Amen to that , I am just glad for the ones that are running some states the same as GDAWG1958 would. we need more like them.
-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
"Reasonable Doubt" vs "Shadow of a Doubt"- How the jury got it wrong!
- Thread starter GDAWG1958
- Start date
Amen to that , I am just glad for the ones that are running some states the same as GDAWG1958 would. we need more like them.
Amen, this is the truth.
OK, I know I'm going to catch some serious crap for this. I've got my body armor on so go for it.
If I had been on the jury I would have voted "Not Guilty". I believe that she is responsible for her child's death in some way and she is the worst kind of mother, but what exactly did she do? NOBODY knows!
How did the child die?
When did she die?
Where did she die?
Nobody knows any of this. How can you convict a person of a crime without the answers to at least some of these questions? There are all kinds of hypotheses about the answers but no proof about any of it. The prosecution should never have taken this to court. Now she can never be charged in the future because of double jeopardy.
Remember that the jury was sequestered and had no input other than the evidence presented in court. They were not exposed to all the talking heads that we have seen throughout the trial. thus they were not aware of the presumption of guilt that became the conventional wisdom for so many people. From what I saw of the evidence, I called the verdict before it was read. I was not surprised at all.
If I had been on the jury I would have voted "Not Guilty". I believe that she is responsible for her child's death in some way and she is the worst kind of mother, but what exactly did she do? NOBODY knows!
How did the child die?
When did she die?
Where did she die?
Nobody knows any of this. How can you convict a person of a crime without the answers to at least some of these questions? There are all kinds of hypotheses about the answers but no proof about any of it. The prosecution should never have taken this to court. Now she can never be charged in the future because of double jeopardy.
Remember that the jury was sequestered and had no input other than the evidence presented in court. They were not exposed to all the talking heads that we have seen throughout the trial. thus they were not aware of the presumption of guilt that became the conventional wisdom for so many people. From what I saw of the evidence, I called the verdict before it was read. I was not surprised at all.
Last edited:
How did the child die?
When did she die?
Where did she die?
Does not matter. the FACTS are she was with her mother when it happened.
When did she die?
Where did she die?
Does not matter. the FACTS are she was with her mother when it happened.
It has been said 1000 times on this forum already, but that "fact" does not prove 1st degree murder. She was charged with capital murder and there was not evidence to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt could be that she was playing with her daughter in the pool and Kaylee drowned while Casey was giving the plumber a lapdance in the kitchen and she freaked and hid the body and didnt tell anyone. It could be anything along these lines. Therefore, the jury found her not guilty.
This case does nothing to show inadequacies in our justice system; on the contrary I think it goes to show that our system works damn well. It shows that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and, lacking sufficient evidence, a person should not be found guilty of a crime. had the prosecution called for something besides 1st degree murder perhaps the outcome would have been different. If the media didnt jump all over this trial from the beginning maybe the prosecution would have pursued a lesser charge. Lots of maybe woulda coulda shoulda mights, but they don't mean much.
This case does nothing to show inadequacies in our justice system; on the contrary I think it goes to show that our system works damn well. It shows that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and, lacking sufficient evidence, a person should not be found guilty of a crime. had the prosecution called for something besides 1st degree murder perhaps the outcome would have been different. If the media didnt jump all over this trial from the beginning maybe the prosecution would have pursued a lesser charge. Lots of maybe woulda coulda shoulda mights, but they don't mean much.
I agree with your premise. But I happen to think that there was sufficient evidence in this case. It's just a difference of opinion or conclusion based on the available facts. I guess the entire jury disagreed with me on this, but that's where I am coming from with my position.
There are people who put gut feelings, emotion, and what they wish to be true over everything else...reason, provable facts, the law, everything. No amount of reason or logic will sway them because their primary concern is doing or saying or believing whatever makes them feel good and reality be damned.
Problem, reality doesn't care how you feel. Reality is just reality. The result is people who are constantly frustrated and seemingly mad at the world for not conforming to their wishful thinking.
Bad enough, but tolerable, when my 6 year old is guilty. But in a grown man, it's just sad.
Problem, reality doesn't care how you feel. Reality is just reality. The result is people who are constantly frustrated and seemingly mad at the world for not conforming to their wishful thinking.
Bad enough, but tolerable, when my 6 year old is guilty. But in a grown man, it's just sad.
Andrew, do you have children and a car?
Have your kids ever been in the trunk ?
I bet there is DNA evidence of them in the trunk somehow.
But you have never seen them in there, never put them in there but the DNA is there ......
Have your kids ever been in the trunk ?
I bet there is DNA evidence of them in the trunk somehow.
But you have never seen them in there, never put them in there but the DNA is there ......
so you did not read the OP about guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.and what that means.
No sir, I don't read very many of GDAWG's links. Call it what you will, but I prefer to get my information from sources that are a little more centrist in their overall views and not the literary equivalent of a chain email. I went as far as investigating the writer of the article and read the first few paragraphs, thats about it.
