<p>When exactly did jsanche say Casey was “innocent???”</p>
<p>I distinctly remember him agreeing with my position that to assume anything other than innocence merely because of your emotional response is irrational…</p>
<p>He never said she was innocent. His merely refuting your and several other’s speculation and blatant bias. Shrug…</p>
<p>At best it’s speculation. At worst it’s an immature emotional response. In either case it doesn’t matter because the only people who mattered, the jury, made the right call legally.</p>
<p>XSlacker:
Post 1405 was one of many times that jsanche asserted Casey Anthony’s INNOCENCE:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>XSlacker, you wrote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He did indeed state that Casey was innocent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please stop with the accusations of “immature emotional response” and “bias.”</p>
<p>I, along with many others, have said they understood why the jury was unable to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict Casey of the crimes as charged. Nobody said that the legal call was not right. What many are saying is that it is plausible that in REALITY, not the legal finding, that Casey Anthony had something to do with her child’s death. In fact, several jurors have now stated that they believe this is quite possible but were simply unable to prove her guilt as charged beyond a reasonable doubt. As they had doubts, they could not find her guilty. Likewise, many of us, including even some jurors, also find doubt that she is innocent of involvement in her child’s death. Not to mention that Casey ADMITS involvement in her tot’s death…and that she was there when an accident occurred (her story of the drowning accident) and that she was part of a cover up to make it look like murder and that the child’s body was disposed of and she kept quiet about it and lied about the child being missing. So, she WAS involved in some capacity according to her and her defense. The point is that the facts of what exactly happened to Caylee Anthony are not known and have not been proven. It hasn’t been proven that Casey was not involved and it hasn’t been proven that she was involved. My statement has no emotional bias. Thousands believe as I do based on what is and what isn’t known about the case.</p>
<p>jsanche also accused others of speculation. But it is ironic that he even offers up speculation as well such as in this post:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is speculative. Nothing wrong with it, of course. But it is ironic to accuse those who speculate other plausible things that may have happened to Caylee Anthony. There is no proof on either side of the story. There is reasonable doubt to go all around. It is reasonable that some have found plausible possibilities in this case. jsanche has offered his (above in the quote) and others have offered their own speculations.</p>
<p>*A DOUBLE POX on the legal system for allowing an out of control prosecutor trying to use the legal system execute someone only in order to further his reputation. (Notice we have not heard from him since?) *</p>
<p>Yes, we’ve heard from him. And he was already planning to retire after his case (and he is), so don’t know about “furthering his reputation.”</p>
<p>The problem is there wasn’t any direct physical evidence she was criminally responsible for her death,it was all supposition and circumstantial, the ME couldn’t even say definitively how the child died and also couldn’t prove that there were drugs (including chloroform) in the child’s body</p>
<p>where was the “direct evidence” that Scott Peterson was responsible for Laci’s death? </p>
<p>Where was the direct evidence that Hans Reiser was responsible for his wife’s death (the body was still missing during the trial!!.</p>
<p>and…no…the defense was not brilliant. The defense made a lot of missteps, mistakes, etcwere widely discussed by legal experts during the trial, that …and the verdict could have gone the other way …and everyone would have been insisting that the verdict be overturned because of incompetant counsel because of Baez’ many missteps. </p>
<p>Baez is going to have to very carefully control Casey from henceforth because if she ever puts forth that she did not come up with “the George found the body story and agreed to dispose of it” and the “my dad sexually abused me story,”…he’ll be in big trouble. Baez is going to be looking for some permanent duct tape to keep Casey’s mouth shut.</p>
<p>^^ You keep bringing up Scott Peterson. We’re talking about Casey Anthony. </p>
<p>What piece or pieces of evidence prove – beyond a reasonable doubt – that Casey Anthony killed this child? By evidence, I mean evidence presented at trial. Not speculation, not “I think she must have had something to do with it,” not appearances, not heartlessness or general scuminess – but proof of the crime charged.</p>
<p>I honestly thought my last post was the end of it, but I come back to people cherry-picking what I said. I was asked POINT BLANK, what I thought “might have happened”. I was very clear between what I thought objectively and could prove, and what I thought subjectively. That is not even close to what you’re doing. You’re using speculation to paint a rather obvious “She’s guilty” tattoo on her forehead. </p>
<p>Also, regarding the she’s innocent part, stop arguing semantics and taking things out of context. I was speaking about the CRIMINAL charges (I thought this was rather obvious) But I guess cherry-picking out of context is the thing to do now.</p>
<p>So yes, she was found not guilty of murder which means that under the LAW she is stil presumed innocent of those crimes. Yes, innocent. She was not proved "innocent " (Why you insist on bringing this up again and again I have no idea) She was presumed innocent, charged, and then ACQUITTED. So yes, under the law she is still presumed innocent.</p>
<p>jsanche32 - so what is your belief? I am not asking you about the evidence - I’m asking you what your gut says about Casey Anthony. </p>
<p>That’s the post that asked me about my BELIEF. Not based on the evidence, but my belief in what might have happened.</p>
<p>My Reply:</p>
<p>07-05-2011, 02:45 PM #854
jsanche32
Member</p>
<p>Join Date: May 2011
Location: University of Kent postgrad '13
Posts: 302</p>
<p>My objective belief is that there wasn’t enough proof to convict her of killing her daughter.</p>
<p>Subjectively speaking, it looks like her daughter may have drowned and she panicked. She tried to cover up the drowning (It’s completely possible that she tried to do this because she truly was negligent and she didn’t want the police finding this out) .</p>
