I'd much rather have Hutch on the jury than some others in this thread. He at least sounds like he listened to the judge's instructions about deciding a case based on the evidence presented. An attorney's inferences or conclusions or even cross-examination questions are not evidence.
0
Quote Originally Posted by marnypoly:
And murderers hope you're on theirs.
I'd much rather have Hutch on the jury than some others in this thread. He at least sounds like he listened to the judge's instructions about deciding a case based on the evidence presented. An attorney's inferences or conclusions or even cross-examination questions are not evidence.
the funny thing is (off topic) , Covers Hot Forum topics shows that fraud fake chick thread up the top, but a real Hot Forum topic like this one not even on the page.. LMAO, way to shove that Fraud down everyones throats.
0
the funny thing is (off topic) , Covers Hot Forum topics shows that fraud fake chick thread up the top, but a real Hot Forum topic like this one not even on the page.. LMAO, way to shove that Fraud down everyones throats.
I'd much rather have Hutch on the jury than some others in this thread. He at least sounds like he listened to the judge's instructions about deciding a case based on the evidence presented. An attorney's inferences or conclusions or even cross-examination questions are not evidence.
There wasn't enough for murder 1. But there was enough circumstantial for manslaughter and/or child abuse.
I don't need anything short of a photo of Casey posing a pic with her dead baby to tell me otherwise.
0
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
I'd much rather have Hutch on the jury than some others in this thread. He at least sounds like he listened to the judge's instructions about deciding a case based on the evidence presented. An attorney's inferences or conclusions or even cross-examination questions are not evidence.
There wasn't enough for murder 1. But there was enough circumstantial for manslaughter and/or child abuse.
I don't need anything short of a photo of Casey posing a pic with her dead baby to tell me otherwise.
Lol Madshooter seems like one of those guys who will never admit he is wrong no matter what facts are stated.
I will admit I don't know every single detail about the case, but like I said numerous times.
If the autopsy comes back ANYTHING besides natural causes, the person in charge of the child should be booked on ATLEAST manslaughter. It was either Casey or Zanny the imaginary Nanny.
You're such a big Casey Anthony supporter, you should hire her to take care of your kids and then see what you think.
0
Lol Madshooter seems like one of those guys who will never admit he is wrong no matter what facts are stated.
I will admit I don't know every single detail about the case, but like I said numerous times.
If the autopsy comes back ANYTHING besides natural causes, the person in charge of the child should be booked on ATLEAST manslaughter. It was either Casey or Zanny the imaginary Nanny.
You're such a big Casey Anthony supporter, you should hire her to take care of your kids and then see what you think.
Lol Madshooter seems like one of those guys who will never admit he is wrong no matter what facts are stated.
I will admit I don't know every single detail about the case, but like I said numerous times.
If the autopsy comes back ANYTHING besides natural causes, the person in charge of the child should be booked on ATLEAST manslaughter. It was either Casey or Zanny the imaginary Nanny.
You're such a big Casey Anthony supporter, you should hire her to take care of your kids and then see what you think.
Far from it, I THINK she had something to do with it, but it wasn't proven.....and that is what our judicial system says, Its isn't what would seem to be common sense, it is the facts of the case, and it wasn't proven that she did it.
0
Quote Originally Posted by EIGHTYpercent:
Lol Madshooter seems like one of those guys who will never admit he is wrong no matter what facts are stated.
I will admit I don't know every single detail about the case, but like I said numerous times.
If the autopsy comes back ANYTHING besides natural causes, the person in charge of the child should be booked on ATLEAST manslaughter. It was either Casey or Zanny the imaginary Nanny.
You're such a big Casey Anthony supporter, you should hire her to take care of your kids and then see what you think.
Far from it, I THINK she had something to do with it, but it wasn't proven.....and that is what our judicial system says, Its isn't what would seem to be common sense, it is the facts of the case, and it wasn't proven that she did it.
If the autopsy comes back ANYTHING besides natural causes, the person in charge of the child should be booked on ATLEAST manslaughter. It was either Casey or Zanny the imaginary Nanny.
Wow, so if someone kidnapped my kid, I should be brought in on manslaughter charges, are you for real.......wow, I hope no one ever has to have you on they're jury.
0
Quote Originally Posted by EIGHTYpercent:
If the autopsy comes back ANYTHING besides natural causes, the person in charge of the child should be booked on ATLEAST manslaughter. It was either Casey or Zanny the imaginary Nanny.
Wow, so if someone kidnapped my kid, I should be brought in on manslaughter charges, are you for real.......wow, I hope no one ever has to have you on they're jury.
LOL. Everybody involved in this case is more full of shit than a Christmas turkey. Jose Baez when speaking after the verdict very humble, talking about nobody won today, there's a dead child, blah, blah, blah. Now they're having a party cheering, champagne toasts, etc. Funny shit. I understand they're happy, but stop with the hipocracy.
0
LOL. Everybody involved in this case is more full of shit than a Christmas turkey. Jose Baez when speaking after the verdict very humble, talking about nobody won today, there's a dead child, blah, blah, blah. Now they're having a party cheering, champagne toasts, etc. Funny shit. I understand they're happy, but stop with the hipocracy.
There wasn't enough for murder 1. But there was enough circumstantial for manslaughter and/or child abuse.
I don't need anything short of a photo of Casey posing a pic with her dead baby to tell me otherwise.
Apparently not under the jury instructions as given by the judge. Again, I didn't follow the case super closely, but it sounds like this was basically circumstantial in nature. Hard to convict on anything like that when your standard is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
0
Quote Originally Posted by marnypoly:
There wasn't enough for murder 1. But there was enough circumstantial for manslaughter and/or child abuse.
