough to draw an honest opinion on the matter. However, my opinion and the opinion of everyone else should be irrelevant when arriving at a verdict. Only if and when the prosecution presents evidence such that one could know "beyond a reasonable doubt" would it be safe to assume a guilty verdict.

It's unbelievable to see how much people would rather watch someone burn than care about a functioning justice system which they depend upon on a daily basis.

This is the exact same conversation I had with my coworkers and every customer that came into the shop today.

While I may not agree that she's entirely innocent, I'd be more worried if the jury did convict her of the charges. Having watched the entire trial since pretty much day 1, I've seen all of the evidence and the court proceedings thus far. Everything they had was purely circumstantial and that is all that matters.

I give kudos to the jury for being able to look solely at the evidence when making their choice. The only thing that really bugs me is if they do find concrete evidence or if a reliable witness does speak up, that because of double jeopardy, she couldn't be tried again.

I look at this now as the OJ Simpson case of our time.

MrJoey · **Posted:** Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:32 am

strangelove wrote:

Easy there, Nancy Grace. If justice functioned on assumptions we'd have much bigger problems. I didn't follow the trial much, but from what I did gather, the evidence was almost entirely circumstantial. Do I agree with the verdict? Not entirely. I don't know enough to draw an honest opinion on the matter. However, my opinion and the opinion of everyone else should be irrelevant when arriving at a verdict. Only if and when the prosecution presents evidence such that one could know "beyond a reasonable doubt" would it be safe to assume a guilty verdict.

It's unbelievable to see how much people would rather watch someone burn than care about a functioning justice system which they depend upon on a daily basis.

Long form of my facebook status. Many flames were had when I posted my newest status.

heroo · **Joined:** Sep 2006 **Posts:** 6618 **Location:**

''Defense attorneys argued that the little girl accidentally drowned in the family swimming pool, and that Anthony panicked and concealed the death because of the traumatic effects of sexual abuse by her father.''

even though there isn't hard evidence, after reading this line I know for sure the woman is guilty.

William-CL · **Joined:** Feb 2007 **Posts:** 7363 **Location:** N/A

While they may not be able to prove she killed her, they can prove she is responsible for her death. Negligent Homicide should have be obvious in the eyes of the Jury, but since that wasn't in the prosecutions list of charges.... She sedated her to go party and she drowned in a pool. Her defense lawyer even said so because she was a "slut" and she admitted to sedating her daughter. She then bagged her with 3 plastic bags and dumped her in her grandparents woods. Didn't tell anyone about it. How does that deserve a slap on the wrist? That is some bullshit. If you solely cause the death of someone out of selfish stupidity and try to cover it up and that is said in open court, on the record, there is no way she should have been deemed innocent.

If your driving a car and look at your radio for a split second and someone jumps in front of you and you kill them, you get convicted of Negligent Homicide for taking your eyes of the road. However, if you sedate your 2 year old daughter and leave her alone to go party and she drowns in the pool as a result and then proceed to hide the body for 6 months, that's Ok?

I seriously don't see how any decent human being would defend her and say "I'm glad she didn't get convicted for something they couldn't prove she did"..

TheDrop · **Joined:** May 2008 **Posts:** 7150 **Location:** uefa2012

I guess some people just get a hardon going against public opinion :roll:

Wouldnt see atleast get charges for manslaughter & child abuse?
I mean, she did throw the baby out into the woods for 6months after however the kid supposedly died.

Though id throw it out to the ocean rather than the woods if i had killed my own baby and was a whore.

strangelove · **Joined:** Aug 2007 **Posts:** 1255 **Location:** no

Blackdragon6 wrote:

While they may not be able to prove she killed her, they can prove she is responsible for her death. Negligent Homicide should have be obvious in the eyes of the Jury, but since that wasn't in the prosecutions list of charges.... She sedated her to go party and she drowned in a pool. Her defense lawyer even said so because she was a "slut" and she admitted to sedating her daughter. She then bagged her with 3 plastic bags and dumped her in her grandparents woods. Didn't tell anyone about it. How does that deserve a slap on the wrist? That is some bullshit. If you solely cause the death of someone out of selfish stupidity and try to cover it up and that is said in open court, on the record, there is no way she should have been deemed innocent.

