hking03 Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Not guilty... ayyyyyyyyyaaaaaaaa It's like OJ all over again. This is just ridic. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/casey-anthony-acquitted-of-murder-in-death-of-her-2-year-old-daughter/article2087315/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerena Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Are you freaking kidding me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehumanmacbook Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 NOT GUILTY. She had Phoenix Wright as her lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.K. Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Vigilante justice anyone? At least she's getting 4 years for lying to police. Honestly the only reason she's innocent is because she's A) a woman and physically attractive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erk Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Honestly the only reason she's innocent is because she's A) a woman and physically attractive. Aw man, the same reasons OJ got off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD2015 Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 truly incredible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithril Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Vigilante justice anyone? At least she's getting 4 years for lying to police. Honestly the only reason she's innocent is because she's A) a woman and physically attractive. Evidence was circumstantial. The prosecution couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed the murder. I personally believe that she did, but from a legal perspective you can't go with a gut instinct and circumstantial evidence. In my opinion the prosecution should've tried negligent homicide rather than murder. To kill another person (death penalty if convicted of murder) based on circumstantial evidence is highly irresponsible and emotionally-charged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renin Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Vigilante justice anyone? At least she's getting 4 years for lying to police. Honestly the only reason she's innocent is because she's A) a woman and physically attractive. If she's physically attractive, then I'm smokin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clever Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 What happened to all the evidence found in her car's trunk? This is bs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 i tend to agree, all the evidence was circumstantial, and the fact that the body was planted long after she died, duct tape added after the fact, makes the defence's argument that it was an accident that caley's father tried to cover up plausible, especially considering he/his mistress seemed to have details of where the body was located long before it was found. she may have behaved idiosyncratically by partying it up but that doesn't show she's a murderer... they failed to fill any timeline, show any strong forensic evidence etc. it won't matter anyways, if they find evidence later on the irrefutably shows she was the guilty party (this has happened before, there was a video camera/surveillance technology hidden in a room from the owner previous to the murderer and the next owner of the house found it turned it in, and they slammed him with unrelated charges that essentially ended up being a life sentence (tampering with evidence, perjury, multiple counts of obstructing justice, committing an indignity to a dead body etc.). so if she did do it and they find stronger evidence later on she's not completely off the hook. Evidence was circumstantial. The prosecution couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed the murder. I personally believe that she did, but from a legal perspective you can't go with a gut instinct and circumstantial evidence. In my opinion the prosecution should've tried negligent homicide rather than murder. To kill another person (death penalty if convicted of murder) based on circumstantial evidence is highly irresponsible and emotionally-charged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerena Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 i tend to agree, all the evidence was circumstantial, and the fact that the body was planted long after she died, duct tape added after the fact, makes the defence's argument that it was an accident that caley's father tried to cover up plausible, especially considering he/his mistress seemed to have details of where the body was located long before it was found. she may have behaved idiosyncratically by partying it up but that doesn't show she's a murderer... they failed to fill any timeline, show any strong forensic evidence etc. it won't matter anyways, if they find evidence later on the irrefutably shows she was the guilty party (this has happened before, there was a video camera/surveillance technology hidden in a room from the owner previous to the murderer and the next owner of the house found it turned it in, and they slammed him with unrelated charges that essentially ended up being a life sentence (tampering with evidence, perjury, multiple counts of obstructing justice, committing an indignity to a dead body etc.). so if she did do it and they find stronger evidence later on she's not completely off the hook. I believe that because she was acquitted she can never be tried again. It's in the fifth amendment. But if you are saying that she can be tried in a civil trial, then yes I believe she can... Hope that made sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.K. Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Seems likely that karma is going to come and get her, considering her drinking, drug, and partying habits. After she's out of jail of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanMaverick Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 I believe that because she was acquitted she can never be tried again. It's in the fifth amendment.But if you are saying that she can be tried in a civil trial, then yes I believe she can... Hope that made sense. Wasn't this the premise of the movie Fracture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 she can't be tried with murder every again, as well as everything else she was acquitted of , but purgery, obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence, profiting from a crime knowingly if she writes a book, defacing a dead body are considered to be separate crimes and separate incidences than the actual murder... keep in mind, the evidence would have to be pretty incriminating to be able to press forward with different charges. she can also be tried in a civil trial as well for sure. the problem with oj, is they didn't have the irrefutable evidence like the videotape i mentioned earlier... so it's hard to go after him... but they got him eventually I believe that because she was acquitted she can never be tried again. It's in the fifth amendment.But if you are saying that she can be tried in a civil trial, then yes I believe she can... Hope