Not Guilty?

Don't know. All I know is how the media made a circus out of things and made it impossible for her to get a fair trial. I'm gob smacked that she was found "not guilty" but since I didn't follow the case I'm pretty sure that is she was truly guilty as everyone is saying then the prosecution really fucked up and blew the case.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Don't know. All I know is how the media made a circus out of things and made it impossible for her to get a fair trial. I'm gob smacked that she was found "not guilty" but since I didn't follow the case I'm pretty sure that is she was truly guilty as everyone is saying then the prosecution really fucked up and blew the case.
Click to expand...

No, this was a total f-up by the prosecutors office. They used the media to try this case and make it a spectacle, instead of working on having a solid case to take to trial IMO.
 
Ice Dancer said:
No, this was a total f-up by the prosecutors office. They used the media to try this case and make it a spectacle, instead of working on having a solid case to take to trial IMO.
Click to expand...

Either way, they trod on her right to a fair trial and, obviously, bungled the prosecution. It's rather doubtful that the Jury was composed completely of idiots (as Brent would have you believe though Brent does have a certain amount of credibility when it comes to idiots, being one himself.) and since they were the ones that heard all the testimony and saw all the evidence I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they got it right.

I know I was real unpopular when I agreed with the OJ verdict. OJ may have killed that woman but their was no question that reasonable doubt existed in his trial and that the jury got it right.
 
Ice Dancer said:
No, this was a total f-up by the prosecutors office. They used the media to try this case and make it a spectacle, instead of working on having a solid case to take to trial IMO.
Click to expand...


I agree. I couldn't help but hear about this case, since it seems every news outlet in America was focused on it 24/7 for some bizarre reason... like a freaking 'reality show' or something... I don't get the culture we live in these days, but I digress... While I didn't follow every detail, I did listen to the closing arguments for the prosecution, and I was stunned at the inconsistency of the presentation... at one point, they are telling the jury... 'we can only hope she chloroformed Caylee before she killed her' and I am thinking... wait... isn't that how you are supposed to be PROVING she did it! WTF do you mean 'we can only hope?' Then when Dr. Botten made the point about the maggots found in Casey's trunk... why were they not tested for Caylee's DNA? That would have proven conclusively that her corpse had been in the trunk... slam dunk! So many other things come to mind as well, it was just a shoddy job by the prosecution, and we may never know the whole truth. I am not convinced the father (George) didn't have something to do with this as well.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Either way, they trod on her right to a fair trial and, obviously, bungled the prosecution. It's rather doubtful that the Jury was composed completely of idiots (as Brent would have you believe though Brent does have a certain amount of credibility when it comes to idiots, being one himself.) and since they were the ones that heard all the testimony and saw all the evidence I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they got it right.

I know I was real unpopular when I agreed with the OJ verdict. OJ may have killed that woman but their was no question that reasonable doubt existed in his trial and that the jury got it right.
Click to expand...

I disagree on OJ, the jury acquitted him because he was black and they were prejudiced against the cops. The evidence clearly was presented, and it was very damning, in my opinion. I agree with you on this case, though, the jury couldn't convict her because the case was simply not made.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Either way, they trod on her right to a fair trial and, obviously, bungled the prosecution. It's rather doubtful that the Jury was composed completely of idiots (as Brent would have you believe though Brent does have a certain amount of credibility when it comes to idiots, being one himself.) and since they were the ones that heard all the testimony and saw all the evidence I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they got it right.

I know I was real unpopular when I agreed with the OJ verdict. OJ may have killed that woman but their was no question that reasonable doubt existed in his trial and that the jury got it right.
Click to expand...

I do not for a minute think the jury were idiots in either trial. I do believe the prosecution did an excellent job in OJ's trial and racial tensions corrupted the jury. In the Casey Anthony case you have prosecutors who failed to create a solid evidentiary case for a jury who needed one. I always believed that the mother did not intend for her daughter to die-that she chloroformed her and put duct tape on her mouth in case she awoke-that the child aspirated and died. If they had approached their mostly circumstantial case from that basis I think they could have persuaded the jury.
 
The Prosecution brought a case full of holey circumstantial evidence and guesses.

The Jury sat and listened and flat stated that they brought nothing. Even the alternates seem clear on it.

The reason so many who weren't there thought she was guilty was because the hired experts simply gave just enough out of context information to support their own opinion on whether she was guilty.

All that being said, had she not been quite as good looking, or had her daughter been slightly less cute, do you think we would have heard a thing about this? Basically the Prosecution's case was "She wanted to have fun so she killed her kid", which on its face is a bit ridiculous as she knew that at any moment she could have dropped that kid off at grandma's and went on out for a party.
 