If your driving a car and look at your radio for a split second and someone jumps in front of you and you kill them, you get convicted of Negligent Homicide for taking your eyes of the road. However, if you sedate your 2 year old daughter and leave her alone to go party and she drowns in the pool as a result and then proceed to hide the body for 6 months, that's Ok?

I seriously don't see how any decent human being would defend her and say "I'm glad she didn't get convicted for something they couldn't prove she did"..

This case was far from being as clear-cut as you claim:

The girl's body was much too decomposed and so a cause of death could not be determined
The cadaver was also intact and therefore no evidence of trauma or abuse could be concluded
Tests did find decomposition fluids in the car trunk but was unknown if they were human or not
The same lab tested a hair which was determined to have come from a dead human body, though DNA was inconclusive
Chloroform was also found in the trunk, but not on the cadaver
The 'death' odor in the trunk was never noticed by the police officers who arrived at the scene

The burden of proof lies on the state to prove a crime, not the defense to prove a crime didn't happen. From everything that was said and done all that was concluded is that they were dealing with a disturbed woman who wanted to get rid of her daughter. However, none of this proves she killed her daughter. The prosecution was overreaching when they sought First-degree murder charges because very specific requirements are needed which were clearly not met here. As a result, she wasn't tried for lesser charges (like Negligent Homicide) which could have left her incarcerated. If there's anyone to blame for her innocent verdict it's the prosecution for grandstanding and believing the case was an easy win on such flimsy evidence.

Justice knows no tears, anguish, disgust, or anger and appealing to emotion in legal discussion is not very effective. I am glad she was not convicted if it was the case that her charges could not be proven because I prefer to see someone walk than to see another case where someone innocent is found guilty on assumptions and speculation and possibly punished with death. Agreeing with a verdict does not mean anyone is agreeing with her actions or defending those actions. It means we support equal justice for all no matter what the circumstances.

UnbeatableDevil wrote:

I guess some people just get a hardon going against public opinion :roll:

I am throbbing and ready for coitus.

heroo · **Joined:** Sep 2006 **Posts:** 6618 **Location:**

strangelove wrote:

Justice knows no tears, anguish, disgust, or anger and appealing to emotion in legal discussion is not very effective. I am glad she was not convicted if it was the case that her charges could not be proven because I prefer to see someone walk than to see another case where someone innocent is found guilty on assumptions and speculation and possibly punished with death. Agreeing with a verdict does not mean anyone is agreeing with her actions or defending those actions. It means we support equal justice for all no matter what the circumstances.

if you had been taught laws you would know this is bullsh!t

strangelove · **Joined:** Aug 2007 **Posts:** 1255 **Location:** no

heroo wrote:

if you had been taught laws you would know this is bullsh!t

As convincing as your argument may be, I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly.

William-CL · **Joined:** Feb 2007 **Posts:** 7363 **Location:** N/A

Here's some Facts about the Case that were said in Court by either her, or her attorney.

Bitch Sedated her Kid to go party
Bitch Left her kid alone
Kid Drowned as a result
Covered it up for 6 months

The definition of Negligent Homicide, pretty clear cut to me. Did you even follow the case? Bitch should be rotting in Jail. They don't need to prove anything more than that.. She admitted to all that crap, yet dumbshits still choose to believe she's innocent?

*BlackFox · **Joined:** Sep 2008 **Posts:** 7923 **Location:**

I seriously don't know if this is a good or bad thing.. But justice wasn't served.
Well, but it really doesn't Farking matter anyways because... If you know "he,she,did it"
if you can't prove it, you cant

vietxboy911 · **Joined:** Jul 2007 **Posts:** 3236 **Location:**

I was going to start a thread about this, but was afraid of a flame war :<.

Anyway, since she is not gulity, what punishment does she get overall and for lying?
<< noob

strangelove · **Joined:** Aug 2007 **Posts:** 1255 **Location:** no

Blackdragon6 wrote:

Here's some Facts about the Case that were said in Court by either her, or her attorney.

