If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTSP)   Best pictures of Casey Anthony getting a noogie from her lawyer you will see all day   (wtsp.com) divider line 123
    More: Florida, Casey Anthony, Tampa, sketch artists, courtroom sketch  
•       •       •

23145 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Mar 2013 at 12:34 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



123 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-04 05:45:01 PM

scubamage: You know how I can tell you've never sat through a criminal trial?


Well, you'd be wrong. But no, I don't know how you can tell. Can you elaborate?

I believe I expressed that all evidence - including that which is otherwise presented to the public - is not always presented or available to the jury. Are you claiming that it is?

 
2013-03-04 06:19:11 PM
If only abortions were legal, Casey wouldn't have had to go through this whole mess; she could've just got the ol' roto-rooter and kept partying like... well like she did anyway...

/Meh, she's still a MILF (Murderer I'd like to Fark)
//Blah blah not guilty blah blah
///who the hell else would've killed that kid in that manner, and why isn't she looking for the "real killers" like OJ or the Ramsays?
 
2013-03-04 07:02:12 PM

moto-geek: ifly4fun: Just because a court of law doesn't find her guilty does not mean shes "innocent". She is only innocent in the eyes of the court, that hardly translates that she didn't commit the crime. I have no opinion one way or another, but by your logic anyone that kills someone and never gets caught is innocent.. hardly the case.

Unfortunately, that's all that we have though. If there is no evidence that proves her guilt she is innocent. Without this evidence, why are people saying that she did it? Does everyone but the court have some secret knowledge of the events in question?

If someone kills and there's no evidence, how do we know they have killed? You can believe or guess or whatever, but if there is no evidence then you're just spouting air.


Not guilty you say.

I thought she ran off and left a car trunk that had forensic evidence of human decay in it.

My bad.
 
2013-03-04 07:08:18 PM

I_C_Weener: [i586.photobucket.com image 500x359]


i586.photobucket.com
Best BJ he ever had I'll bet
 
2013-03-04 07:22:26 PM
Bankrupt? What about her book and movie deals?
 
2013-03-04 11:17:18 PM
Dat ass.  Tap it I would.
 
2013-03-05 02:12:29 AM

Prank Call of Cthulhu: [i1120.photobucket.com image 400x321]


I am such a terrible person. Still giggling. Terrible person. Terrible, terrible. Snort.
 
2013-03-05 02:35:54 AM
 scubamage: Wrong. The presumption of innocence is a legal right. The burden of proving her guilty lies on the accuser (the DA). They failed at proving her guilty, therefore, she remains innocent. The defendant is always assumed to be innocent up until the accuser has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that that fundamental assumption is wrong.


She is innocent.


lol...you are extremely confused.  What are you, 15?
 
2013-03-05 02:44:59 AM

DjangoStonereaver: In US Law, as previously pointed out, Not Guilty is the same as Innocent.


Is that so?
 
2013-03-05 02:47:41 AM
Playboy calling......
 
2013-03-05 02:57:12 AM

namegoeshere: The presumption of innocence is a legal tenet. She can not be legally punished for that crime. However, we, the public, are under no such restriction. We do not need to believe her innocent just because the court found her not guilty.


Bingo.  This statement is 100% technically correct - the best kind of correct!  Thank you for injecting some sanity into a "debate" with a bunch of people who apparently like to put their thinking skills on hold just because a jury determined something that may have been legally plausible, but that even those jurors will readily admit is probably factually wrong and makes them sick to their stomachs to have voted to acquit.

And as to all the GED lawyers out there who think that "not guilty" = "innocent", and also want to rob the rest of us thinking people from holding an informed opinion outside the courtroom (my informed opinion:  she's guilty as hell of murdering her little girl) - educate yourselves people.  Please.  You might be on a jury yourselves one day, and I hope that you know what you're doing by then.
 
2013-03-05 03:04:04 AM

Close2TheEdge: As long as the court system never devolves to the point where public viewpoint becomes somehow relevant. If it ever does, then we are all truly farked.


What a non-starter of a discussion, since our court system is specifically designed to negate this very thing.

Close2TheEdge: And does it really justify harassment of her after she has been tried in court? I don't personally think so.


Who here stated that it was ok to harass her, or to physically punish her in any way?

Close2TheEdge: I can't help but wonder what type of person took time out of their life to hold a "How much was your baby worth?" sign up as Case Anthony was being brought into a bankruptcy hearing.


Please tell me you don't think this exercise of free speech rights is an example of "harassment"?

Seems like you're worried about a whole bunch of stuff that doesn't exist, and isn't in danger of becoming so.  What's the deal?  Are you a little uncomfortable defending this ghoul of a human being?  I would be too, which is why I don't.
 
2013-03-05 03:09:43 AM

kumanoki: namegoeshere: kumanoki: sloshed_again: The fact they couldn't prove it does''t make her a good girl.

The fact they couldn't prove it makes her innocent. Whether or not shes a dirty, nasty, slutty, tramp of a whore of a slut is irrelevent.

Absolutely not. It makes her not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There's a big difference.

True. Not guilty /= Innocent.
However, 'not guilty beyond a resonable doubt' has nothing to dow with whethershes a dirty, nasty, slutty, tramp of a whore of a slut. I just want to make youre everyone gets that.


If she starts out innocent and isn't proven guilty, then she's still innocent.  The jury's verdict of "not guilty" means only, "We do not find her guilty."  It doesn't change her from innocent to "not guilty."

"Innocent, dirty, nasty, slutty" gives me a boner for da crazy. "Tramp of a whore of a slut" sounds like we're insulting her mother and grandma, too!
 
2013-03-05 03:13:52 AM
I wanna see Casey, Octomom, Lindsay Lohan, Kristen Stewart, and the former Miss Teen USA  Delaware in an orgy porno.
 
