Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-05-2011, 06:41 PM - 1 Like   #16
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,800
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
And you didn't see me cite one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights either did you?
No, I didn't and that was part of the point I was making. You said the Constitution (the bill of rights is the first 10 amendments to the constitution) required "beyond a shadow of a doubt". It doesn't address the prosecution's burden at all. It is a popular misconception that every right that we have is granted by the Constitution. Some are statutory, some stem from case law, and some from SCOTUS, or other court rulings.
It's just a bit of a sore spot with me when people who have clearly never read, much less studied, the Constitution make assertions as to its provisions.

07-05-2011, 06:52 PM   #17
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,250
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
No, I didn't and that was part of the point I was making. You said the Constitution (the bill of rights is the first 10 amendments to the constitution) required "beyond a shadow of a doubt". It doesn't address the prosecution's burden at all. It is a popular misconception that every right that we have is granted by the Constitution. Some are statutory, some stem from case law, and some from SCOTUS, or other court rulings.
It's just a bit of a sore spot with me when people who have clearly never read, much less studied, the Constitution make assertions as to its provisions.
Its all so a sore spot with me when you make such unfounded allegations given I have not only studied the U.S. Constitution, but its history and history leading up to its ratification including reading many of the Federalist Papers.

My comment referred to the Due Process clause in both the Florida and U.S. Supreme Court. A Death Penalty case WILL get reviewed by the Florida Constitution under appeal.

CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Fourteenth Amendment

QuoteQuote:
The due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments “[protect] the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.”83 “The reasonable doubt standard plays a vital role in the American scheme of criminal procedure. It is a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error. The standard provides concrete substance for the presumption of innocence—that bedrock ‘axiomatic and elementary’ principle whose ‘enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.”’84 In many past cases, this standard was assumed to be the required one,85 but because it was so widely accepted only recently has the Court had the opportunity to pronounce it guaranteed by due process.86 The presumption of inno[p.1762]cence is valuable in assuring defendants a fair trial,87 and it operates to ensure that the jury considers the case solely on the evidence.88 The Court has long held it would set aside under the due process clause convictions that are supported by no evidence at all,89 but Winship necessitated a reconsideration of whether it should in reviewing state cases weigh the sufficiency of the evidence. Thus, in Jackson v. Virginia,90 it held that federal courts, on direct appeal of federal convictions or collateral review of state convictions, must satisfy themselves whether the record evidence could reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The question the reviewing court is to ask itself is not whether it believes the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.91

Last edited by Blue; 07-05-2011 at 07:03 PM.
07-05-2011, 07:22 PM   #18
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,800
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote

My comment referred to the Due Process clause in both the Florida and U.S. Supreme Court. A Death Penalty case WILL get reviewed by the Florida Constitution under appeal.
No argument there. What does that have to do with shadow vs reasonable, and the Constitution?
07-05-2011, 07:24 PM - 1 Like   #19
Veteran Member
magkelly's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,900
Original Poster
The media had Casey Anthony tried and sentenced from the get go. Fact is we don't know that she killed anyone. There is no forensic evidence that can stand up in court. None. The prosecution tried and at every turn what little evidence they had wasn't enough. They couldn't even tell a jury how that child actually died, let alone prove that she was murdered by her own mother. That leaves gossip, innuendo, and hearsay, none of which are legal grounds to convict someone of a crime like murder. There wasn't even enough evidence for manslaughter or child abuse.

So what do you have?

A woman who lied, and not for the first time apparently. But the problem is we don't know why she lied. All we really know is she apparently did her level best to act like nothing was wrong for a whole month after her child went missing. That she mislead the prosecutors in regards to the whereabouts of her child.

She says the child drowned and that her Dad covered up the evidence. I do have to question that a bit because I can't see an ex-cop doing that, but then again I don't quite understand the family dynamics at work here. If he did make her cover up the truth, then why? I have to ask why? What was happening in that family that the entire family was prepared to cover up a child's death rather than allow it to come to light? In my gut I think there was far more to this story than we will ever likely know. That the truth it may be far more twisted than anyone realizes. But I am just not too sure that Casey Anthony did indeed kill her child. If I believed in circumstantial evidence than yes, I probably would, but I don't. It takes a lot more than that for me to condemn someone.

