Well, I'm glad we got that out of the way.

This is me agreeing with JM for the first time ever.

I also agree, with the reservation that I'm not going to say she's innocent. The jury didn't decide that, and we don't know it any more than the people who are outraged know she's guilty.

Also:

Yeah that's what I'm agreeing with for the most part, but generally a ridiculous lack of evidence points to someone being innocent. If you can manage to filter out the commentary, it's pretty easy to get the gist of this trial and realize how ridiculous it is that it was even publicized so much.

Also, Nancy Grace needs to shut the **** up... like... forever.

Absolutely agreeing with the second half of this thread.

I don't see any difference between 'not guilty' and 'innocent'. If everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and they are not proven guilty, then they are innocent. I was on a jury recently and I would have enjoyed the chance to find someone innocent instead of not guilty, except that the guy was guilty.

Not guilty in the eyes of the court is different than someone actually being innocent. To prove 'guilty' in a criminal court, you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed. To obtain a verdict of 'not guilty', all the defense has to do is show reasonable doubt. The defendant does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that s/he is innocent - the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt.

If it was the other way around, I would agree that the court rendered a verdict of innocent. However, that is backwards to how the system actually works.

But if you are really following the statement innocent until proven guilty, then a verdict of not guilty does imply innocence. Innocent until proven guilty, not we-don't-know until proven guilty. The latter may reflect how the court actually works, but JM was arguing strictly by the definition of those words, for which he is correct.

That's a bit of a misstatement though. A defendant is not "innocent until proven guilty," she is "presumed innocent until proven guilty." That's not an actual statement of fact about whether a person is innocent or guilty, it's a presumption that the prosecution is required to overcome. Whether or not the defendant is actually innocent is a matter of fact that may or may not coincide with the outcome of the trial.

Scotland does this differently, with three different verdicts: "guilty," "not guilty," and a middle option of "not proven." In a system like that, "not guilty" means something much more like "innocent."

Right, I was talking strictly about the phrase "innocent until proven guilty." I understand this is not how the legal system actually works, but (I think) JM was arguing from this definition. If this definition is wrong (it is) then the whole thing is moot.

At least if you go out and meet up with this chick at the bar (one thing leads to another.. and now she is with child), you don't have to worry about abortions, she'll take care of it.

your wit is so razor sharp it hurts, zanardi

Of course, the problem is it's largely impossible to convict her of the murder, since the physical evidence was degraded to such an extent that the best they can supply is circumstantial, which isn't enough for a capital conviction.
Frankly, I have no doubt the prosecution sought the death penalty due to pressure from the media, and since the prosecution didn't have enough evidence to secure a murder I conviction, you can squarely lay the blame for Casey Anthony walking free on Nancy Grace's shoulders.

-I have often said that it's no surprise that shrill harpy is no longer a prosecutor, she clearly has no idea how the law works. My mom's been following her career of yellow journalism since the girl who disappeared in Aruba, Natalie Holloway. My personal theory is that Nancy Grace hired the guy to do it for ratings.

Considering the fact that Nancy Grace used to be a prosecutor, I'm sure you can squarely lay the blame for a lot of guilty people walking free on her shoulders.

Please keep in mind when you read the following that I don't give a **** about the outcome of the trial. I find law fascinating and the following is based on my (layperson's) understanding of the facts surrounding this case, and not personal feelings about the verdict that I simply do not have.

Anybody who compares this case to the Simpson trial is a complete nonce.

w.r.t. Anthony, the state completely failed to establish either means or motive. Most of their forensic evidence was inconclusive, misrepresented, or (let's face it) outright botched. Take the preoccupation with chloroform, for instance. They positively tested yellow stains on a doll and a car seat for chloroform (they were urine.) They positively tested the trunk of the car for chloroform and two other VOCs (all of which are commonly found in most cleaners and stain removers, and are only three of the roughly 500 different VOCs produced during human decomposition.) They positively tested a syringe found near the body for chloroform, testosterone and ethanol (which is exactly what you'd find in street steroids.) Chloroform is in a lot of stuff. More importantly, arguing that it's a central part of the means is not logical or even believable - unless your day job involves scrubbing down the insides of a running wood chipper with your bare ****ing hands I don't think you're going to have a problem subduing a 2-year-old who unconditionally trusts you without the help of a general anesthetic. I'm not even going to begin to talk about the forensics tests that destroyed evidence, the autopsy they completely ****ed up and never noticed until after the body was cremated, or the embarrassing and contemptible behavior on the parts of all of the attorneys involved. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if this kind of gross incompetence is commonplace, but I have a feeling that if I were a lawyer I'd have a hard time sleeping at night just hearing about cases like this one and the thousands of other abortions of justice that happen every day under the MSM's radar. In short, **** da po-lice.

The Simpson case had an overwhelming amount of conclusive evidence tying him to the murders. His blood was found at the crime scene. His hair was found at the crime scene. They found blood-soaked leather gloves he'd previously worn in public (the left at the crime scene and the right at his house.) They found clothes stained with the victims' blood at his house. They found the victims' blood in his car, and fibers from the car upholstery on the victims. They found shoe prints at the crime scene matching his extremely expensive and rare shoes (I think there were only 3 pairs in the United States, and no other pairs in his size.) The prosecution did an amazing job presenting a bulletproof case. Probably going to lose points for saying this, but in the end Simpson was only acquitted because the jury was 9/12ths African-American and Simpson's lawyers spent most of the case accusing the court and the LAPD of racism.

The only similarity between these two cases is that an unpopular person got acquitted.

I was comparing them in regards to the media condemning the defendant and the outrage following the verdict, not the evidence presented at trial (Of which, all I know about either I just read in your post). Glad I could compel you to post, though.

Personally, I think she should go to the stocks for waisting,time and money on a bunch bull**** lies.Even if the truth of the matter is that it was an accident, why lie about it? No one is going to send you up the river for winning a darwin award of that caliber. Leave some drano in a sippy in,your methlab? Different story.I got really tired of hearing about this. The prosecution did not have a whole lot to go on. Other than her behavior which to me doesnt exactly strike me as a mom that gave a ****, there wasnt a smoking gun. This left the defense with an open game and they took **** to the weird zone.