(07-05-2011 06:25 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:18 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:05 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  I don't think anyone is advocating her as a loving and caring mother. However, the state provided no proof that a homicide had even occured, much less her guilt. No cause of death, no motive, no evidence other than character witnesses and circumstantial evidence.

The worst part about it now is that she cannot be retried for negligence or any other smaller crimes per double jeopardy. They had their chance and had nothing to prove she committed murder or manslaughter. It's their own fault if they still think she did it.

I don't agree with what you seem to be saying by no proof. They didn't have direct proof but they certainly had proof of a homicide. Circumstantial evidence is proof and when added together Casey might considered herself lucky that she got off today. But to continue to say there was "no proof" is wrong. There most certainly was.

Really? Do tell.

Yes. The duct tape on the body and head, the body deposited in the woods, the failure to report the child missing, the lies and the misdirection. That's called circumstantial evidence and folks are convicted based on such. And while one item might not be enough to convict, when viewed together and in context the jury could very well have come back with a verdict of guilty. Heck, you don't even need a body to convict if the circumstantial evidence is strong enough. So yes, do tell.

(07-05-2011 06:25 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:18 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:05 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  I don't think anyone is advocating her as a loving and caring mother. However, the state provided no proof that a homicide had even occured, much less her guilt. No cause of death, no motive, no evidence other than character witnesses and circumstantial evidence.

The worst part about it now is that she cannot be retried for negligence or any other smaller crimes per double jeopardy. They had their chance and had nothing to prove she committed murder or manslaughter. It's their own fault if they still think she did it.

I don't agree with what you seem to be saying by no proof. They didn't have direct proof but they certainly had proof of a homicide. Circumstantial evidence is proof and when added together Casey might considered herself lucky that she got off today. But to continue to say there was "no proof" is wrong. There most certainly was.

Really? Do tell.

duct tape found, body in a bag....thrown on the side of the road....that's not pointing towards a homicide ?

(07-05-2011 06:28 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:25 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:18 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:05 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  I don't think anyone is advocating her as a loving and caring mother. However, the state provided no proof that a homicide had even occured, much less her guilt. No cause of death, no motive, no evidence other than character witnesses and circumstantial evidence.

The worst part about it now is that she cannot be retried for negligence or any other smaller crimes per double jeopardy. They had their chance and had nothing to prove she committed murder or manslaughter. It's their own fault if they still think she did it.

I don't agree with what you seem to be saying by no proof. They didn't have direct proof but they certainly had proof of a homicide. Circumstantial evidence is proof and when added together Casey might considered herself lucky that she got off today. But to continue to say there was "no proof" is wrong. There most certainly was.

Really? Do tell.

Yes. The duct tape on the body and head, the body deposited in the woods, the failure to report the child missing, the lies and the misdirection. That's called circumstantial evidence and folks are convicted based on such. And while one item might not be enough to convict, when viewed together and in context the jury could very well have come back with a verdict of guilty. Heck, you don't even need a body to convict if the circumstantial evidence is strong enough. So yes, do tell.

I'm still waiting for evidence of a homicide.

(07-05-2011 06:28 PM)missjtiger Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:25 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:18 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:05 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  I don't think anyone is advocating her as a loving and caring mother. However, the state provided no proof that a homicide had even occured, much less her guilt. No cause of death, no motive, no evidence other than character witnesses and circumstantial evidence.

The worst part about it now is that she cannot be retried for negligence or any other smaller crimes per double jeopardy. They had their chance and had nothing to prove she committed murder or manslaughter. It's their own fault if they still think she did it.

I don't agree with what you seem to be saying by no proof. They didn't have direct proof but they certainly had proof of a homicide. Circumstantial evidence is proof and when added together Casey might considered herself lucky that she got off today. But to continue to say there was "no proof" is wrong. There most certainly was.

Really? Do tell.

duct tape found, body in a bag....thrown on the side of the road....that's not pointing towards a homicide ?

No. It points to someone trying to get rid of a body. Evidence that pertains to "how a body got dead" points towards a homicide. Anthony was convicted of lying to investigators/hindering an investigation.

(07-05-2011 06:34 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:28 PM)missjtiger Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:25 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:18 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:05 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  I don't think anyone is advocating her as a loving and caring mother. However, the state provided no proof that a homicide had even occured, much less her guilt. No cause of death, no motive, no evidence other than character witnesses and circumstantial evidence.

The worst part about it now is that she cannot be retried for negligence or any other smaller crimes per double jeopardy. They had their chance and had nothing to prove she committed murder or manslaughter. It's their own fault if they still think she did it.

I don't agree with what you seem to be saying by no proof. They didn't have direct proof but they certainly had proof of a homicide. Circumstantial evidence is proof and when added together Casey might considered herself lucky that she got off today. But to continue to say there was "no proof" is wrong. There most certainly was.

Really? Do tell.

duct tape found, body in a bag....thrown on the side of the road....that's not pointing towards a homicide ?

