?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
05 July 2011 @ 02:08 pm
IF ANYONE WANTS TO VOLUNTEER TO BE PUNCHED, LET ME KNOW.  

I CANNOT BELIEVE CASEY ANTHONY WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY.

I AM INCANDESCENT WITH RAGE.

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THESE PEOPLE.  HOW DID ANYONE LISTEN TO ALL THAT EVIDENCE AND REALLY THINK SHE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEATH OF HER DAUGHTER.  HOW DID ANYONE, LET ALONE TWELVE PEOPLE?

I NEED TO PUNCH SOMEONE IN THE FACE.  IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO BE CASEY ANTHONY, THOUGH THAT WOULD BE GREAT.  I JUST NEED TO PUNCH SOMEONE.

WHAT THE ACTUAL HELL.

I MAY CATCH ON FIRE, I DON'T KNOW.


 
 
 
(Anonymous) on July 6th, 2011 09:47 pm (UTC)
I've not been following it that closely, but I read something about the prosecution's closing being weak and the defense's being great...? Is that right?

From my experience as a juror, I have to say that "reasonable doubt" seems pretty difficult to get past, unless, as Holly says, there's a videotape of the person committing the crime, and it's probably even worse for jurors in super high profile cases like this. I know reasonable doubt is not ANY doubt, but I was actually surprised from my experience how easy it is to feel that there is some reasonable doubt ... they probably get gunshy (ha) about coming back with a guilty verdict. That said, I agree with you, she's clearly guilty.

Holly, that's funny, you do NOT look like her, but when I looked at her picture again, I COULD SORT OF SEE IT from certain angles. You are much prettier though!

-Caro
Shannonkungfuwaynewho on July 6th, 2011 09:58 pm (UTC)
I didn't watch all of them, but I'd say the opposite - the prosecution's closing seemed really solid, and the defense seemed kinda eh. But that may just be my bias and the way I was watching it.

The thing is, most cases that actually go to trial are determined on circumstantial evidence - there isn't DNA or eyewitnesses or video or any of that smoking gun stuff. If that stuff exists, you usually have a plea deal long before the case ever makes it to the jury. I keep hearing about how the prosecution's case was weak because all they had was circumstantial evidence, and I'm like, but that's okay! If you have enough circumstantial evidence and none of it contradicts, you can convict based on that! I mean, they've found people guilty of first degree murder when the dead body they're found guilty of killing was never even recovered.

I was only an alternate the one time, so I missed the actual deliberation part. I went into the jury lounge sure that they'd come back with a guilty verdict, since I didn't have any reasonable doubts - or doubts at all, for that matter. And it ended up being a hung jury. So I have no idea.