Casey Anthony Guilty of... lying... watching live The trial

Originally posted by kro32
Would you like a massive list of women who have been convicted of killing their children?

A simple 5 minute google search should prevent you from posting rubbish like this.

Yes please, and then compare the average time served (if any) by men and by women convicted of killing their kids.

reply to post by SEEWHATUDO


There was absolutely no indication of child abuse whatsoever in any form. The prosecution could not bring up one iota of evidence to indicate there was ever any child abuse.

They couldn't prove anything actually. The jurors had no choice but to aquit based on lack of evidence.

Originally posted by SEEWHATUDO
Nobody can explain the child abuse acquittal? Seriously, maybe I'm missing something.
All of you who think the system worked in this case, please explain the child abuse charge.

What? You're supposed to do something if you haven't seen your kid for a month?

Gosh we sure do expect a lot of Mothers these days don't we.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by kro32
Would you like a massive list of women who have been convicted of killing their children?

A simple 5 minute google search should prevent you from posting rubbish like this.

Yes please, and then compare the average time served (if any) by men and by women convicted of killing their kids.

Dude do your own research and then post your results, i'm not your secretary.

Lazy people nowadays bring up ridiculous statements then want everyone to do the work for them.

reply to post by kro32


He's actually challenging you to prove/disprove your point and the point he was making. Your argument was against his argument that women get mercy from the jurors. You were actually the one OFFERING a list of proof.

I tend to agree with him. Women get special treatments in all areas of life in my opinion... and the courtroom is no different.

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by SEEWHATUDO

 

There was absolutely no indication of child abuse whatsoever in any form. The prosecution could not bring up one iota of evidence to indicate there was ever any child abuse.

They couldn't prove anything actually. The jurors had no choice but to aquit based on lack of evidence.

HHAHAHAHAHA you are a piece of work man.
NEGLECT is child abuse. Not reporting your child missing for over a month is NEGLECT. Facts!!!

The only thing that has been proven is she is a liar. I personally believe she did it but the evidence on the prosecution's side was weak...

Originally posted by etombo
The only thing that has been proven is she is a liar. I personally believe she did it but the evidence on the prosecution's side was weak...

Oh please I bet a majority of the people in jail are there on flimsier evidence.

Originally posted by joshter
reply to post by kro32

 

He's actually challenging you to prove/disprove your point and the point he was making. Your argument was against his argument that women get mercy from the jurors. You were actually the one OFFERING a list of proof.

I tend to agree with him. Women get special treatments in all areas of life in my opinion... and the courtroom is no different.

Thank you! Was just getting ready to point out the whole offering of the list thing but thats just a silly factual detail.

reply to post by joshter

Agreed entirely. Im not going to derail this thread but I will start a thread of this issue later.

Think about it, women are seen as "innocent" and hence are often given much more lenient sentences than a man would receive for the same crime.

Originally posted by SEEWHATUDO

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by SEEWHATUDO

 

There was absolutely no indication of child abuse whatsoever in any form. The prosecution could not bring up one iota of evidence to indicate there was ever any child abuse.

They couldn't prove anything actually. The jurors had no choice but to aquit based on lack of evidence.

HHAHAHAHAHA you are a piece of work man.
NEGLECT is child abuse. Not reporting your child missing for over a month is NEGLECT. Facts!!!

Laugh all you want but the child was already dead by that time. Kinda hard to have child abuse on a dead child.

Prior to the death there was no proof of child abuse.

I always thought if you lied, you should make it believable and you know, solid.

But I've learned from Casey Anthony that if you do something really horrid, then your lies should be just as bad.
To get away with murder, you need BIG, BLATANT lies. Lies that change and mutate and are SO freaking obvious that it causes thinking people's brains to shut down and reboot.

Originally posted by SEEWHATUDO

Originally posted by joshter
reply to post by kro32

 

He's actually challenging you to prove/disprove your point and the point he was making. Your argument was against his argument that women get mercy from the jurors. You were actually the one OFFERING a list of proof.

I tend to agree with him. Women get special treatments in all areas of life in my opinion... and the courtroom is no different.

Thank you! Was just getting ready to point out the whole offering of the list thing but thats just a silly factual detail.

Actually his point that women receive more lenient penalties is the burden that needs to be proved which he brought up. I even offered to him how a 5 minute search would show him the error of his ways. If someone makes a statement like that it is not up to me to prove their statement correct or incorrect it is up to them.

Originally posted by kro32
Actually his point that women receive more lenient penalties is the burden that needs to be proved which he brought up. I even offered to him how a 5 minute search would show him the error of his ways. If someone makes a statement like that it is not up to me to prove their statement correct or incorrect it is up to them.

The whole point of my simple response (which obviously went FAR over your head) is that a list of women convicted of killing their kids wouldn't tell us anything about whether juries are more lenient toward Mothers or not.

reply to post by SevenBeans


Not. Even. Worth. It.
Let's move on...

reply to post by SevenBeans


ok

I agree you would need a substantial comparison to sample from to determine a consensus on that. Which is why his original statement is false and unimportant to the discussion.

Glad we agree that statements like that are irrelevant to the debate at hand.

Point is that the prosecution could not tie evidence linking Casey Anthony to the killing. The jury by convicting her would have not been taking the facts into consideration and if you were brought up charges would you want a jury that doesn't follow the rules.

Knowing your innocent would you want them to look at facts or vote on emotion or what they just think you might have did.

I have no idea if she killed her daughter or not. I'm simply arguing that the Jury did what they believed they had to based on the lack of evidence to ensure a fair verdict.

It is great to see

NANCY GRACE WITH PIE ON HER FACE!!!

I think she did it and her parents helped cover it up..

The problem is there was no evidence
on how the child died...

I do not believe the prosecution in
that *duct tape* was used to murder the child...

The prosecution lied just as much as the defense...

It is really about which side can lie the best
remember that next time your in court..

Something I learnt from watching this whole thing.

reply to post by ripcontrol


Guilty or not guilty, it doesn't matter. The real travesty here is that a little girl is dead and we are no closer today to the truth of how she died than when her body was first found. Make no mistake, if Casey is indeed guilty it will haunt her forever and it should.

reply to post by hillynilly


Correct. She may have had help, she may have done it, or somebody else may have. The prosecution couldn't prove that duct tape killed her, there were no fingerprints of Casey's anywhere around where they should have been if she had done it, there was no evidence of cloroform used on the child.

The list goes on and on. They argued that there was a smell coming from the car yet 7 officers who were standing by the car at this time testified they smelled nothing.

Very hard for a jury to get a sense of beyond a reasonable doubt with all this.