She may have murdered her daughter. But there was not enough evidence to prove premeditated murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think if the prosecutors had gone for negligent homicide or manslaughter they would have put her away.
 
don't think they had enough for even manslaughter.
If she was fat black and poor we wouldn't have heard the second sound bite.
 
Ice Dancer said:
I do not for a minute think the jury were idiots in either trial. I do believe the prosecution did an excellent job in OJ's trial and racial tensions corrupted the jury. In the Casey Anthony case you have prosecutors who failed to create a solid evidentiary case for a jury who needed one. I always believed that the mother did not intend for her daughter to die-that she chloroformed her and put duct tape on her mouth in case she awoke-that the child aspirated and died. If they had approached their mostly circumstantial case from that basis I think they could have persuaded the jury.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but you're seriously wrong about the OJ trial. They screwed that up by the numbers.

In the OJ trial the major problem was that there was no witnesses or murder weapon that could tie him directly to the crime scene. He was about 10 or 20 minutes away from having an air tight aliby too.

So with that being the case, the only thing they had on OJ was the forensic evidence. In this area, I have a certain level of expertise cause the sample collection, preservation and analytical procedures for environmental testing are very similiar to those used in forensics and I have quite a few years of experience in such work. Here's the mistakes that were made (and these weren't neccesarily the fault of the prosecution so much as it was the coroners office and LAPD).

* First, police violated proper procedure for a murder scene where the coroners office has jurisdiction. Whether or not the police reasoning was valid, they contaminated the crime scene.

* The LA County coronors office then sent a rookie technician, Andrea Mazolli, who had never been part of a murder investigation to the crime scene to collect forensic samples (I would have fired Dennis Fung, the LA County Coroner over that screw up). She screwed up by the numbers. They even took photographs at the crime scene that showed her cross contaminating samples and using the wrong preservation methods. She then, for some unknown reason, grossly violated chain of custody procedures by giving the samples to the LAPD Police Detectives present.

* Those clowns then took the samples with them on a visit to OJ's home. An aggregious violation of custody and control procedures. (an actionable offense by a police officer too). The CoC violatins and screw ups continued. Samples were improperly stored, multible personel were permitted to handle the samples with out proper CoC forms being filed to create a record of their movements, etc.

* Then in several instances they used the wrong damned standardized procedures in the forensic lab and it didn't help that their DNA analyst was caught using a statistical lie in court during her presentation of the data (Barry Scheck saved OJ's ass on that one!), the list goes on and on.

No reasonable chemist or pathologist would validate those results and that all came out in court and when it did, all that forensic evidence went right down the tubes, all because the LA County Coroners office was a bunch of fuck ups and because, it appears, that the LAPD Detectives tried to frame what may have been a guilty man. With out that Forensic evidence, the prosecution didn't have squat. They had only one thing that tied OJ to the crime, the gloves and when OJ tried on those gloves and they didn't fit, any remote chance they had left of convicting him went right out the window. So please don't insult the jury and raise racial implications that don't exist. The fact is, that there was a ton of reasonable doubt in the OJ trial and the jury made the only honest decision they could.


That should be respected.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
I'm sorry but you're seriously wrong about the OJ trial. They screwed that up by the numbers. In the OJ trial the major problem was that there was no witnesses or murder weapon that could tie him directly to the crime scene. He was about 10 or 20 minutes away from having an air tight aliby too. So with that being the case, the only thing they had on OJ was the forensic evidence. In this area, I have a certain level of expertise cause the sample collection, preservation and analytical procedures for environmental testing are very similiar to those used in forensics and I have quite a few years of experience in such work. Here's the mistakes that were made (and these weren't neccesarily the fault of the prosecution so much as it was the coroners office and LAPD). First, police violated proper procedure for a murder scene where the coroners office has jurisdiction. Whether or not the police reasoning was valid, they contaminated the crime scene. The LA County coronors office then sent a rookie technician who had never been part of a murder investigation to the crime scene to collect forensic samples (I would have fired Dennis Fung, the LA Country Coroner over that screw up). She screwed up by the numbers. They even took photographs at the crime scene that showed her cross contaminating samples and using the wrong preservatin methods. She then, for some unknown reason, grossly violated chain of custody procedures by giving the samples to the LAPD Police Detectives present. Those clowns then took the samples with them on a visit to OJ's home. An aggregious violation of custody and control procedures. (an actionable offense by a police officer too). The CoC violatins and screw ups continued. Samples were improperly stored, multible personel were permitted to handle the samples with out proper CoC forms being filed to create a record of their movements. Then in several instances they used the wrong damned standardized procedures in the forensic lab and it didn't help that their DNA analyst was caught using a statistical lie in court during her presentation of the data (Barry Scheck saved OJ's ass on that one!), the list goes on and on. No reasonable chemist or pathologist would validate those results and that all came out in court and when it did, all that forensic evidence went right down the tubes, all because the LA County Coroners office was a bunch of fuck ups and because, it appears, that the LAPD Detectives tried to frame what may have been a guilty man. With out that Forensic evidence, the prosecution didn't have squat. They had only one thing that tied OJ to the crime, the gloves and when OJ tried on those gloves and they didn't fit, any remote chance they had left of convicting him went right out the window. So please don't insult the jury and raise racial implications that don't exist. The fact is, that there was a ton of reasonable doubt in the OJ trial and the jury made the only honest decision they could.
That should be respected.
Click to expand...

