Jul 7 - Casey Anthony Sentenced To Four Years In Jail, Will Only Have To Serve 6 More Days

most viewed right now
 134
Video inside US DEPARMENT OF DEFENSE RELEASES NAVY JET ENCOUNTER WITH UFO VIDEO :mjd..
23 comments
@wild'ish
most viewed right now
 87
Steph Kegels
96 comments
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 86
Kevin Hart X-mad card
72 comments
@movies
most viewed right now
 57
Nicki Minaj speaks up against White rappers taking over the charts
267 comments
@hiphop

section   (0 bx goons and 1 bystanders) Share this on Twitter   Share this on Facebook
 

Props Slaps
 6 years ago '04        #101
VerballyAbusive 
space
space
space
$4,466 | Props total: 293 293
 TheMindOf said:
Okay Bruh.. Its obvious that YOU and most of the people in here talking all this nonsense know nothing about this trial besides what you see on and hear in the 24/7 (ratings based) news media.

Nobody ever wants to see a child die. But I also dont want the justice system go to sh*t just for the sake of feeding the mob mentality/blood lust of the American people. Everybody playing off emotions right now instead of common sense. You cant convict people off of a "general consensus"

If you can tell me

1) How the child died

2) What/where the PROVEN murder weapon was

3) A motive (that makes more sense than she didn't want to pay for a babysitter while she partied)
1) It's irrelevant how the child died. What we DO know is that the mother didn't report the child missing for 31 days and told the 911 operator it's pointless to search for her baby. That implies and expresses guilt. And we KNOW the baby was found DEAD. Considering these actions, the MOTHER is responsible no matter how the baby died.

2) This goes back to point number 1.

3) There is no "logical" motive of k!lling a 2 year old, especially if the 2 year old is your own KID. So this question is invalid by default. But the fact the mother was clubbing it up while the child was missing shows an obvious motive lol.

You guys are pathetic and lack common sense. So basically, there is no way to convict a murderer of murdering there child if you're asking for all these questions to be answered. They are unanswerable!!!!!! And don't need to be answered in this case. Each case is different, and in this case they were not NEEDED to be answered.


Last edited by VerballyAbusive; 07-07-2011 at 11:49 AM..
 6 years ago '04        #102
egotistical 1 heat pts
space
space
space
$7,813 | Props total: 1480 1480
 TheMindOf said:
Okay Bruh.. Its obvious that YOU and most of the people in here talking all this nonsense know nothing about this trial besides what you see and hear in the 24/7 (ratings based) news media.

Nobody ever wants to see a child die. But I also dont want the justice system go to sh*t just for the sake of feeding the mob mentality/blood lust of the American people. Everybody playing off emotions right now instead of THE LAW. You cant convict people off of a "general consensus"

If you can tell me

1) How the child died

2) What/where the PROVEN murder weapon was

3) A motive (that makes more sense than she didn't want to pay for a babysitter while she partied)


at that point you got yourself a 1st degree murder conviction/death penalty. None of that was proven tho and if you watched ANY of the ACTUAL trial (not Nancy Grace highlights), you would be a little bit more informed bruh..
LMAO... stop it fam... n*gga u ain't even watch the highlights... cause clearly you don't know anything... those points don't make her guilty... its based on circumstantial evidence, if their was "reasonable doubt" based on the circumstantial evidence they could have convicted.. without even know all of that... with circumstantial evidence everything isn't black and white...
 6 years ago '04        #103
justinjones 307 heat pts307
space
avatar space
space
$49,444 | Props total: 6515 6515
 VerballyAbusive said:
1) It's irrelevant how the child died. What we DO know is that the mother didn't report the child missing for 31 days and told the 911 operator it's pointless to search for her baby. That implies and expresses guilt. And we KNOW the baby was found DEAD. Considering these actions, the MOTHER is responsible no matter how the baby died.

2) This goes back to point number 1.