No. It points to someone trying to get rid of a body. Evidence that pertains to "how a body got dead" points towards a homicide. Anthony was convicted of lying to investigators/hindering an investigation.

so if it's not homicide it would be natural causes ? or accidental, right ?

(07-05-2011 06:36 PM)missjtiger Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:34 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:28 PM)missjtiger Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:25 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:18 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  I don't agree with what you seem to be saying by no proof. They didn't have direct proof but they certainly had proof of a homicide. Circumstantial evidence is proof and when added together Casey might considered herself lucky that she got off today. But to continue to say there was "no proof" is wrong. There most certainly was.

Really? Do tell.

duct tape found, body in a bag....thrown on the side of the road....that's not pointing towards a homicide ?

No. It points to someone trying to get rid of a body. Evidence that pertains to "how a body got dead" points towards a homicide. Anthony was convicted of lying to investigators/hindering an investigation.

so if it's not homicide it would be natural causes ? or accidental, right ?

I believe so.

(07-05-2011 06:32 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:28 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:25 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:18 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:05 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  I don't think anyone is advocating her as a loving and caring mother. However, the state provided no proof that a homicide had even occured, much less her guilt. No cause of death, no motive, no evidence other than character witnesses and circumstantial evidence.

The worst part about it now is that she cannot be retried for negligence or any other smaller crimes per double jeopardy. They had their chance and had nothing to prove she committed murder or manslaughter. It's their own fault if they still think she did it.

I don't agree with what you seem to be saying by no proof. They didn't have direct proof but they certainly had proof of a homicide. Circumstantial evidence is proof and when added together Casey might considered herself lucky that she got off today. But to continue to say there was "no proof" is wrong. There most certainly was.

Really? Do tell.

Yes. The duct tape on the body and head, the body deposited in the woods, the failure to report the child missing, the lies and the misdirection. That's called circumstantial evidence and folks are convicted based on such. And while one item might not be enough to convict, when viewed together and in context the jury could very well have come back with a verdict of guilty. Heck, you don't even need a body to convict if the circumstantial evidence is strong enough. So yes, do tell.

I'm still waiting for evidence of a homicide.

If so you don't know what the term "evidence" means. All of that is "circumstantial evidence" and is evidence that's given weight just like any other evidence.

(07-05-2011 06:38 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:32 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:28 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:25 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:18 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  I don't agree with what you seem to be saying by no proof. They didn't have direct proof but they certainly had proof of a homicide. Circumstantial evidence is proof and when added together Casey might considered herself lucky that she got off today. But to continue to say there was "no proof" is wrong. There most certainly was.

Really? Do tell.

Yes. The duct tape on the body and head, the body deposited in the woods, the failure to report the child missing, the lies and the misdirection. That's called circumstantial evidence and folks are convicted based on such. And while one item might not be enough to convict, when viewed together and in context the jury could very well have come back with a verdict of guilty. Heck, you don't even need a body to convict if the circumstantial evidence is strong enough. So yes, do tell.

I'm still waiting for evidence of a homicide.

If so you don't know what the term "evidence" means. All of that is "circumstantial evidence" and is evidence that's given weight just like any other evidence.

The finder of fact determines how much weight evidence is given.

(07-05-2011 06:40 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:38 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:32 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:28 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:25 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  Really? Do tell.

Yes. The duct tape on the body and head, the body deposited in the woods, the failure to report the child missing, the lies and the misdirection. That's called circumstantial evidence and folks are convicted based on such. And while one item might not be enough to convict, when viewed together and in context the jury could very well have come back with a verdict of guilty. Heck, you don't even need a body to convict if the circumstantial evidence is strong enough. So yes, do tell.

I'm still waiting for evidence of a homicide.

If so you don't know what the term "evidence" means. All of that is "circumstantial evidence" and is evidence that's given weight just like any other evidence.

The finder of fact determines how much weight evidence is given.

So? It can still be reasonably viewed as evidence of a homicide. That's what we're talking about.

(07-05-2011 06:42 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:40 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:38 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:32 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:28 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  Yes. The duct tape on the body and head, the body deposited in the woods, the failure to report the child missing, the lies and the misdirection. That's called circumstantial evidence and folks are convicted based on such. And while one item might not be enough to convict, when viewed together and in context the jury could very well have come back with a verdict of guilty. Heck, you don't even need a body to convict if the circumstantial evidence is strong enough. So yes, do tell.

I'm still waiting for evidence of a homicide.

If so you don't know what the term "evidence" means. All of that is "circumstantial evidence" and is evidence that's given weight just like any other evidence.

The finder of fact determines how much weight evidence is given.

So? It can still be reasonably viewed as evidence of a homicide. That's what we're talking about.

Of the items listed, none of them lead to homicide- they all lead to disposal of a body.

Personally, I think they would have had an infinitely easier time proving manslaughter or something of the like.

This was a poor job by the state- as Fry said, they went big or went home, and they lost.