I won't go there assume someone is guilty just because the press wants us to think so. It's too easy to go there, and too easy to be wrong. You know I cannot help but go back to what happened with the Ramsey's and JonBenet after this. They too were tried and convicted in the court of public opinion and it wasn't until years later when the DNA confirmed that there was indeed a non family member there that night that they were finally exonerated of guilt. Too late for poor Patsy Ramsey who was vilified in the press even as she was dying of cancer.

Think about it. Everyone was so convinced that Patsy Ramsey killed her own child too. But she apparently didn't. Yet, she went to her grave with a lot of people hating her who were fully prepared to believe it was so. Me, I don't put much stock in the court of public opinion anymore. I want cold, hard facts, and verifiable evidence. If you can't give me that then don't expect me to fall in line with popular opinion, to crucify someone just because the majority thinks something is so. That court is just too often wrong for me to trust it. A lynch mob is still a lynch mob, even if they now use the internet to do their dirty work.

If I had been on that jury? Had seen that evidence, heard that testimony? I'd have likely argued for reasonable doubt too. I just can't see convicting her on what little evidence was presented and not particularly liking her? That's just immaterial to the question at hand. A court case isn't supposed to be a popularity contest.


Last edited by magkelly; 07-05-2011 at 07:30 PM.
07-05-2011, 07:26 PM   #20
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,250
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
No argument there. What does that have to do with shadow vs reasonable, and the Constitution?
I didn't bring up shadow vs. reasonable. I just pointed out in an earlier post the Justice Ginsberg recognized the phrase and the Cornell annotated constitution and quote shown in the last link shows the connection of reasonable doubt clause to the Constitution via "Due Process." My original comment was hinting that this would end up in front of the Florida Supreme Court and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court because of that.
07-05-2011, 07:39 PM   #21
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,250
There's mixed reports whether he retired, resigned or got fired, but either way, Jeff Ashton is gone.

Before It's News
07-05-2011, 07:55 PM   #22
K-9
Veteran Member
K-9's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,972
I believe she is guilty. I know several people closely following the case who are outraged by the verdict.
07-05-2011, 08:28 PM   #23
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Michigan/USA
Posts: 173
Well, she was found 'not guilty, which is not at all the same thing as innocent. Apparently a case could not be made, I feel very badly for the people that served on that jury for the decision they had to make.

Anyone who is a parent knows she did not react like a mother with a lost child, or as evidence came in, as a mother with a murdered child. A street cat shows more connection with their offspring than Casey Anthony did.

07-05-2011, 09:11 PM   #24
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
loco's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,846
The hardest thing to explain is her behavior. Playing devil's advocate, the best I can come up with is this... what if it was an accident and she was responsible for Caylee's death? What if the guilt was overwhelming to the point that the only way her psyche could deal with it was to pretend it never happened? To make up a story that she ended up believing because she couldn't deal with the truth.
07-05-2011, 09:54 PM - 2 Likes   #25
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,484
QuoteOriginally posted by K-9 Quote
I believe she is guilty. I know several people closely following the case who are outraged by the verdict.
.... and none of their opinions matter. None of them were in the court room, none of them were at the scene (and before you ask the typical snarky question, no, I wasn't either), and none of them have any better proof than what was presented.

I for one commend that jury, whoever they may be. In this day and age to be able to even seat a jury in a case like that is a monumental task. I applaud them for not having their minds made up before Ms Anthony was paraded into the courtroom. I applaud them for having the courage to do their jobs, as instructed, in spite of all the media/internet bullshit opinions that were and are likely to be flying around.

07-05-2011, 10:30 PM   #26
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,250
QuoteOriginally posted by JeffJS Quote
.... and none of their opinions matter. None of them were in the court room, none of them were at the scene (and before you ask the typical snarky question, no, I wasn't either), and none of them have any better proof than what was presented.

I for one commend that jury, whoever they may be. In this day and age to be able to even seat a jury in a case like that is a monumental task. I applaud them for not having their minds made up before Ms Anthony was paraded into the courtroom. I applaud them for having the courage to do their jobs, as instructed, in spite of all the media/internet bullshit opinions that were and are likely to be flying around.

Well Said!

