Scorbing Posted July 5, 2011 Author Share Posted July 5, 2011 Scorbing is going to be ****ed. LOL...LOL... I always knew she was not going to get the death penalty but I always said she was not walking out. I am surprised that she was not charged with child neglect or manslaughter. She was negligent with her child otherwise the child would not be dead right now. She was charged with lying to a police officer and lying altogether, which common sense tells me that she is hiding something otherwise, why lie? Why not tell the truth? She got away with it. Baez did his job, even though he told the media that he had mixed feeling about the case. Does that tell you anything? Her own attorney saying that? Anyways, what's done is done. She got away with murder. Oh well, it's not the first time. O.J did too. The question still remains: How did little Caylee died and who put tape in her mouth and buried her in the swamp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorbing Posted July 5, 2011 Author Share Posted July 5, 2011 "No one messes with me!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DootDootMan Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 LOL...LOL... I always knew she was not going to get the death penalty but I always said she was not walking out. I am surprised that she was not charged with child neglect or manslaughter. She was negligent with her child otherwise the child would not be dead right now. She was charged with lying to a police officer and lying altogether, which common sense tells me that she is hiding something otherwise, why lie? Why not tell the truth? She got away with it. Baez did his job, even though he told the media that he had mixed feeling about the case. Does that tell you anything? Her own attorney saying that? Anyways, what's done is done. She got away with murder. Oh well, it's not the first time. O.J did too. The question still remains: How did little Caylee died and who put tape in her mouth and buried her in the swamp? She was judged by a jury of her peers and was found innocent. What exactly did she "get away with"? Evidence was obviously lacking- hence the verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soniqstylz Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 F.Y How's that for for "wake up"? YOU need to wake up and face reality. She IS GUILTY a sin and time will prove me right. Wait till the trial is over and you will see. Lucky you it's not one of your own, otherwise your thinking would be different and you would be demanding justice right now. End of story. Lulz. On a related note, now that she's out, I'd hit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briangw Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 As I said in another thread: The prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty. The jury saw that and did their job. Personally, I feel she played a part in the death of her child, but kudos to the jury for doing their job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorbing Posted July 5, 2011 Author Share Posted July 5, 2011 She was judged by a jury of her peers and was found innocent. What exactly did she "get away with"? Evidence was obviously lacking- hence the verdict. The question still remains: How did little Caylee died and who put tape in her mouth and buried her in the swamp? Lulz. On a related note, now that she's out, I'd hit it. You are sick....and in my eyes, she is still guilty of child negligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DootDootMan Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 The question still remains: How did little Caylee died and who put tape in her mouth and buried her in the swamp? You are sick....and in my eyes, she is still guilty of child negligence. Obviously it wasn't her. I believe a further investigation will be conducted. She was found to be innocent- let it go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudslag Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 The question still remains: How did little Caylee died and who put tape in her mouth and buried her in the swamp? You are sick....and in my eyes, she is still guilty of child negligence. Its a question that will remain unanswered, for now at least. Either way its moot at this point. I do agree she should have been found at least guilty of negligence. But for your other post about the lawyer, again its moot what he thinks, his job is to defend, not pass judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorbing Posted July 5, 2011 Author Share Posted July 5, 2011 The only reason that kept me watching this charade was this: She was cute. Its a question that will remain unanswered, for now at least. Either way its moot at this point. I do agree she should have been found at least guilty of negligence. But for your other post about the lawyer, again its moot what he thinks, his job is to defend, not pass judgement. And he did an excellent job. Gotta give the man credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 The question still remains: How did little Caylee died and who put tape in her mouth and buried her in the swamp? There is no question as to what happened, but there is in terms of which member of that dysfunctional mess of a family actually did it. No prints or DNA on the evidence, just circumstantial that in truth could have pointed in any of 4 directions IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primexx Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Verdict is in: NOT GUILTY of all homicide & child abuse charges!! Guilty of several counts of providing false information to a police officer. Expected it: the prosecutions evidence was poor or junk science. The case may well have hinged on their calling in the highly questionable