Do you believe in the devil?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 14bevo
  • Start date Start date
1

14bevo

Guest
Do you guys believe in the devil? I do and I believe it's very clear in the bible that he is real.

When I see verdicts like the one in the casey Anthony trial , it proves it to me. He is a master distorter that confuses juries.
 
This should be a Quack's thread, not West Mall.

BTW, I haven't followed the trial a lot, but I know enough to understand that she wasn't being tried on counts of being a bad mom, of being an idiot, of being stupid or being negligent. All of those may be true - but none of them equal proof of murdering someone. Last I heard, you did still have to actually prove guilt - apparently the jury didn't think they did that.

Don't blame Satan for that, blame crappy prosecuting attorneys or maybe that she didn't do it, or maybe even that there just wasn't evidence sufficient to convict?
 
rolleyes.gif
 
I'm just glad the trial is over. This case is as interesting as last weeks stock market results but it got the attention of the OJ trial. (coincidentally the same results too)

Let's prioritize here:
Debt ceiling
Libya
Unemployment
Falling dollar value
Casey Anthony

One of these things is not like the other. . .
 
Trying to get this thread off track could be a sign of satan's mind manipulation.
 
While attending to my four-year old, who has been vomiting and whatnot all night, I saw some crazy reporter standing outside a restaurant wherein the defense was allegedly 'partying' and celebrating. I though I saw the face of Satan in the window glare that kept us, the truth-loving public, from seeing the woeful antics of the now free, once assumed-murderess and her champions.

Satan looked like a frog.

I am not kidding.

At all.

At.

All.

A frog laughing with flies departing from his mouth in horrible hordes.

Wish I could have seen the party, but Satan didn't want me to.

At.

All.
 
14 even you have to admit that this case didn't look like the same slam dunk the longer it progressed. The prosecution brought in a professional smeller for a witness for Christ's sake.

Having said that, I assumed she was guilty too but what the hell do I know I wasn't in the court room, I just had 24/7 coverage of the outside of the trial.
 
See , that's how the devil works , he takes 'she did it's" and turns them into "she probably did it , but I have doubts".
 
I'm glad it's over too..she'll get hers. I'm just tired of hearing about her.

Also, if she had killed a dog, it would have been a slam dunk guilty verdict.
 
Your act entertains me, 14bevo. Kudos.

To the actual topic: Really, some of you are willing to say there was "reasonable doubt?" Hmmm. Your 3-year old child disappears, but you don't report it for a month. You blame a mythical babysitter that is later shown not to exist. Coincidentally, you've been searching "chloroform" on your computer, traces of which are found in the trunk of your car, which your family noted "smells like death."

Then the body is found duct taped with tape that came from your home. The defense att'y says he will show that the child drowned and that you were sexually molested by your father. Yet he offers no supporting evidence whatsoever to back up that highly dubious tale (your father, in fact, strongly denies that allegation).

Again, your entire "defense" is a completely unbelievable scenario where the child drown, but you lied about it and didn't report it because you were sexually molested in childhood. No corroboration for that explanation. None. None whatsoever.

What grieving mother duct tapes the mouth of a drowning victim? Can any of you imagine losing a 3-year old child to a drowning, then duct-taping her mouth, disposing of the body, not reporting her missing for a month, inventing a mythical babysitter who doesn't exist? Are those the actions of a grieving parent? Or a murderer?

Reasonable doubt?

Seriously, I don't know what kind of evidence some people are looking for. Seriously, what? Granted, there is no clear time of death, but there's a dead body wrapped in duct tape (tape that came from your house), the fact that you didn't bother alerting police that your child was missing for a ******* month, unchallenged evidence that you were looking into "chloroform," and an undeniable pattern of outright lies and deception when confronted by police.

Really, that's not enough for a "guilty" verdict?

It's annoying that some people want to pretend that they have some deeper understanding of the legal system that explains this verdict (which us plain folk can't comprehend) rather than just admitting that it's a ******* travesty.
 
The devil is a convenient excuse for the poor choices we make.

As far as this trial is concerned, it was a clear case of reasonable doubt and nothing more.
 
Baez was able to convince these 12 people that his circus of BS was equivalent to Reasonable Doubt.

It is so sad that these adults could not see though his schtick. But then again, I was recently part of a jury panel, and this surprises me not at all.
 
No evidence when, where, or how a murder was committed, or if there was even a murder at all. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and they proved nothing beyond the fact that Casey Anthony is a person of questionable character that lied to the authorities. Strip away the emotion and like it, or not, this is how the court system is supposed to function. I commend the jury for adhering to the law.
 
She did it , no question about it. Beelzabub got in there and confused the jury.
 
Awful, awful decision!
mad.gif


Our judicial system is as $*#@!#ed up as any other! I've seen judges taking bribes and high powered lawyers getting their clients off scot free for, well, in this case MURDER!

On a side not,,,just curious though - Were all those who were outraged by the O.J. decision, equally nauseous of this one, or is it just....
confused.gif
 
Answer to question #1 is no, duct tape over the mouth does not in itself prove that a murder was committed. As far as #2, no when, where, or how doesn't necessarily mean a guilty verdict can't be reached, but when there is no DNA, or forensic evidence linking the suspect to the crime in addition to all the unanswered questions it does lend significant credence to the reasonable doubt premise.

Do I think she did it? Probably. Do I think it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Absolutely not.
 
I didn't ask you if a dead body with duct tape on it "proved" a murder. That wasn't the question. You said there was no evidence that a murder even happened. I asked if a dead body with duct tape on it was evidence.

As to "no DNA or forensic evidence linking the suspect to the crime:"
1) People have been convicted of crimes for centuries without DNA evidence. It's not a requirement.
2) In the case where a mother appears to have murdered her daughter, what sort of DNA evidence do you have in mind? I'm sure the victim's DNA is all over the house, and the suspect's DNA is all over the victim. What point does it serve to collect it? Again, if you're going to decry a lack of DNA evidence, tell us what you would have like to have seen.
3) Your claim that there is "no forensic evidence" is just flat-out wrong. There is duct tape from the house on the victim's body. That is forensic evidence, and it at LEAST shows that whoever taped her mouth had access to the home (more reasonably, it shows that it was a family member who put it there... likely the one who didn't report her missing for a month and then told blatant lies about her disappearance).

Finally, you say you think she did it. So do I. Then you say it was "absolutely not" proven beyond reasonable doubt. And that's what I have a problem with. The facts of the case (and the forensic evidence) scream out in unison that Casey Anthony committed murder. The state presented those facts and the forensic evidence to the jury.

What did the defense present that, in your opinion, gives reasonable doubt? Seriously, help me out here, because I'm not seeing it.
 
Oh, please.

-------

evidence
–noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief;

--------

I would say the body of a toddler that had duct tape across the mouth and was stuffed in a bag would be GROUND FOR BELIEF that a murder may have occurred.
 
Well damn, I didn’t know you had a dictionary.

I think the salient point here is that duct tape on the child certainly suggests murder, no question about that. But it doesn’t prove it, and apparently it wasn’t enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the mother committed a murder. Perhaps the only thing proven here is that the defense had better representation than the prosecution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top