• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Caylee Anthony and Lindbergh cases

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
"For thousands of years, Western society has insisted that it is better for 10 guilty defendants to go free than for one innocent defendant to be wrongly convicted. "

In light of our recent experience with the whole "Tat Five and Tressel" whoring lynch mob media, I think this is most relevant.
 
Upvote 0
Taosman;1949619; said:
"For thousands of years, Western society has insisted that it is better for 10 guilty defendants to go free than for one innocent defendant to be wrongly convicted. "

In light of our recent experience with the whole "Tat Five and Tressel" whoring lynch mob media, I think this is most relevant.
Click to expand...

TXHUNechair04b.jpg


:shake: :roll1:
 
Upvote 0
SmoovP;1949582; said:
Dershowitz shines some light on the Anthony verdict.



'This case [is] about seeking justice for Caylee . . ." So argued the prosecutor in the Casey Anthony murder case. He was wrong, and the jury understood that.

A criminal trial is never about seeking justice for the victim. If it were, there could be only one verdict: guilty. That's because only one person is on trial in a criminal case, and if that one person is acquitted, then by definition there can be no justice for the victim in that trial.

A criminal trial is neither a whodunit nor a multiple choice test. It is not even a criminal investigation to determine who among various possible suspects might be responsible for a terrible tragedy. In a murder trial, the state, with all of its power, accuses an individual of being the perpetrator of a dastardly act against a victim. The state must prove that accusation by admissible evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt.

Even if it is "likely" or "probable" that a defendant committed the murder, he must be acquitted, because neither likely nor probable satisfies the daunting standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, a legally proper result?acquittal in such a case?may not be the same as a morally just result. In such a case, justice has not been done to the victim, but the law has prevailed.

<more>
Click to expand...

Wondered how long it would take for the "The system always works when murderers go free" article from a defense lawyer. I'm surprised it took this long.
 
Upvote 0
And you know, say what you want about burden of proof or what have you about the case itself, but the fact she's out saying now she wants to have more kids and adopt at this point shows what an evil bitch she really is, basically flaunting getting away with it in front of everyone publicly.
 
Upvote 0
Bucklion;1949716; said:
Wondered how long it would take for the "The system always works when murderers go free" article from a defense lawyer. I'm surprised it took this long.
Click to expand...
It does not always work, but it worked here. Because Walmart Nation does not get it, or that what folks think it "probably happened" - when that opinion is not reflected in a verdict using a different standard - is of no moment.

I am sick of having to justify to ignorant people (not meaning you BL, I'm just using your post as a soap box) why [Mark May] happens. People need to educate themselves about the law and the courts and basic civics before they start insulting the system and jurors. Just like the ignorant folks who go on and on about criticizing the McDonalds hot coffee case, the fact that they have no idea what they are [censored]ing talking about is not overcome by the fact that they are emotional in their criticism of the case. Being really, really mad about something when your facts are wrong is great - but being really, really mad does not substitute for facts and law.
 
Upvote 0
DubCoffman62;1948940; said:
Oh no! Another one!

| ♥~♥ NO JUSTICE FOR CAYLEE MARIE ♥~♥ ||?"?;..\___.
|??_______________| l______________l _||__|?, ]P
?(@)?(@)?****""*l'(@)l'(@)l ************""(@)'(@)****'(@)
...Put this on your status & Keep this Convoy Going.. WE LOVE YOU! EVEN THOUGH UR MOMMY DIDN'T ♥
Click to expand...

Whenever I hear someone complaining about their Facebook news feed I can't help but think the problem isn't Facebook, but the poor bastard's "friends".
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;1949785; said:
It does not always work, but it worked here. Because Walmart Nation does not get it, or that what folks think it "probably happened" - when that opinion is not reflected in a verdict using a different standard - is of no moment.

I am sick of having to justify to ignorant people (not meaning you BL, I'm just using your post as a soap box) why [Mark May] happens. People need to educate themselves about the law and the courts and basic civics before they start insulting the system and jurors. Just like the ignorant folks who go on and on about criticizing the McDonalds hot coffee case, the fact that they have no idea what they are [censored]ing talking about is not overcome by the fact that they are emotional in their criticism of the case. Being really, really mad about something when your facts are wrong is great - but being really, really mad does not substitute for facts and law.
Click to expand...

I was also wondering how long that post would draw this response from you...there we have it.
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;1949785; said:
It does not always work, but it worked here. Because Walmart Nation does not get it, or that what folks think it "probably happened" - when that opinion is not reflected in a verdict using a different standard - is of no moment.

I am sick of having to justify to ignorant people (not meaning you BL, I'm just using your post as a soap box) why [Mark May] happens. People need to educate themselves about the law and the courts and basic civics before they start insulting the system and jurors. Just like the ignorant folks who go on and on about criticizing the McDonalds hot coffee case, the fact that they have no idea what they are [censored]ing talking about is not overcome by the fact that they are emotional in their criticism of the case. Being really, really mad about something when your facts are wrong is great - but being really, really mad does not substitute for facts and law.
Click to expand...

"Walmart Nation" (whatever that means...I guess people not in agreement and therefore not as intellectually superior as you?) cares about people, they get emotionally invested in a story...not always the best way to analyze, to be sure, but I can understand why it happens, especially when it comes to kids, because many people are parents. They get pissed when a likely murderer walks free, especially if it is a child murderer, and especially if it was the person who was supposed to protect that child from harm, not dump them in the trunk for a month and grind on anything with 2 legs. The fact that you seem unable to understand or even refrain from abjectly insulting people of this point of view sometimes staggers the imagination.
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;1949785; said:
It does not always work, but it worked here. Because Walmart Nation does not get it, or that what folks think it "probably happened" - when that opinion is not reflected in a verdict using a different standard - is of no moment.

I am sick of having to justify to ignorant people (not meaning you BL, I'm just using your post as a soap box) why [Mark May] happens. People need to educate themselves about the law and the courts and basic civics before they start insulting the system and jurors. Just like the ignorant folks who go on and on about criticizing the McDonalds hot coffee case, the fact that they have no idea what they are [censored]ing talking about is not overcome by the fact that they are emotional in their criticism of the case. Being really, really mad about something when your facts are wrong is great - but being really, really mad does not substitute for facts and law.
Click to expand...

6.jpg
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top