that made sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerena Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Wasn't this the premise of the movie Fracture? Have never seen this film. And likely won't. (Anthony Hopkins scares me.) she can't be tried with murder every again, as well as everything else she was acquitted of , but purgery, obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence, profiting from a crime knowingly if she writes a book, defacing a dead body are considered to be separate crimes and separate incidences than the actual murder... keep in mind, the evidence would have to be pretty incriminating to be able to press forward with different charges. she can also be tried in a civil trial as well for sure. the problem with oj, is they didn't have the irrefutable evidence like the videotape i mentioned earlier... so it's hard to go after him... but they got him eventually Gotcha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hking03 Posted July 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Wasn't this the premise of the movie Fracture? Something similar to double jeopardy. Except, in that movie she was wrongfully convicted, then went and murdered the son of a b who framed her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blind_synergy Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Wasn't this the premise of the movie Fracture? And Double Jeopardy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanillabear Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Yep afaik, you can't be charged of the exact same offense (note: not same type of offense) if you have already been either acquitted or found guilty of it. Although I'm sure in light of new substantial evidence, the case can be reopened, no? There's gotta be some precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemini Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 she can't be tried with murder every again, as well as everything else she was acquitted of , but purgery, obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence, profiting from a crime knowingly if she writes a book, defacing a dead body are considered to be separate crimes and separate incidences than the actual murder... keep in mind, the evidence would have to be pretty incriminating to be able to press forward with different charges. she can also be tried in a civil trial as well for sure. the problem with oj, is they didn't have the irrefutable evidence like the videotape i mentioned earlier... so it's hard to go after him... but they got him eventually Actually, the news people say that she can write a book, make a movie or profit from this whole thing (and the Son of Sam law doesn't apply) because the jury found her not guilty, so that in fact she was not a part of a crime. .... interesting huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clever Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Actually, the news people say that she can write a book, make a movie or profit from this whole thing (and the Son of Sam law doesn't apply) because the jury found her not guilty, so that in fact she was not a part of a crime. .... interesting huh? Not if Dexter has anything to say about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cnb88 Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Yep afaik, you can't be charged of the exact same offense (note: not same type of offense) if you have already been either acquitted or found guilty of it. Although I'm sure in light of new substantial evidence, the case can be reopened, no? There's gotta be some precedent. The problem is, she was also found not guilty of manslaughter either (it was in the verdict the jury read). I'm not even sure she can be charged for something related to the same crime actually. Ie she might not be able to be charged with indecency to a dead body (the theory her lawyer presented in court essentially "admitted this" with the accident/cover up theory). And no, the case cannot be reopened. The prosecution can't even ask for a mistrial/retrial because of double jeopardy- she'd be in court for the same crimes twice. She could literally come out with a book called "How to plan and murder your child and get away with it" and she wouldn't be able to be charged with anything related to Caylee's death. She could make an announcement to the world saying "I killed Caylee and this is how and why" and they wouldn't be able to do anything about it. Which is kind of dumb in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 no, no, now she's free to write whatever book she wants, or make a movie... but i was just saying if anything ever came up that proved her irrefutably guilty she could be charged with profiting from lying the police charges she was found guilty of, or the perjury she would eventually get committed off. right now she's totally set! "Six months after Ignatow's acquittal, however, a carpetlayer working in Ignatow's old house, which had been sold to fund his defense, pulled up a length of carpet in a hallway. Under it he found a floor vent had been carpeted over. Inside the vent, the carpet layer found a plastic bag, taped to hold it inside the vent. He handed it over to the new owners who knew that the previous owner was Ignatow. Inside the bag was the jewelry Schaefer had taken with her to return on the night of her disappearance and three rolls of undeveloped film. When developed, the film showed Ignatow torturing and raping Schaefer, just as Shore had described. Ignatow's face was not in the pictures, but body hair patterns and moles matched him perfectly. Mel Ignatow (March 26, 1938 – September 1, 2008)[1] was a resident of Louisville, Kentucky, U.S., who was accused of murdering his former girlfriend, Brenda Sue Schaefer, in 1988. The case was controversial because Ignatow was acquitted of the charge, but photographs proving his guilt were uncovered after the trial. Under the legal principle of double jeopardy, however, Ignatow could not be tried a second time for the murder. He was, instead, convicted and jailed for perjury in his grand jury testimony for the case on several occasions." Actually, the news people say that she can write a book, make a movie or profit from this whole thing (and the Son of Sam law doesn't apply) because the jury found her not guilty, so that in fact she was not a part of a crime. .... interesting huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebencer Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Not if Dexter has anything to say about it Darn right, it's too bad there aren't more Dexter's in this world... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehumanmacbook Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 http://www.funnyordie.com/articles/aa078c878f/casey-anthony-s-okcupid-profile?playlist=featured_pictures_and_words LOLLLLL Like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clever Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 I'm happy to see that there are no ultra liberals on here saying she was given a second chance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.