3) There is no "logical" motive of k!lling a 2 year old, especially if the 2 year old is your own KID. So this question is invalid by default. But the fact the mother was clubbing it up while the child was missing shows an obvious motive lol.

You guys are pathetic and lack common sense.
not reporting somebody missing for 31 days isn't murder though.
 6 years ago '09        #104
K0ntrast 63 heat pts63
space
avatar space
space
$29,703 | Props total: 13271 13271
sentanced

 6 years ago '10        #105
rek0nize 66 heat pts66
space
avatar space
space
$9,248 | Props total: 1297 1297
 VerballyAbusive said:
1) It's irrelevant how the child died. What we DO know is that the mother didn't report the child missing for 31 days and told the 911 operator it's pointless to search for her baby. That implies and expresses guilt. And we KNOW the baby was found DEAD. Considering these actions, the MOTHER is responsible no matter how the baby died.

.
That's irrelevant, if you watched the case you would have known they opened the defense that the child died of a drowning. When there is a dead child, it CANNOT be reported missing.

It does matter how the baby died, it doesn't mean the baby died at the cause of the mother as they stated throughout the trial

Why do you think the rescue organization is going to sue her for?? FOR LYING TO THE COPS THAT SHE WAS MISSING, WHEN SHE KNEW SHE WASN'T.

There was NEVER a missing child.
 07-07-2011, 11:54 AM         #106
jackedNtan 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
as soon as she's done she needs to walk right on over to my house so i can be like
 6 years ago '10        #107
rek0nize 66 heat pts66
space
avatar space
space
$9,248 | Props total: 1297 1297
The best thing she could have charged with just like they are saying now is "Abuse of a corpse"

Just because she knew were the child was, doesn't mean she personally did anything to her, accidental death and then an ignorant dump of the body by the mother POSSIBLY or somebody she knows who disposed of it there.


Prosecution dropped the ball there by not charging for that. They got blindsided by their defense that the child died of an accidental drowning.
 6 years ago '10        #108
TheMindOf 21 heat pts21
space
avatar space
space
$27,749 | Props total: 16554 16554
 VerballyAbusive said:
1) It's irrelevant how the child died. What we DO know is that the mother didn't report the child missing for 31 days and told the 911 operator it's pointless to search for her baby. That implies and expresses guilt. And we KNOW the baby was found DEAD. Considering these actions, the MOTHER is responsible no matter how the baby died.

2) This goes back to point number 1.

3) There is no "logical" motive of k!lling a 2 year old, especially if the 2 year old is your own KID. So this question is invalid by default. But the fact the mother was clubbing it up while the child was missing shows an obvious motive lol.

You guys are pathetic and lack common sense.

In a 1st degree murder trial, I'd say its pretty important to be able to prove how the victim died. You have to be able to rule out (beyond a reasonable doubt) all other causes of death besides premeditated murder to win a murder 1 case.

A lot of the stuff she did was suspect. I agree but it doesn't PROVE she committed 1st degree premeditated murder. You cant put someone to death or behind bars for life, without there being some kind of factual proof. The prosecution couldn't come up with anything solid. Just a bunch of theories and non-peer reviewed "Junk Science". The Jury dont watch Nancy Grace. They go based on the FACTS presented at trial

Where the prosecution fu*ked up was trying to make a name for themselves by going for murder 1/death penalty; with nothing solid tho. They should have gone for Negligent Homicide or a involuntary manslaughter instead of the home run.

They could have won on one of those charges and made sure she did atleast 10-15 years. But they didnt and thats how the ball rolls in the justice system sometimes.


Last edited by TheMindOf; 07-07-2011 at 12:08 PM..
 07-07-2011, 12:03 PM         #109
drumgangP 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
Im hearing publishing companies are lining up book deals with record numbers and Oprah and Diane Sawyer are offering all kinds of sh to get the first major interview.


