Casey Anthony Gets Out On July 13th 2011

[peilthetraveler]

Quote from BSAM:

I felt like you answered my question as that you would bet that the real killer is Casey Anthony, if the real killer was revealed tomorrow and you had to place a bet. Additionally, I indicated that there was more to your reply by the use of dots.

Now, tell me why you believe she would be the guilty one if the real killer was revealed tomorrow? You called her innocent (in capital letters on page one). Seems as though there's enough evidence to satisfy you as to who is the real killer. I'm confused. Help me.

I like some of your posts, but Pellie, today, are you "trolling" or "patrolling"???

I called her innocent because she is innocent until proven guilty. But like I said...if I only had to go on the media and the way they take bits and pieces out of context, then yes, I would HAVE to say she is guilty because I only saw one side of the evidence.

After a trial had been going on for three days, Harrison, the man accused of committing the crimes, stood up and approached the judge`s bench.
"Your Honor, I would like to change my plea from innocent to guilty of the charges."
The judge angrily banged his fist on the desk. "If you`re guilty, why didn`t you say so in the first place and save this court a lot of time and inconvenience?" he demanded.
Harrison looked up wide-eyed and stated, "Well, when the trial started I thought I was innocent, but that was before I heard all the evidence against me."

 

[BSAM]

Quote from peilthetraveler:

I called her innocent because she is innocent until proven guilty. But like I said...if I only had to go on the media and the way they take bits and pieces out of context, then yes, I would HAVE to say she is guilty because I only saw one side of the evidence.

After a trial had been going on for three days, Harrison, the man accused of committing the crimes, stood up and approached the judge`s bench.
"Your Honor, I would like to change my plea from innocent to guilty of the charges."
The judge angrily banged his fist on the desk. "If you`re guilty, why didn`t you say so in the first place and save this court a lot of time and inconvenience?" he demanded.
Harrison looked up wide-eyed and stated, "Well, when the trial started I thought I was innocent, but that was before I heard all the evidence against me."

To me, it has nothing to do with the media. Peil...look at the post of "Pspr" and the followup post by "LEAPup" on page four of this thread.

Is none of that evidence to you? Or, did the media just make this stuff up for some strange reason???

If there was a video of Casey killing Caylee would you believe it, or would you say the media altered the video to make a person look guilty?? Good grief, Peillie, come on man!

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from BSAM:

Hey Peil...

Howzya doin' today?

Let's do a little test here. Let's try to get a hint as to whether you are "trolling" or "patrolling". ("Patrolling" is merely browsing.)

Okay...Let's say you have to make a bet for one million dollars whether Casey Anthony killed Caylee. We'll pretend the real killer will be revealed tomorrow. Understand now, if you bet correctly, you get one million dollars. If you bet incorrectly, you lose your one million dollars.

Which way you bettin'?

I haven't read this entire thread, so i apologize if I'm repeating something that's already been said.

This is not even close to the legal standard. If you actually were forced to make that bet, it would only take a 51% preponderance to go one way or the other. A better question would be if you could make such a bet, would you? Your entire net worth versus doubling your net worth, let's say. No one in their right mind would make that bet on the basis of the evidence at this trial. That is precisely why she was acquited. She was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Don't get me wrong. She probably did it, but the prosecution wasn't able to rule out alternative possibilities. In addition, they were not able to show that she actually did it.

Our justice system is designed to run the risk of freeing the guilty to avoid convicting an innocent person. Too often, particularly in family cases, the jury loses sight of or doesn't understand the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard. They seem to think that they can just go with the logical conclusion. Afer all, on Law and Order, it;s always the husband or rich white guy who is guilty. Real life is a little more complicated.

 

[BSAM]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

...Don't get me wrong. She probably did it, but the prosecution wasn't able to rule out alternative possibilities. In addition, they were not able to show that she actually did it....

Here we go again...Another person steps up to post that Casey Anthony is probably guilty. Well, if most everyone has the opinion that she did it, why wasn't she found guilty?

(Hint: Could it be possible that something is wrong in our jury selection process???)

 

[BSAM]

AAA---

Are you saying that if you had been on the jury, even though you think she probably did it, you would have voted "not guilty"?

 

[peilthetraveler]

Quote from BSAM:

Here we go again...Another person steps up to post that Casey Anthony is probably guilty. Well, if most everyone has the opinion that she did it, why wasn't she found guilty?

(Hint: Could it be possible that something is wrong in our jury selection process???)

Yeah there is something wrong with our Jury selection. You know what it is? its the fact that they dont let jury members who have been influenced by Nancy Grace or other media talking heads on the jury. If you know alot of details about the case from TV they dont let you on. I wonder why they do that?

 

[BSAM]

Quote from peilthetraveler:

Yeah there is something wrong with our Jury selection. You know what it is? its the fact that they dont let jury members who have been influenced by Nancy Grace or other media talking heads on the jury. If you know alot of details about the case from TV they dont let you on. I wonder why they do that?

Hmmm...To avoid a justified conviction for their client?

Peil, you seem to have such contempt for the media. Sadly, in many cases, you would be justified. But, know this: Whether you choose to see it or not, the media is the watch dog of our society. It's one area of our constitution which has been very hard for our "good" leaders, who would have you believe exactly as they dictate, to tear away from the great document.

And, again, while they are due for plenty of criticism, if the media didn't exist, you and I would be in way more bondage than we already are in. If either you or I had the time, (which we both do not) I firmly believe I could cite way more good the media has done thru the years than you could cite harm they have done.

People in other countries long for a free media that we enjoy in the U.S.A. It's one of our last treasures. I wonder how long before even this is snatched from us. It's one of the last, best tools we have against these thugs in our government buildings.

Lest there be any doubt, I stand on the side of the media, in general. There's bad apples in every orchard. Those don't spoil the whole crop.

 

[soldsoldsold]

Quote from peilthetraveler:

Yeah there is something wrong with our Jury selection. You know what it is? its the fact that they dont let jury members who have been influenced by Nancy Grace or other media talking heads on the jury. If you know alot of details about the case from TV they dont let you on. I wonder why they do that?

If there is one thing that our government does right its this.

 

[LEAPup]

I wouldn't want to change the way that jury was picked. Not at all. The problem we have today is something called the dumbing of America, and when you couple that by the fact that jurors are human and aren't Angels sent from Heaven, there's certainly room for bad decision.

Based on the court testimony I observed:

The girl is guilty of aggravated child neglect, no question.

Her Dad is a liar, and I dismissed most of what he said. He's also a fruitloop.

Her Mom is a liar also who perjured herself by saying she did the net searches for chloroform on the home computer while it was PROVEN she was at work. She is a fruitloop as well.

Her Brother is a fruitcake too to get on the stand and weap over the fact that he wasn't told his sister was pregnant.

The WHOLE family is the non-comedic version of "the Adams family," and that's one of the reasons so many people have watched this mess unfold. I guess watching something like this makes the "average" person's problems in life pale in comparison. They're nothing more than a train wreck of a "family," and an almost three year old little girl lost her life as a result.

No matter the verdict, God will have the last word when he sits in judgement of this "family."

 

[BSAM]

Quote from LEAPup:

I wouldn't want to change the way that jury was picked. Not at all....

Leapie, the jury system is rigged. The lawyers don't want independent thinkers sitting on their juries. You are aware that there is a profession as a "jury consultant", right? And, you do understand why they exist, no?