(07-05-2011 06:42 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:40 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:38 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:32 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:28 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  Yes. The duct tape on the body and head, the body deposited in the woods, the failure to report the child missing, the lies and the misdirection. That's called circumstantial evidence and folks are convicted based on such. And while one item might not be enough to convict, when viewed together and in context the jury could very well have come back with a verdict of guilty. Heck, you don't even need a body to convict if the circumstantial evidence is strong enough. So yes, do tell.

I'm still waiting for evidence of a homicide.

If so you don't know what the term "evidence" means. All of that is "circumstantial evidence" and is evidence that's given weight just like any other evidence.

The finder of fact determines how much weight evidence is given.

So? It can still be reasonably viewed as evidence of a homicide. That's what we're talking about.

But arguably, it's not. It's evidence that someone tried to dispose of a body. The lies and misdirection are evidence that someone is hiding something or is a pathological liar. They are not evidence of murder.

Hypothetical: I have a child, and said child finds my loaded pistol under my bed, and accidentally shoots itself while I'm at work. I come home from work, panic and put child in a garbage bag and dump him/her in the river. I then lie to authorities about it.

I am a piece of ****.
I am a terrible parent.
I am a liar and probably have some psychological problems.
I am NOT a murderer.

so the chloroform research & her stories about a nanny and then delaying the truth that she had been missing forever just means she's a liar ?

(07-05-2011 06:48 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:42 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:40 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:38 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:32 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  I'm still waiting for evidence of a homicide.

If so you don't know what the term "evidence" means. All of that is "circumstantial evidence" and is evidence that's given weight just like any other evidence.

The finder of fact determines how much weight evidence is given.

So? It can still be reasonably viewed as evidence of a homicide. That's what we're talking about.

But arguably, it's not. It's evidence that someone tried to dispose of a body. The lies and misdirection are evidence that someone is hiding something or is a pathological liar. They are not evidence of murder.

Hypothetical: I have a child, and said child finds my loaded pistol under my bed, and accidentally shoots itself while I'm at work. I come home from work, panic and put child in a garbage bag and dump him/her in the river. I then lie to authorities about it.

I am a piece of ****.
I am a terrible parent.
I am a liar and probably have some psychological problems.
I am NOT a murderer.

What are you talking about? That's a given set of facts. Look, if you don't understand at this point than it's really not something I'm going to speand more time on. Maybe someone else will be willing to continue on.

She did it, no question in my mind. But the prosecution didn't prove it.

(07-05-2011 06:54 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:48 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:42 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:40 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 06:38 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  If so you don't know what the term "evidence" means. All of that is "circumstantial evidence" and is evidence that's given weight just like any other evidence.

The finder of fact determines how much weight evidence is given.

So? It can still be reasonably viewed as evidence of a homicide. That's what we're talking about.

But arguably, it's not. It's evidence that someone tried to dispose of a body. The lies and misdirection are evidence that someone is hiding something or is a pathological liar. They are not evidence of murder.

Hypothetical: I have a child, and said child finds my loaded pistol under my bed, and accidentally shoots itself while I'm at work. I come home from work, panic and put child in a garbage bag and dump him/her in the river. I then lie to authorities about it.

I am a piece of ****.
I am a terrible parent.
I am a liar and probably have some psychological problems.
I am NOT a murderer.

What are you talking about? That's a given set of facts. Look, if you don't understand at this point than it's really not something I'm going to speand more time on. Maybe someone else will be willing to continue on.

Yep, that's it. I just don't understand.

Here's the Wikipedia article on circumstantial evidence. You might read it if you're interested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

(07-05-2011 06:52 PM)missjtiger Wrote:  so the chloroform research & her stories about a nanny and then delaying the truth that she had been missing forever just means she's a liar ?

Again, there is no evidence that she killed Caylee there.

I've lost more respect for some fellow members here than I have the jurors, Casey Anthony and the justice system. I knew they were all/mostly f'ups. I didn't know it about some here. I'm outta this insane asylum. Going to hug my babies.

The devil is dancing today.

(07-05-2011 07:07 PM)BIGGESTTIGERJLB Wrote:  I've lost more respect for some fellow members here than I have the jurors, Casey Anthony and the justice system. I knew they were all/mostly f'ups. I didn't know it about some here. I'm outta this insane asylum. Going to hug my babies.

The devil is dancing today.

Unfortunately, the system is highly flawed.

(07-05-2011 06:05 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  I don't think anyone is advocating her as a loving and caring mother. However, the state provided no proof that a homicide had even occured, much less her guilt. No cause of death, no motive, no evidence other than character witnesses and circumstantial evidence.

You don't think finding a duct taped dead body in the woods is proof that a homicide occurred? Maybe not conclusive proof but it's proof. That and the lies and the other crap Casey pulled were the reasons that the prosecutors took the case, the proof that something very wrong happened here. If there wasn't any proof this case would have never gotten past the Grand Jury.