2013-03-05 05:47:08 AM

karmachameleon: DjangoStonereaver: In US Law, as previously pointed out, Not Guilty is the same as Innocent.

Is that so?


If you're taking legal advice from newspaper style guides, then you get what you deserve.
 
2013-03-05 07:12:46 AM

BarkingUnicorn: I wanna see Casey, Octomom, Lindsay Lohan, Kristen Stewart, and the former Miss Teen USA  Delaware in an orgy porno.


miss teen

that sounds sexy
how old is she?  only 14 you say!??
 
2013-03-05 07:21:47 AM

DjangoStonereaver: karmachameleon: DjangoStonereaver: In US Law, as previously pointed out, Not Guilty is the same as Innocent.

Is that so?

If you're taking legal advice from newspaper style guides, then you get what you deserve.


Are you saying that the assertion that "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent" is wrong?  Or are you just smearing this source of that commonly known information for the fun of it?  Of many, many common references, I chose this one because it mentioned Anthony's case specifically, and being a style guide, it helped drive the point home that "innocent" and "not guilty" mean two different things.  If you don't like this reference, go look up another one - they're easy to find and they all say the same thing.

I think many of you are confusing the presumption of innocence with the jury verdict of "not guilty", which simply means that the prosecution has not proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt, not that the defendant is innocent of the crime they were accused of.  Clearly, the statement, "Not Guilty = Innocent" is absurd on the face of it.  It is easier if you think of "Not Guilty" as "Acquitted" instead; those two phrases actually do mean the same thing.  A person can commit a crime and still be acquitted; it has happened before and will happen again.  I firmly believe, based on the evidence, that Casey Anthony committed this crime.  I can also understand why the jury acquitted her, but even they have stated, to a person, that they believe she is probably not innocent.
 
2013-03-05 07:23:34 AM

DjangoStonereaver: If you're taking legal advice from newspaper style guides, then you get what you deserve.


Here, I found a source that I believe even you should be able to understand.
 
2013-03-05 07:34:31 AM

karmachameleon: DjangoStonereaver: If you're taking legal advice from newspaper style guides, then you get what you deserve.

Here, I found a source that I believe even you should be able to understand.


I like how that source's final paragraph actually demolishes your beef, and states nearly verbatim my
assertion from up thread:

So why do people say a person was found innocent? In many judicial systems, anyway, once you're found not guilty of a crime, you can't be tried again for that same crime. Under the law (in America's case the Fifth Amendment), you are protected against double jeopardy. So, once you're found not guilty, you're as good as innocent, at least in the eyes of the law.

Protip:  it helps to actually read something you want to try to use as a rebuttal.
 
2013-03-05 10:23:07 AM

DjangoStonereaver: karmachameleon: DjangoStonereaver: If you're taking legal advice from newspaper style guides, then you get what you deserve.

Here, I found a source that I believe even you should be able to understand.

I like how that source's final paragraph actually demolishes your beef, and states nearly verbatim my
assertion from up thread:

So why do people say a person was found innocent? In many judicial systems, anyway, once you're found not guilty of a crime, you can't be tried again for that same crime. Under the law (in America's case the Fifth Amendment), you are protected against double jeopardy. So, once you're found not guilty, you're as good as innocent, at least in the eyes of the law.

Protip:  it helps to actually read something you want to try to use as a rebuttal.


(eyeroll)  It helps to actually read for comprehension, doofus.  That last paragraph doesn't mean what you seem to think it means, and:  "If the judge or jury are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, then they must deliver a verdict ofnot guilty. This does not mean that the defendant isinnocent. It means only that the prosecution did not convince the judge or jury beyond a reasonable doubt."  But believe what you want, it's no skin off my nose.
 
2013-03-05 10:43:00 AM

karmachameleon: DjangoStonereaver: karmachameleon: DjangoStonereaver: If you're taking legal advice from newspaper style guides, then you get what you deserve.

Here, I found a source that I believe even you should be able to understand.

I like how that source's final paragraph actually demolishes your beef, and states nearly verbatim my
assertion from up thread:

So why do people say a person was found innocent? In many judicial systems, anyway, once you're found not guilty of a crime, you can't be tried again for that same crime. Under the law (in America's case the Fifth Amendment), you are protected against double jeopardy. So, once you're found not guilty, you're as good as innocent, at least in the eyes of the law.

Protip:  it helps to actually read something you want to try to use as a rebuttal.

(eyeroll)  It helps to actually read for comprehension, doofus.  That last paragraph doesn't mean what you seem to think it means, and:  "If the judge or jury are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, then they must deliver a verdict ofnot guilty. This does not mean that the defendant isinnocent. It means only that the prosecution did not convince the judge or jury beyond a reasonable doubt."  But believe what you want, it's no skin off my nose.


You're one of those Sovreign Citizen types, aren't you?

/Or an English major.
 
2013-03-05 11:06:10 AM

moto-geek: ifly4fun: Just because a court of law doesn't find her guilty does not mean shes "innocent". She is only innocent in the eyes of the court, that hardly translates that she didn't commit the crime. I have no opinion one way or another, but by your logic anyone that kills someone and never gets caught is innocent.. hardly the case.

Unfortunately, that's all that we have though. If there is no evidence that proves her guilt she is innocent. Without this evidence, why are people saying that she did it? Does everyone but the court have some secret knowledge of the events in question?

If someone kills and there's no evidence, how do we know they have killed? You can believe or guess or whatever, but if there is no evidence then you're just spouting air.


8/10.  Nicely done.
 
2013-03-05 12:59:25 PM
I just want to point out the awesomely bad courtroom sketches.

i45.tinypic.com

i47.tinypic.com

i47.tinypic.com
 
Displayed 23 of 123 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report