I Just hope this sh*t fades to black.........The state of Florida is gearing up to sue her for the court costs cause they lost alot of money attempting to convict her of murder to.
 07-07-2011, 12:06 PM         #110
youknowmystelo 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
"sentanced"
 6 years ago '10        #111
TheMindOf 21 heat pts21
space
avatar space
space
$27,749 | Props total: 16554 16554
 egotistical said:
LMAO... stop it fam... n*gga u ain't even watch the highlights... cause clearly you don't know anything... those points don't make her guilty... its based on circumstantial evidence, if their was "reasonable doubt" based on the circumstantial evidence they could have convicted.. without even know all of that... with circumstantial evidence everything isn't black and white...

[pic - click to view]



Huh?


If you know anything about anything (which judging from that statement you more than likely dont), circumstantial evidence is the weakest type of evidence. Its like the prosecution saying

"ummm.. This is what we think happened here. We have no real solid proof but it makes sense rite?"

Thats all it is.

That leaves the door open for the jury to go either way on the verdict.


 07-07-2011, 12:08 PM         #112
youknowmystelo 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
How you get good behavior in jail?
 6 years ago '10        #113
rek0nize 66 heat pts66
space
avatar space
space
$9,248 | Props total: 1297 1297
 youknowmystelo said:
How you get good behavior in jail?
Usually for each month that goes by you get a certain amount of time added to the time you're served for not getting in trouble in jail/prison. Just basically being a good convict I guess you could say, not causing any problems.
 6 years ago '04        #114
egotistical 1 heat pts
space
space
space
$7,813 | Props total: 1480 1480
 TheMindOf said:
In a 1st degree murder trial, I'd day its pretty important to be able to prove how the victim died. You have to be able to rule out (beyond a reasonable doubt) all other causes of death besides premeditated murder to win a murder 1 case.

A lot of the stuff she did was suspect. I agree but it doesn't PROVE she committed 1st degree premeditated murder. You cant put someone to death or behind bars for life, without there being some kind of factual proof. The prosecution couldn't come up with anything solid. Just a bunch of theories and non-peer reviewed "Junk Science". The Jury dont watch Nancy Grace. They go based on the FACTS presented at trial

Where the prosecution fu*ked up was trying to make a name for themselves by going for murder 1/death penalty; with nothing solid tho. They should have gone for Negligent Homicide or a involuntary manslaughter instead of the home run.

They could have won on one of those charges and made sure she did atleast 10-15 years. But they didnt and thats how the ball rolls in the justice system sometimes.
Your wrong about everything... but somewhat of the last part... I think if the prosecutor would of went with a less sentence, he could of gotten it done... but even with what he had he just made mistakes in his closing arguments... and you are missing a big part... the jury, a lot of them got like 10 percent of the information... they just made a bad choice... but you know it all..
 6 years ago '04        #115
VerballyAbusive 
space
space
space
$4,466 | Props total: 293 293
 TheMindOf said:

[pic - click to view]



Huh?


If you know anything about anything (which judging from that statement you more than likely dont), circumstantial evidence is the weakest type of evidence. Its like the prosecution saying

"ummm.. This is what we think happened here. We have no real solid proof but it makes sense rite?"

Thats all it is.

That leaves the door open for the jury to go either way on the verdict.


Can a jury convict a defendant based only on circumstancial evidence?


Yes. The law recognizes two kinds of evidence, direct and circumstantial.

Direct evidence
is testimony by a witness about what he or she personally observed, heard or experienced.
Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence. It allows the jury to infer, from other facts
presented and proven, that a particular fact or circumstance exists, even though there has been no
direct proof of it. The only limit on inferences drawn from proven facts is that they must be
logical and reasonable, and not just speculation.

Here's an easy example. Suppose when you
wake up tomorrow morning, the sidewalk outside your house is wet. Did it rain? There's no direct
evidence of that, since someone could have used a hose on the sidewalk. The law allows, but does
not require you to find from the fact of the wet sidewalk that it rained. In deciding whether the
wet sidewalk is proof that it rained, a court will tell you to consider all the evidence in light of
reason, experience and common sense.