Bitch Sedated her Kid to go party
Bitch Left her kid alone
Kid Drowned as a result
Covered it up for 6 months

The definition of Negligent Homicide, pretty clear cut to me. Did you even follow the case? Bitch should be rotting in Jail. They don't need to prove anything more than that.. She admitted to all that crap, yet dumbshits still choose to believe she's innocent?

There is a difference between being innocent and being not guilty.

Here's another interesting fact (which I mentioned above but you chose to ignore): The prosecution did not pursue Negligent Homicide and instead went straight to First-Degree Murder (mostly for grandstanding), and since no 'Cause of Death' was ever found, there was no way the charge could stick. There is an incredibly high standard of proof required by law when seeking capital punishment and the prosecution essentially showed up empty-handed. She could have said she strapped her child to a space shuttle and little Caylee was floating in space, but there is still no crime if there is no evidence. Confession alone does not prove someone guilty. This is how law works. It is not based on what people believe to be right or fair or just.

vietxboy911 wrote:

Anyway, since she is not gulity, what punishment does she get overall and for lying?
<< noob

I believe it's 1 year for each count of lying to police, but since she's already served about 3+, she might just walk out. The sentencing is tomorrow so I guess we'll know then for sure.

Doppleganger · **Posted:** Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:15 pm

Love · **Joined:** Nov 2007 **Posts:** 5336 **Location:**

This is one of the biggest issues you can concern yourself with.

DinoNuggets · **Joined:** Jan 2010 **Posts:** 1038 **Location:** Meow

does she get any punishments at all like community service for 10 years?

.curve · **Posted:** Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:42 pm

Blackdragon6 wrote:

Here's some Facts about the Case that were said in Court by either her, or her attorney.

Bitch Sedated her Kid to go party
Bitch Left her kid alone
Kid Drowned as a result
Covered it up for 6 months

The definition of Negligent Homicide, pretty clear cut to me. Did you even follow the case? Bitch should be rotting in Jail. They don't need to prove anything more than that.. She admitted to all that crap, yet dumbshits still choose to believe she's innocent?

The fact that you've referred to her as "bitch" 3 times in that one post shows your obviously angry at the verdict which I feel may be clouding your better judgment and rational thinking.

Consider that.

EvGa · **Joined:** Apr 2008 **Posts:** 2612 **Location:** Texas

Love wrote:

This is one of the biggest issues you can concern yourself with.

My exact thoughts while trying to watch the "news" this past week.

/Pi · **Joined:** May 2007 **Posts:** 4592 **Location:**

I like to pass judgements based on the unfiltered information presented by the unbiased media because I know full well the ramifications of the U.S. justice system - all in the comfort of my well-oiled swivel chair.

Ownage · **Joined:** Jul 2009 **Posts:** 1173 **Location:** SwSro!

DinoNuggets wrote:

does she get any punishments at all like community service for 10 years?

Society shuns her!

But she becomes rich so its a whatever kind of thing.

Aventuris · **Posted:** Wed Jul 06, 2011 11:50 pm

heroo wrote:

if you had been taught laws you would know this is bullsh!t

Actually, what he said is exactly right. Maybe you should look into the whole judicial process a bit more

BuDo · **Joined:** Dec 2008 **Posts:** 4714 **Location:**

The justice system is shady at best...I'll admit that allowing your emotions to guide your decision would be worse but there are many cases where innocent people where executed due to "overwhelming evidence". The reverse also happens as might be the case with this woman.

The justice system should be designed entirely upon finding out the truth. A panel of investigators, forensic scientist and lawyers all working TOGETHER and then present their findings..rather than one team VS the other. When you put people to battle each other their main concern then becomes who can win and that is retarded when it comes to these matters

McLovin1t · **Joined:** Apr 2008 **Posts:** 1825 **Location:**

I agree with Budo, it's a great way to privatize our liberties ya know... Big law firms, big money etc. etc.
Yeah I find it hard to say that justice wasn't served because there was a ton of circumstantial evidence, however double jeopardy is just plain BS because I agree that the truth really should prevail and with our technology that's what we should always be aiming for in the "justice" system.

Silkroad Online Forums

F*** YOU Justice Sytem.

Who is online