I don't need anything short of a photo of Casey posing a pic with her dead baby to tell me otherwise.
Apparently not under the jury instructions as given by the judge. Again, I didn't follow the case super closely, but it sounds like this was basically circumstantial in nature. Hard to convict on anything like that when your standard is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
LOL. Everybody involved in this case is more full of shit than a Christmas turkey. Jose Baez when speaking after the verdict very humble, talking about nobody won today, there's a dead child, blah, blah, blah. Now they're having a party cheering, champagne toasts, etc. Funny shit. I understand they're happy, but stop with the hipocracy.
As an attorney, I think you should NEVER celebrate in public or even when the jury is read in open court. A small fist pump might be OK in a big case, but attorneys are still professional and should keep their celebrating behind closed doors.
0
Quote Originally Posted by palmbi:
LOL. Everybody involved in this case is more full of shit than a Christmas turkey. Jose Baez when speaking after the verdict very humble, talking about nobody won today, there's a dead child, blah, blah, blah. Now they're having a party cheering, champagne toasts, etc. Funny shit. I understand they're happy, but stop with the hipocracy.
As an attorney, I think you should NEVER celebrate in public or even when the jury is read in open court. A small fist pump might be OK in a big case, but attorneys are still professional and should keep their celebrating behind closed doors.
I figured we would eventually get to the covers conspiracy theories. It was fixed!
...no this isnt a grassy knoll thing...
if youre refering to the my bs about a juror having money on the verdict it was just a joking reference towards the last franklin and bash i just watched..and good whiteboy show by the way...
0
Quote Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:
I figured we would eventually get to the covers conspiracy theories. It was fixed!
...no this isnt a grassy knoll thing...
if youre refering to the my bs about a juror having money on the verdict it was just a joking reference towards the last franklin and bash i just watched..and good whiteboy show by the way...
God forbid the prosecution uphold their burden of proof.
Exactly, some people are really clueless of our judicial system and how it works.....Oh , she lied, so she must be guilty of murder, even though this was never proven.
0
Quote Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:
God forbid the prosecution uphold their burden of proof.
Exactly, some people are really clueless of our judicial system and how it works.....Oh , she lied, so she must be guilty of murder, even though this was never proven.
I'm not saying that she murdered her (even though she did)
Thats not the point.
The point for the 25th time is : She is responsible for the well being of her daughter, her daughter DIES and she continues to lie about every single thing that happen.
If you can't convince the jury that this is AT THE VERY LEAST mansluaghter ( and again before you say no eveidence, LYING about your dead kids whereabouts is EVIDENCE) then you should be fired.
I knew when they had 7 female jurors some of this bullshit would happen
0
I'm not saying that she murdered her (even though she did)
Thats not the point.
The point for the 25th time is : She is responsible for the well being of her daughter, her daughter DIES and she continues to lie about every single thing that happen.
If you can't convince the jury that this is AT THE VERY LEAST mansluaghter ( and again before you say no eveidence, LYING about your dead kids whereabouts is EVIDENCE) then you should be fired.
I knew when they had 7 female jurors some of this bullshit would happen
I'm not saying that she murdered her (even though she did)
Thats not the point.
The point for the 25th time is : She is responsible for the well being of her daughter, her daughter DIES and she continues to lie about every single thing that happen.
If you can't convince the jury that this is AT THE VERY LEAST mansluaghter ( and again before you say no eveidence, LYING about your dead kids whereabouts is EVIDENCE) then you should be fired.
I knew when they had 7 female jurors some of this bullshit would happen
Agree.... The mother's job is supposed to be taking care of her children....
0
Quote Originally Posted by EIGHTYpercent:
I'm not saying that she murdered her (even though she did)
Thats not the point.
The point for the 25th time is : She is responsible for the well being of her daughter, her daughter DIES and she continues to lie about every single thing that happen.
If you can't convince the jury that this is AT THE VERY LEAST mansluaghter ( and again before you say no eveidence, LYING about your dead kids whereabouts is EVIDENCE) then you should be fired.
I knew when they had 7 female jurors some of this bullshit would happen
Agree.... The mother's job is supposed to be taking care of her children....
I'm not saying that she murdered her (even though she did)
Thats not the point.
The point for the 25th time is : She is responsible for the well being of her daughter, her daughter DIES and she continues to lie about every single thing that happen.
If you can't convince the jury that this is AT THE VERY LEAST mansluaghter ( and again before you say no eveidence, LYING about your dead kids whereabouts is EVIDENCE) then you should be fired.
I knew when they had 7 female jurors some of this bullshit would happen
What ever proved that she had any idea of where she was? I don't understand what you are thinking here, there was question as to if the body was ever moved, the police were notified months prior and ignored it, so again, what shows that she put the kid there?
0
Quote Originally Posted by EIGHTYpercent:
I'm not saying that she murdered her (even though she did)
Thats not the point.
The point for the 25th time is : She is responsible for the well being of her daughter, her daughter DIES and she continues to lie about every single thing that happen.
If you can't convince the jury that this is AT THE VERY LEAST mansluaghter ( and again before you say no eveidence, LYING about your dead kids whereabouts is EVIDENCE) then you should be fired.
I knew when they had 7 female jurors some of this bullshit would happen
What ever proved that she had any idea of where she was? I don't understand what you are thinking here, there was question as to if the body was ever moved, the police were notified months prior and ignored it, so again, what shows that she put the kid there?
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.