aggrevated...AKA she dumped the body instead of calling cops. That twice you've shown us your a retard.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!dumb twats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


http://i.imgur.com/ZQF4Q.gif

Even the jurors who are now speaking are saying they wished the prosectutaion did a better job! “I just swear to God . . .” he said, his voice falling silent, overcome by tears. “I wish we had more evidence to put her away. I truly do . . .
http://www.therecord.com/news/world/...-anthony-juror

i believe the CSI effect happened here. We are now at the point that a jury cannot convict without absolution. Caseys behavior could not possibly be more guilty. The juror is saying so. Shes know she did it, but didnt have the balls to convict because the CSI wasnt there. Pathetic.

I guess there is no god either because nobody can see him.

Yeah, I caught myself in another thread.

That came to me about an hour later. My bad.

And what I posted in that other thread is what Juror #3 has said, which is not guilty does not mean innocent.

Something I came across from a commentator:

“Providing the full quotes from juror #3 and especially the quote from the alternate reinforce the belief that these jurors did not understand legal requiremenhats. For example, "... [t]hey didn't show us how Caylee died. They didn't show us a motive." The prosecutiohan does not have to show "cause of death," they do have to show "manner of death," which they did through the medical examiner's testimony that the manner of death was homicide. If cause of death had to be proven in a murder trial then untold numbers of murderers would go free. Remember, the Scott Peterson case, where cause of death could not be determined due to deteriorathaion of the body because it had been in the water. In numerous murder trials cause of death cannot be determined because the body is skeletonizhaed, exposed to the elements too long, etc. The prosecutiohan is not legally required to provide a motive. For example, serial killers often have had no prior connection to their victims and most highly trained psychiatrihasts, psychologihasts cannot help to determine why (motive) they commit those type murders. Most jurors also do not understand the concept of "reasonablhae doubt" which requires that a person be capable of critical thinking, deductive reasoning and simultaneohausly capable of applying common sense. These are learned and/or innate skills that, sadly, many people do not possess. I would recommend that a standardizhaed test, that tests for these particular skills, be given all prospectivhae jurors especially in capital murder trials.”

Are we talking about the chick in VA who duct taped her daughters mouth and put heart stickers on it? Dude that was like a 1.5million dollar investigation. There is no fucking way in hell that she killed her own daughter after that kind of investigation. Don't you watch TV shows about this shit?

Sorry for the confusion.

I made up that as an example to show how evidence that would help a jury make a decision is often excluded from evidence.
The public sees it but the jury doesn't there for the public has more evidence to form their opinion.

My fictitious example would have been a slam dunk for the prosecution.

In this trial some evidence was excluded and many times the jury was taken out of the room so the court could decide what would be admitted and what wouldn't.
We get to see ALL that but the jury doesn't.

The topic is how can the public have a different verdict than the jury and be the right one. I gave a fictitious example that related to this case.
Yes, I understand the court has the last word but that doesn't mean they always get it right in the true sense.

Just because a juror commented that the prosecution didnt show a cause of death or motive doesnt mean those items in and of themselves would have made a difference, or that the juror thought they were required to.

I believe that juror was simply stating some of the issues they had that lead them to their verdict. I imagine if the comment was printed in full it would show that, but not sure. Just my guess.

She is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.....







































not guilty!

There were TONS of evidence, but the jury didn't want to see it.

Juries can be fickle.

Did you mean: aggravated



sorry champ, only one moron here showing lack of intelligence, and apparently spelling.

double ownage. :1orglaugh

maybe they could just fabricate some and make everyone happy.