<p>Once she built up a web of lies, she continued on with her lies/obfuscations by sheer inertia. After a period of this, she started to go into denial (Easier to go into denial than actually think about the fact that your daughter drowned and you might be responsible). That’s when she started going out to parties etc… She wanted to to push the memories of the event completely out of her mind.</p>
<p>He DOESN’T assert her innocence but shows why she MUST be presumed to be so.</p>
<p>So my statement still stands… It’s a mixture of immature emotional bias AND a lack of English comprehension…</p>
<p>It’s all fine and dandy to belief whatever you want to believe but don’t try to redefine the English language to suit your needs or take arguments out of context…</p>
<p>Seriously…</p>
<p>Until you can proof otherwise she is presumed innocent. Your biased beliefs notwithstanding…</p>
<p>If you won’t adhere to society’s accepted standards then you are saying anything goes. I could accuse you of being a terrorist and since I BELIEVE it we can all operate on the basis that it’s true… You know, because you can’t prove that you aren’t.</p>
<p>jsanche:
Your subjective thoughts of what might have happened in this case are not different than others’ subjective thoughts of what they think might have happened. Neither have been proved in a court of law. </p>
<p>Many of us are saying what the journalist said in the article quoted above:</p>
<p>jsanche32: “What we’re arguing here is whether or not your opinion is rational and logical given the evidence.”</p>
<p>“Subjectively speaking, it looks like her daughter may have drowned and she panicked. She tried to cover up the drowning (It’s completely possible that she tried to do this because she truly was negligent and she didn’t want the police finding this out) .</p>
<p>Once she built up a web of lies, she continued on with her lies/obfuscations by sheer inertia. After a period of this, she started to go into denial (Easier to go into denial than actually think about the fact that your daughter drowned and you might be responsible). That’s when she started going out to parties etc… She wanted to to push the memories of the event completely out of her mind.”</p>
<p>Other than the lies – everything you state is speculation and is merely your opinion – but it is not based on anything rational or logical given the evidence.</p>
<p>Stop putting down my comprehension and my maturity. Nobody is attacking you as a person. We are sharing our thoughts and opinions. Show your maturity to keeping with discussing thoughts and not the people behind them. It is even disrespectful of you to attack my maturity when I am much older than you, as well as my comprehension skills when I have more education than you. I am not putting you down. I am keeping to thoughts that are posted only. Please do the same.</p>
<p>You ask me to PROVE that Casey Anthony is not innocent. I never said I could prove it and I don’t have to. It hasn’t been proven either that she is innocent. A court of law found her not guilty of the charges that were brought against her because the jury had some reasonable doubts understandably. Jurors have admitted that they think Casey may have been involved in the death of her child but could not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Many of us feel the same as those jurors…that Casey was involved but could not prove the things she was charged with beyond a reasonable doubt. Likewise, her innocence has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Can YOU prove her innocence of any wrongdoing in the death of her child? I’m not asking you to prove it. The jury didn’t prove she was innocent either (they were not charged with proving her innocence). Simply, they could not find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as charged. They didn’t have enough evidence for such a serious charge, but that does not prove that Casey was not culpable.</p>
<p>Likewise, the defense’s story was NOT PROVEN (but they don’t have to prove their story in a court of law).</p>
<p>None of us are saying it is PROVEN or FACTUAL that Casey is responsible for Caylee’s death and so please stop claiming we have said so. We have said it is quite plausible that she was responsible for wrongdoing in the case of her child’s death. It is indeed possible.</p>
<p>Another quote from Frank Bruni’s column linked earlier:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is he immature, biased, and lacks comprehension and can’t adhere to society’s standards??? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Many of us are saying what he is saying. The evidence wasn’t there to prove the murder. The jury ruled based on that. The murder could not be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. However, even jurors themselves (and many many others, including Frank Bruni, and some of us on this thread), find it likely (that is NOT the same as proven) that Casey was responsible in some fashion for her child’s death. Even if you believe Casey’s defense, even SHE says she was involved in the accident and cover up of the child’s death to make it appear as a murder and the child thrown out like trash and so on. Many find even her own story of what happened to be wrongdoing and irresponsible.</p>
<p>I knew you’d be back. Last word kind of guy, are you?</p>
<p>I agree with you that the argument has become circular. And your recent posts haven’t broken any new ground. People have taken their positions. Nothing you say will sway, no new accusations of immaturity and poor logic will prove the superiority of your position, none of their arguments will suddenly cause you to believe that you could possibly be wrong. What else is there to say?</p>
<p>I very much doubt that Casey will agree to be with OJ. This young woman has an excellent instinct for survival, I am sure. Won’t be caught with OJ. The jury really bombed this case. I heard a juror on TV. He repeatedly asked where is the smoking gun? Beyond reasonable doubt isn’t about a smoking gun.</p>
<p>To find someone guilty of murder doesn’t the prosecutor have to prove there was a murder and not just a death? Proving cause of death is essential.</p>
<p>tom1944…technically its not essential…any case where a body hasnt been found wouldnt have a cause of death ie lacy peterson…but that seems to have been the sticking point with this jury…not knowing How, meant not knowing if accident or murder.</p>
<p>Medical examiner’s often determine homicide even when they cannot determine cause of death. In this case there is simply no other logical explanation. </p>
<p>Here is the medical examiner’s testimony explaining why she determined it to be a homicide. </p>