[X] Wall o' Text.
[X] Needs some separation.
[X] Would like Bullet Points
[_] Two thumbs up, everybody read it!
 
They moved the trial to LA county where the jury that was seated were in a racially volatile climate against the police-ironically the decision was made in hopes of appeasing the animus between police and African American's. If Simpson, who had been living in a predominately white community in Santa Monica Co for many years, had been tried there, I believe the jury would have convicted him. As it was, the jury was made up of 9 black jurists, 1 Hispanic, and 2 white females (one white female was seated after juror number 4 was dismissed).

The evidence against OJ was convincing and presented well...The few blunders only gave jurists, who already had plenty of suspicions about the LAPD, an excuse to vote for acquittal. To think that race did not influence this jury is ridiculous. Just looking at the percentage of white Americans VS black American's with regards to guilt and innocence, shows that race is indeed involved in opinions.

graphs
 
Ice Dancer said:
They moved the trial to LA county where the jury that was seated were in a racially volatile climate against the police-ironically the decision was made in hopes of appeasing the animus between police and African American's. If Simpson, who had been living in a predominately white community in Santa Monica Co for many years, had been tried there, I believe the jury would have convicted him. As it was, the jury was made up of 9 black jurists, 1 Hispanic, and 2 white females (one white female was seated after juror number 4 was dismissed).

The evidence against OJ was convincing and presented well...The few blunders only gave jurists, who already had plenty of suspicions about the LAPD, an excuse to vote for acquittal. To think that race did not influence this jury is ridiculous. Just looking at the percentage of white Americans VS black American's with regards to guilt and innocence, shows that race is indeed involved in opinions.

graphs
Click to expand...
You can believe what you want but I'm telling you as a person who did this kind of work for a living for quite a few years, that the forensic evidence contained more then "a few blunders". As I pointed it out to you, and I have no earthly reason to defend OJ Simpson, their case against OJ was pinned almost exclusively on the forensic evidence and the forensic evidence was tainted and unreliable by any professional standards. Based on reliable forensic evidence you would be right, the prosecutions case against him would have been convincing and it was well presented and that is why so many lay people were convinced he was guilty but the problem for the prosecution was that the forensic evidence had been completely botched in a grossly amateurish way that I personally to this day cannot fathom. Like I said, I would have fired Dennis Fung for gross negligence and incompetence.

I've heard the jurors defend their decision and they did so based on the facts that I've stated, to state the Fox News party line on it is an unwarranted attack on their personal integrity. Based on what I saw as gross incompetence by the coroners office, I'd say they did a hell of a job,as lay people, sifting through the data and by god they got it right.
 
Damocles said:
The Prosecution brought a case full of holey circumstantial evidence and guesses.

The Jury sat and listened and flat stated that they brought nothing. Even the alternates seem clear on it.

The reason so many who weren't there thought she was guilty was because the hired experts simply gave just enough out of context information to support their own opinion on whether she was guilty.

All that being said, had she not been quite as good looking, or had her daughter been slightly less cute, do you think we would have heard a thing about this? Basically the Prosecution's case was "She wanted to have fun so she killed her kid", which on its face is a bit ridiculous as she knew that at any moment she could have dropped that kid off at grandma's and went on out for a party.
Click to expand...

I think you are absolutely right, in the court of public opinion she was guilty as sin, and the public was inundated with that every day. In evaluating the evidence as presented, it wasn't ever clear (even to the prosecution) that she had actually committed murder. It was speculative at best, and as you said, it didn't really make logical sense as far as the motive they presented. It also doesn't make sense she would have done this and not taken measures to ensure the body was never found. If she had the wherewithal to commit this crime and leave no trace of the child's DNA in her car, or her DNA on the duct tape, or any other corroborating evidence, how could she have been so short-sighted on disposal of the body? Burn it, disolve it in acid...that can be researched on the Internet just like Chloroform... put the body in a 55-gal. drum full of concrete and drop it in a lake or the ocean... no body, no murder charge. She should have contacted Yuron Vandersloot!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top