trackboy Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Reasonable doubt is very real folks. Nobody witnessed her kill the child, and I'm not sure the prosecution presented a theory as to how she did it. I could be mistaken, but I don't think they did. The prosecution has the burden of proof. The case was solid, but it wasn't air tight. Precisely. Their theory was kind of a fuzzy mix of maybe she was killed with chloroform, or maybe she was just killed by suffocation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock & Roll Hall of Game Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 It is quite a few differences but apparently as college educated as I am Im an idiot by Trackboy's standards which honestly amounts to nothing more than the shit a fly would piss on. Man made a statement he did not know nor could prove, saying I don't know about the OJ trial like I didn't watch it like I didn't know what came of it. Chile please some people get a little knowledge in some area and all of a fucking sudden he a legal expert, chile pass the bar first. I don't think he called u dumb or whatever... I think he knows a little more about judicial law than a chemist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I don't think he called u dumb or whatever... I think he knows a little more about judicial law than a chemist Is he also psychic or able to see shit that others not present could? He made a statement saying I did not follow the OJ trial with no proof whatsoever so as far as I am concerned the moron spoke I hope by the time he finishes that degree he learns not to make assumptions about people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock & Roll Hall of Game Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 And Nancy Grace and all these TV court analysts operate from a personal bias. They're not good at hiding it. The news channels' verdict was guilty from day one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I don't think he called u dumb or whatever... I think he knows a little more about judicial law than a chemist he does not have a law degree YET, and I wish the brother the best in that but he made some presumptions and that is faulty logic so he fucked up from jump when he said I didn't follow the trial. Who didn't hell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trackboy Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 And Nancy Grace and all these TV court analysts operate from a personal bias. They're not good at hiding it. Not even perhaps a personal bias, but they have a job to do. The market is for court news to victimize someone; than to champion someone. You make more money by gaining more viewers because in America we have a sadistic love for seeing people get punished, ala Osama Bin Laden. You don't get as much viewers from championing for the fair treatment of someone; ala Troy Davis. They want to continue their show they better get real pro-prosecution. If not, think about why about 95% of these reporters are former prosecutors. Do defense attorneys not like these jobs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trackboy Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I don't think he called u dumb or whatever... I think he knows a little more about judicial law than a chemist People aren't as tough on this board as they were back in the day of Darren and all of those. They are flimsy now, so they see everything as an attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aed05 Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Is he also psychic or able to see shit that others not present could? He made a statement saying I did not follow the OJ trial with no proof whatsoever so as far as I am concerned the moron spoke I hope by the time he finishes that degree he learns not to make assumptions about people. You're taking your frustration about the verdict out on board members. You need to chill. In my heart I know she did it, but you have to put yourself in the jury members shoes. This case is based on reasonable doubt. Like I said, the prosecution has the burnden of proof. Some stuff they presented was strong, while other stuff was lacking. like the how she did it. Without that the jury can say reasonable doubt. Its sad, but in all honesty, not shocking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trackboy Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 he does not have a law degree YET, and I wish the brother the best in that but he made some presumptions and that is faulty logic so he fucked up from jump when he said I didn't follow the trial. Who didn't hell talk about faulty logic; a bit of hasty generalization there huh fella? My mother definitely didn't follow the case. And just because you watched news clips about it doesn't mean you followed the case close enough to get the details of the case correctly and maybe you did follow it, who knows, the people lie so much these days. If you did follow the trial, then that just means you didn't follow this Casey Anthony case, because you will see that the prosecution in this case has NOTHING in comparison to the prosecution in the OJ Simpson case. They were competent, they were prepared, they were methodical, they were emotional, they were competent, they were aggressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimpy Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 1. Not guilty does NOT = "Innocent" btw. It means they didn't have enough evidence to hold up in court for a guilty conviction. 2. It seems people just want someone to "PAY" for it. People would rather see 10 men wrongly convicted of a crime, just because there's someone taking the fall for it, rather than one guilty person get acquitted. Shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trackboy Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 1. Not guilty does NOT = "Innocent" btw. It means they didn't have enough evidence to hold up in court for a guilty conviction. 2. It seems people just want someone to "PAY" for it. People would rather see 10 men wrongly convicted of a crime, just because there's someone taking the fall for it, rather than one guilty person get acquitted. Shame. A-men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock & Roll Hall of Game Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Is he also psychic or able to see shit that others not present could? He made a statement saying I did not follow the OJ trial with no proof whatsoever so as far as I am concerned the moron spoke I hope by the time he finishes that degree he learns not to make assumptions about people. I think he's studying law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock & Roll Hall of Game Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 he does not have a law degree YET, and I wish the brother the best in that but he made some presumptions and that is faulty logic so he fucked up from jump when he said I didn't follow the trial. Who didn't hell Doesn't matter if he has one or not.. He's studying to get one so he has the upperhand in this convo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock & Roll Hall of Game Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 1. Not guilty does NOT = "Innocent" btw. It means they didn't have enough evidence to hold up in court for a guilty conviction. 2. It seems people just want someone to "PAY" for it. People would rather see 10 men wrongly convicted of a crime, just because there's someone taking the fall for it, rather than one guilty person get acquitted. Shame. I'm stealing this for FB.. Thanx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angela Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Reasonable doubt is very real folks. Nobody witnessed her kill the child, and I'm not sure the prosecution presented a theory as to how she did it. I could be mistaken, but I don't think they did. The prosecution has the burden of proof. The case was solid, but it wasn't air tight. The voice of reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janetDAYZ Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Precisely. Their theory was kind of a fuzzy mix of maybe she was killed with chloroform, or maybe she was just killed by suffocation. Well since the remains was so decomposed those were the ONLY theories they could go with. Its not like they could have really found out cause of death. I believe they did a swell job at coming up with a theory based off what they had to work with. For instance: why would tape need to be placed over someone's nose? The mouth is understandable but both nose and mouth? It makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angela Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Well since the remains was so decomposed those were the ONLY theories they could go with. Its not like they could have really found out cause of death. I believe they did a swell job at coming up with a theory based off what they had to work with. I don't mind the theory but the circumstantial evidence wasn't strong enough for first degree. You need to come harder than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janetDAYZ Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I don't mind the theory but the circumstantial evidence wasn't strong enough for first degree. You need to come harder than that. Well they played the best they could with the cards they were dealt imo. I believe they really thought the sky high circumstantial evidence was gonna get them a murder one. I believe ALOT of us(the public) did. Thats why America is so baffled from the outcome. Tho I do understand the legal sife of things too. Its still a lil hard to accept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Wonder Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 The case does interest me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trackboy Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Well since the remains was so decomposed those were the ONLY theories they could go with. Its not like they could have really found out cause of death. I believe they did a swell job at coming up with a theory based off what they had to work with. For instance: why would tape need to be placed over someone's nose? The mouth is understandable but both nose and mouth? It makes no sense. You think they did a swell job of making something up with no evidence. I agree. And to keep any bodily fluids from exiting. Makes perfect sense. I'm sure Mr. Biology and Chemistry could tell us that makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trackboy Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Well they played the best they could with the cards they were dealt imo. I believe they really thought the sky high circumstantial evidence was gonna get them a murder one. I believe ALOT of us(the public) did. Thats why America is so baffled from the outcome. Tho I do understand the legal sife of things too. Its still a lil hard to accept. Everyone keeps talking about this circumstantial evidence. What circumstantial evidence tied Casey to this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janetDAYZ Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Track you know you and I been goin back and forth about this Casey case for years ...so dont with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trackboy Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Track you know you and I been goin back and forth about this Casey case for years ...so dont with me. Yeah, and we finally see that I was right all along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janetDAYZ Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Yeah, and we finally see that I was right all along. Thats fine. Casey has hers coming.....so Im unbothered. I just hate that this bitch bout to get rich off her story.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 You think they did a swell job of making something up with no evidence. I agree. And to keep any bodily fluids from exiting. Makes perfect sense. I'm sure Mr. Biology and Chemistry could tell us that makes sense. Its not necessary to be condensing and name calling, dude you at a top tier law school, I am not the enemy you don't have to come at me like attack him because he has an opinion. As for the legal aspects of the case I agree they simply did not make their case strictly weighted on legal bars to be met. I still think the bitch knows a shit load more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.