QuoteOriginally posted by loco Quote
The hardest thing to explain is her behavior. Playing devil's advocate, the best I can come up with is this... what if it was an accident and she was responsible for Caylee's death? What if the guilt was overwhelming to the point that the only way her psyche could deal with it was to pretend it never happened? To make up a story that she ended up believing because she couldn't deal with the truth.
That is very plausible. However, the prosecution didn't pursue that.
07-05-2011, 10:47 PM   #27
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ferguson, Mo.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,348
QuoteOriginally posted by magkelly Quote
The media had Casey Anthony tried and sentenced from the get go.
Displays absolute impotence of media and media types who try to influence thought
for primarily financial gain.Matters not what they or I 'think',it's impaneled jury of peers that counts.
07-05-2011, 10:59 PM   #28
Veteran Member
SteveM's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,294
I used to work Ambulance and I remember everyone back at the station taking great amusement over what was reported on the 5:00 news. It's times like these that I need to remind myself that news is not always factual. I don't know what happened in this case, perhaps she is guilty, perhaps not, but if you are using the news as your source of information, you might not be getting all of the facts. You might also be getting information in a way that takes things out of context, because it makes a better story, better ratings, sells more papers etc.
07-05-2011, 11:27 PM   #29
Veteran Member
magkelly's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,900
Original Poster
The one thing that really got me with this case was all the immediate judgement of the woman based on those club pics. Even when it came out that she'd basically been paid to look like she was having fun people just refused to believe she could be doing that. It was apparently just more fun to believe that she was a total psychopath who felt nothing and who killed her child so she could party. I say even if she did go out and party her fool head off that doesn't mean she wasn't grieving.

I probably didn't look like I was either when I lost the two people I mentioned above. In fact I think I probably came off looking very like Anthony to those who didn't know me, but I knew better. Inside, behind the "all is normal" facade I was way depressed. I couldn't cry so I partied my arse off and drank like someone possessed.

That wasn't the real me. Half a glass of wine is usually my limit and I don't do other chemicals. My friends all know that. But not then. I was so intent upon numbing my pain, hiding my grief that I just reached for anything that could make it go away. I can't help but look at her and see that time in my life, wonder if that was how she coped with it all until she had to stop and think, until they put her in jail and made her stop and think.

Like I said above just because she didn't show it like some folks might like doesn't mean she wasn't feeling it. Different people grieve in different ways and I think judging her on her clubbing behavior is ignoring that. She could have well been dying inside, and no one would have known it. For whatever reason she was well used to lying, to putting up a facade, a happy face if needed. Maybe that's all she could do under the circumstances? Who knows, but I won't use that as a basis to convict her as guilty. That's just not something I can do.

Yeah, she may have killed her, but we don't have any real proof of that. It's all supposition, circumstantial evidence, and even that is flimsy at best. I'd like to think that a jury would refuse to go there given what they actually saw. Hearsay and dislike, that's not a case. That's not physical evidence. Not at all. Goodness help us all if that's all it would take to get a conviction.

Think about it. Some may not agree that she was innocent. But I don't think anyone who has been following this trial could say the prosecution actually made their case. The jury was right to let her walk given the lack of actual evidence. Would you want someone you love to go to jail, possibly to death row on so little? I sure as heck wouldn't.
07-05-2011, 11:28 PM - 1 Like   #30
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
How to avoid being misled by sensationalist media: TURN THE FOCKING TV OFF!! Those who tried and convicted Ms Anthony did so for ratings, for grabbing viewer eyeballs, for selling those eyeballs to advertisers. They obviously will say and do ANYTHING to get those ratings, those eyeballs, those bucks. DON'T ENCOURAGE THE BASTARDS! Vote with your feet and walk away.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
abuse, anthony, casey, father, girl, result, tears, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
People Saving Anthony Rupert Post Your Photos! 3 04-24-2011 07:49 AM
Fox News and it's Murder Fantasies jogiba General Talk 12 01-11-2011 07:49 AM
People Innocent suliabryon Post Your Photos! 4 09-27-2010 08:10 AM
Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) deadwolfbones General Talk 12 08-04-2010 01:21 PM
dolphin murder octavmandru General Talk 93 09-05-2009 11:53 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:28 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top