vapor analyzer that IMO poisoned their case. Next was Dr. Werner Spitz, Detroit's uber-forensic pathologist with 50,000 autopsies logged, who basically called the local forensic pathologist an amateur. HAH! And as expected poor old Scorbing had a fit :p Obviously it wasn't her. I believe a further investigation will be conducted. She was found to be innocent- let it go. Well that's not entirely accurate. The criminal standard for guilt is proof beyond a reasonable doubt (to guard against the very thing that Scorbing has done in this thread), so you could think that it's probably her, or that you're pretty sure it's her, and still be obligated to find her "not guilty" (note that the verdict isn't whether you're innocent, but rather whether you're guilty). In all reality, almost everyone charged for a crime is actually responsible for it, hence the high conviction rates (you don't see the routine guilty pleas, but they keep the system working). Very few cases go to trial, and of those that go to trial, a majority result in convictions. Of those that don't result in convictions, it's very probable that they were found not guilty because the evidence wasn't strong enough or the police/crown messed something up, rather than the accused actually being innocent of the crime. The vast majority of the obviously innocent should never make it to trial, considering that our entire criminal justice system is designed to minimize convicting the innocent. Now obviously, it goes without saying that the system is thusly designed because civilized society recognizes the grave harm of convicting innocent people in their zeal to deal retribution onto society's less savoy members, and also to keep the government's vast oppressive force in check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudslag Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 HAH! And as expected poor old Scorbing had a fit :p Well that's not entirely accurate. The criminal standard for guilt is proof beyond a reasonable doubt (to guard against the very thing that Scorbing has done in this thread), so you could think that it's probably her, or that you're pretty sure it's her, and still be obligated to find her "not guilty" (note that the verdict isn't whether you're innocent, but rather whether you're guilty). In all reality, almost everyone charged for a crime is actually responsible for it, hence the high conviction rates (you don't see the routine guilty pleas, but they keep the system working). Very few cases go to trial, and of those that go to trial, a majority result in convictions. Of those that don't result in convictions, it's very probable that they were found not guilty because the evidence wasn't strong enough or the police/crown messed something up, rather than the accused actually being innocent of the crime. The vast majority of the obviously innocent should never make it to trial, considering that our entire criminal justice system is designed to minimize convicting the innocent. Now obviously, it goes without saying that the system is thusly designed because civilized society recognizes the grave harm of convicting innocent people in their zeal to deal retribution onto society's less savoy members, and also to keep the government's vast oppressive force in check. ^This, just because the prosecutors couldnt prove their case to the fullest doesnt mean she is 100% innocent. Capone was guilty of a lot of things but could never be proven on much of anything, other then tax evasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DootDootMan Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 HAH! And as expected poor old Scorbing had a fit :p Well that's not entirely accurate. The criminal standard for guilt is proof beyond a reasonable doubt (to guard against the very thing that Scorbing has done in this thread), so you could think that it's probably her, or that you're pretty sure it's her, and still be obligated to find her "not guilty" (note that the verdict isn't whether you're innocent, but rather whether you're guilty). In all reality, almost everyone charged for a crime is actually responsible for it, hence the high conviction rates (you don't see the routine guilty pleas, but they keep the system working). Very few cases go to trial, and of those that go to trial, a majority result in convictions. Of those that don't result in convictions, it's very probable that they were found not guilty because the evidence wasn't strong enough or the police/crown messed something up, rather than the accused actually being innocent of the crime. The vast majority of the obviously innocent should never make it to trial, considering that our entire criminal justice system is designed to minimize convicting the innocent. Now obviously, it goes without saying that the system is thusly designed because civilized society recognizes the grave harm of convicting innocent people in their zeal to deal retribution onto society's less savoy members, and also to keep the government's vast oppressive force in check. Well, the jury voted unanimously. She didn't take a plea deal because she was obviously innocent as the jury instructed. Seems to me that you are just trolling. ^This, just because the prosecutors couldnt prove their case to the fullest doesnt mean she is 100% innocent. Capone was guilty of a lot of things but could never be proven on much of anything, other then tax evasion. The case was proven to the fullest. The evidence wasn't there hence the not guilty verdict. The prosecution had plenty of time to provide compelling and damning evidence- they didn't because it wasn't there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Just came over the news: the prosecutor is retiring. Probably a good move :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DootDootMan Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Just came over the news: the prosecutor is retiring. Probably a good move :p Seeing as he didn't have much of a case to begin with I don't blame him. Disgraced himself and the people who voted for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudslag Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Well, the jury voted unanimously. She didn't take a plea deal because she was obviously innocent as the jury instructed. Seems to me that you are just trolling. The case was proven to the fullest. The evidence wasn't there hence the not guilty verdict. The prosecution had plenty of time to provide compelling and damning evidence- they didn't because it wasn't there. Again just because there isnt enough compelling evidence in no way means she is actually innocent. If someone commits a crime and leaves no evidence that they did the crime, that doesnt mean they are any less guilty. It just means there isnt evidence that the person committed it. So no no one is trolling about this, the evidence just wasnt there to prove beyond a doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lels Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Just came over the news: the prosecutor is retiring. Probably a good move :p My understanding is he planned on retiring before the case started and that this would be his last case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudslag Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DootDootMan Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Again just because there isnt enough compelling evidence in no way means she is actually innocent. If someone commits a crime and leaves no evidence that they did the crime, that doesnt mean they are any less guilty. It just means there isnt evidence that the person committed it. So no no one is trolling about this, the evidence just wasnt there to prove beyond a doubt. And that is what she was tried on. She's innocent IMHO. All of the jurors gave the same result. Why beat a dead horse? Yes the evidence was there to prove her innocence beyond a shadow of doubt. The jury found her to be INNOCENT. Let it go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion and Lamb Ministry Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Nope. He was not planning on retiring. He had political aspirations, but his trying of this case with a HUGE lack of evidence was a death blow to those aspirations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DootDootMan Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 You are a twisted individual who apparently likes pushing their opinions (right or wrong) on other Neowin users. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
episode Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 And that is what she was tried on. She's innocent IMHO. All of the jurors gave the same result. Why beat a dead horse? Yes the evidence was there to prove her innocence beyond a shadow of doubt. The jury found her to be INNOCENT. Let it go. No. No. No. And no. The jury found her NOT GUILTY. There is a marked difference between innocent and not guilty. You are never found 'innocent' of a crime, just 'not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'. Thats not the same thing as innocent. Did she kill her daughter? Most likely, yes. Should she have been found guilty? No, because they had zero evidence and no confession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amarok Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Honestly I don't think she's guilty. I think she's probably a pretty terrible person, but I don't think she murdered her child. As far as lying to police, it's really easy to say that people with nothing to hide don't lie but in truth there are a lot of people that lie about a lot of things that they have no reason to lie about. She didn't really get away with anything, she's going to be hounded for the rest of her life about this and unless she can find a way to just slip into the shadows completely and start over fresh somewhere new with a new identity (Good luck with how much media attention she's gotten and how recognizable she is) she'll never have any peace. Which is a shame if she is in fact innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xendrome Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Obviously it wasn't her. I believe a further investigation will be conducted. She was found to be innocent- let it go. Obviously? Like Obviously OJ didn't do it either? Maybe her and OJ can team up and find the killers together. What you meant to say was "Obviously they didn't have enough evidence to convict her" that doesn't mean she didn't do it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudslag Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 And that is what she was tried on. She's innocent IMHO. All of the jurors gave the same result. Why beat a dead horse? Yes the evidence was there to prove her innocence beyond a shadow of doubt. The jury found her to be INNOCENT. Let it go. The jury didnt find her innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt, the jury didnt find the evidence to be enough. You have to look at how they tried to prosecute, had they tried for manslaughter or similar they prob would have gotten it but they tried for murder one and they requires more of the prosecution in terms evidence. They found her not guilty of murder one, not guilty and innocent are not the same thing. You are a twisted individual who apparently likes pushing their opinions (right or wrong) on other Neowin users. You're a ignorant fool, how in anyway is posting that image pushing opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts