Casey Anthony found Not Guilty

Elbeem

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind declaring how much you don't care about a particular subject in a thread dedicated to discussing said subject.

Counterclock

Why should you care?

because if you, or someone close to you is horribly murdered like this, you'll better understand what makes it more likely for the perp to get away with it.

as for the people calling for stonings and vigilante justice, seriously? you don't see how fucking stupid that is?

glennmagusharvey

Well, for what it's worth, the fact that it's all over the news is kinda relevant to the topic, and other people have brought it up already (though perhaps not as loudly as I did).

Though if you want I can make a whole nother thread for "why the big deal about this case".

Elbeem

The "you" in my statement was meant in general to everyone who expressed something similar. I've even seen this kind of thing in other threads about this trial.

Just a bit perplexing, is all.

ninjaclown

Why would you reply to a thread you don't care about? Why do people insist on doing this?

glennmagusharvey

Well, I think my complaint wasn't about the thread, but about the issue at hand.

That said, I'll move this to another thread.

MillerCross

Hmmm, I don't follow most news...

Can I get a rundown about the whole thing?

thatguythere47

I disagree; even in the presence of reasonable doubt in the legal sense, she pretty clearly did it. 

I disdisagree. In the presence of reasonable doubt you cannot convict someone. That's the whole point. If you cannot conclusively prove that someone did a crime you cannot convict them.

ninjaclown

Pretty much. There is the slightest chance, even the teensiest, tiniest chance she really didn't do it, and if there is no absolute proof, you can't convict.

BlackHumor

It seems very likely that she did it, but we don't have any really solid proof that she did it, and so the idea that she didn't do it is reasonable. Therefore there's reasonable doubt, and she shouldn't be convicted.

All Nines

IJBM: Potentially getting myself dragged into a Casey Anthony debate and/or coming off as a douche on Facebook.

CommandoDude

She had a motive, a means, and an opportunity. The web seems to indicate that infanticide is typically committed by parents, more so with mothers.

Her whole defense was that another women she never even knew (yet claimed to know) had kidnapped/killed her daughter.

Frankly, looking at the diary entry, there is no reasonable doubt. She killed that kid, and you don't need a finger print on the corpse to know it. Everything points to her.

Forzare

^^ You too?

BlackHumor

^^No it doesn't. An undated diary entry that doesn't mention murder once, and googling for chloroform, do not prove murder.

And of course, since her defense was accidental death, the stuff about the trunk proves squat.

All Nines

^^ Does yours involve you pointing out that you're mostly apathetic and then having someone provide the details, which I already had an idea of, and say it's pretty hard not to care? Or is it more a "did she or didn't she" debate?

Forzare

First I posted a status talking about how ridiculous it is that everyone cares so much, but it quickly became me defending the court's decision, in that without real, concrete evidence she shouldn't be sent to die.

There was a lot of (badly spelled) 'But she's so obviously guilty!' and me probably coming off as a terrible person.

All Nines

The guy who probably thinks I'm heartless hasn't responded to my rebuttal yet, but here's how it's gone so far (this was after I posted the thing on how she was found guilty of providing false information to the police but probably won't spend time for it):

Me: "I don't really care too too much, to be honest; this is hardly the most outrageous thing I've seen on the news, and getting worked up over these things when they're so frequent (and so often unreported, except in the case of white women in major cities) is probably bad for one's peace of mind. I just thought that thing about being convicted and not serving time for even that was rubbing salt in the wound.

That probably sounded pretty callous, but I stand by it."

Other dude: "Well when a 2 year old is murdered by her own mother and then thrown away like trash in such a horrific way and then the mom gets to walk away free it's kinda hard not to care and get worked up...."

Me: "I can understand that. I've learned a slightly different mindset, though: it's definitely not any less unjust because it was on the news, but at the same time there are still a lot of people getting screwed over and probably killed in similar manners elsewhere, and I would feel unsympathetic and heartless if I could pay that much more mind to the incident that happened to be reported and be unable to spend an equal amount of time mourning for the plight of countless other people I'll never know. This incident becoming a national headline isn't going to stop the suffering of all those other people, and I don't have the time or the will to be bogged down by that much injustice. I'd also rather not have a woman being sentenced to death without better evidence than what I've heard was provided.

For the record, I don't doubt that Anthony is guilty; I simply heard that there was little in the way of hard, cold evidence and that it was more coming to a logical conclusion based on her behavior."

CommandoDude

It wasn't undated. It was dated 4-5 days right after she disappeared with her child. Which frankly talked a lot about "Regretting nothing" What would she have done that she didn't regret a few days after her daughter disappeared? Have you read the entry?

She googled how to kill people with chloroform and "neck breaking"

All the defense did was make up a bunch of bogus about how the grandfather "Covered it all up" and THEY offered no evidence to support their claims.

BlackHumor

@CD: It wasn't dated "4-5 days after she disappeared with her child". It was dated June 21st with no year. It could've been June 21st 1999 for all we know.

EDIT: Also, searching for chloroform and neck breaking is not conclusive evidence. I'm sure if we looked at your internet history I could link a few searches together and make you sound guilty of whatever I wanted to.

Vorpy

I don't google any methods of killing people because if anyone in my house died I would be in trouble

for killing them

BlackHumor

*googles "how to kill Vorpy"*

Electivirus

Threadhop: "Innocent until proven guilty."

Not enough evidence.

Get over it. This isn't Ace Attorney.

MadassAlex

Yet.

Electivirus

WHERE'S THAT FUCKING PARROT

snowbull

Who the hell doesn't clear their search history every time they turn off their browser?

Who has it set to record search history in the first place?

Elbeem

I was hoping that the thread on Yack Fest about this could make it at least a day without getting into creepy revenge fantasies.

I was disappointed.

thatguythere47

"She googled how to kill people with chloroform and "neck breaking" 

I've googled worse >_> 

"All the defense did was make up a bunch of bogus about how the grandfather "Covered it all up" and THEY offered no evidence to support their claims." 

The defense doesn't have to prove anything, it's up to the crown/DA/whatever yanks call it to prove it conclusively. 

and motive/means/opportunity have no legal barring. Guilty mind/Guilty action is what's required and they couldn't prove either. 

Forzare

THEY offered no evidence to support their claims

In law, the burden of proof is on the prosecution.  Just sayin'.

ClockworkUniverse

^Unless you wanna visit Japan, with its lovely 99.7% conviction rate.

MillerCross

I'm guessing that a large percentage of those are false positives?