When a jury retires to deliberate, it is instructed that
there is no legal distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence so far as proof is
concerned. It is up to them to determine how much weight to give any particular piece of evidence,
whether it be direct or circumstantial.





You might friend are ignorant
 07-07-2011, 12:12 PM         #116
youknowmystelo 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
Is that photo from today's court appearance? :wow: smiling and all that. Did she forget she lost a child? Maybe did it on purpose to invoke emotions from viewers. Media = WWE
 6 years ago '10        #117
rek0nize 66 heat pts66
space
avatar space
space
$9,248 | Props total: 1297 1297
 youknowmystelo said:
Is that photo from today's court appearance? :wow: smiling and all that.
no. but she was smiling and laughing around quite a bit, which was surprising to me and pretty much everybody.
 6 years ago '04        #118
VerballyAbusive 
space
space
space
$4,466 | Props total: 293 293
Another instance:

The trial of Scott Peterson for the murders of his wife Laci and their unborn child Conner is a classic example of a prosecution based almost solely on circumstantial evidence, rather than direct evidence.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence which may allow a judge or jury to deduce a certain fact from other facts which can be proven. In some cases, there can be some evidence that can not be proven directly, such as with an eye-witness.
 6 years ago '05        #119
ReppinDaBurghh 55 heat pts55
space
avatar space
space
$53,468 | Props total: 7118 7118
 VerballyAbusive said:
Another instance:

The trial of Scott Peterson for the murders of his wife Laci and their unborn child Conner is a classic example of a prosecution based almost solely on circumstantial evidence, rather than direct evidence.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence which may allow a judge or jury to deduce a certain fact from other facts which can be proven. In some cases, there can be some evidence that can not be proven directly, such as with an eye-witness.
If a lawyer knows what he's doing, he can make circumstantial evidence look like absolute garbage and hear say.
 6 years ago '10        #120
TheMindOf 21 heat pts21
space
avatar space
space
$27,749 | Props total: 16554 16554
 egotistical said:
Your wrong about everything... but somewhat of the last part... I think if the prosecutor would of went with a less sentence, he could of gotten it done... but even with what he had he just made mistakes in his closing arguments... and you are missing a big part... the jury, a lot of them got like 10 percent of the information... they just made a bad choice... but you know it all..

Sometimes 10% is all thats admissible in court. Look, I aint saying that what happened to this little girl aint sad or that everything is all good with her getting out in 6 days.

What I am saying is that I'm glad that the Justice System works. This case proves it (ironically enough).

We're forgetting that "Innocent" and "Not Guilty" in the American justice system are NOT the same thing. All you have to prove is that you're more "Not Guilty" than guilty of the charges against you and you should be good.

Thats how this system is supposed to work. Mark Geragos said it best when he said "The system is built to rather let 10 guilty men walk, than to have one innocent person behind bars"
Home      
  
 

 






most viewed right now
 48
Niggas just crucified Lil Kim
113 comments
20 hours ago
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 46
Image(s) inside Jeezy wildin 😩😩😂😂😂
111 comments
20 hours ago
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 32
joie chavis
45 comments
2 days ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 28
Image(s) inside Girl, you look so good, it's to die for (die for) | Ooh, that pus-y go..
21 comments
20 hours ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 24
Video inside Denzel speaking Realism!
30 comments
20 hours ago
@wild'ish
most viewed right now
 17
When Popeyes runs out of chicken
73 comments
20 hours ago
@wild'ish
most viewed right now
 12
Image(s) inside Uncle Murda Comments On Chinx's Killer Who Is Linked To Him!
107 comments
20 hours ago
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 12
50 cent did something to Comedienne Aarona Lopez. She has her friends worried!!!
116 comments
2 days ago
@hiphop
back to top
register contact Follow BX @ Twitter Follow BX @ Facebook search BX privacy