Diver who looked for Caylee sues Casey Anthony

[nuderdiver]

A). Doesn't matter. She testified in court that her child died in the pool and the body was disposed of, yet she pleaded months earlier for people to help look for her daughter. She already knew it was a wild goose chase.

Perhaps so. But my comment about her not being convicted of killing anyone was addressed to those calling her a murderer, killer, etc.

The people who do volunteer probably don't assume the worst in the people seeking help.

Clearly. Generally-speaking, many people are simply too trusting of others.

 

[The Chairman]

But my comment about her not being convicted of killing anyone was addressed to those calling her a murderer, killer, etc.

Legally, she might be innocent. However public and personal opinions are not bound by the court system. I, for one, will never consider her a model parent. I would go even further and say that I believe her to be negligent as a mother and a despicable person. Of course, that belief would have kept me off of the jury. Think of it. They had to find the least informed of our citizenry in order to go forward with this. It has been my experience that uninformed people are usually less likely to make intelligent decisions, are easily swayed by shenanigans and are often just plain scary.

 

[ScubaSteve]

Diver Drops Suit Against Casey Anthony - WESH

Too bad it did not say why he dropped the charges. One can only hope he accepted it was a suit built on :bs:. Now, I can hope that somehow Casey Anthony ends up never allowed to go near children again. She represents negligence perfectly.

 

[theduckguru]

They had to find the least informed of our citizenry in order to go forward with this. It has been my experience that uninformed people are usually less likely to make intelligent decisions, are easily swayed by shenanigans and are often just plain scary.

Who are they and how did they find these misinformed people?


The most informed people in this case was the jury. They were
presented ALL the evidence. Were you?

 

[fisheater]

Who are they and how did they find these misinformed people? I followed this case closely and did not find the evidence supported a guilty verdict for homocide. I was surprised she was found not guilty because the high emotions of public concerning this case. Including people making baseless claims.

Members of the public, summoned for jury duty. Then, those who follow the news are systematically eliminated.

 

[theduckguru]

Members of the public, summoned for jury duty. Then, those who follow the news are systematically eliminated.

.

I followed the direct testimony on this case via court tv and not what the tv news said. Maybe thats why I agreed with the jury.

 

[bluejaykaren]

There is a reason there is not a "Dive With Alligators Experience" like there is a "Dive with Sharks Experience". I have been to the Little Econ and if someone lied to me and I volunteered to risk my life diving among those alligators I might be that mad too. Volunteer divers dive in some of the most unsafe waters there are and to send them out there knowing there is not a body to find should be a crime. I think he has a very good reason to be that upset.

 

[nuderdiver]

Legally, she might be innocent. However public and personal opinions are not bound by the court system.

That's certainly true. Also explains why we have lunch mobs and other such things - and the law to at least TRY to protect us from them.

I, for one, will never consider her a model parent.

I wouldn't want to be a model parent, any more than I would want to be "normal".

...that belief would have kept me off of the jury. Think of it. They had to find the least informed of our citizenry in order to go forward with this.

Least informed about a particular issue anyway. I don't follow CourtTV or other such crap (I don't even have a TV), but I do read the news constantly (and I'm talking about news, not sensationalistic BS) and I'm generally very informed about a great number of current news issues. I would have made a great juror

 

[Ayisha]

I followed the Casey Anthony trial by video and in print, and it seemed to me that the only reason they could not convict her was because she provided an alternate theory that could not be disproved (yet) - her father did it - or so she says. Discrediting her father shifted just enough focus away from her to not meet the burden of proof in the jury's opinion.

Cadaver dogs don't lie.

 

[nuderdiver]

Well, it's worth keeping in mind that in this country, a person does not have to prove their innocence.

It's up to the prosecution to PROVE guilt, and do it beyond a reasonable doubt.