http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2011/07/justice-for-casey-anthony/ Smart Conversation about the Constitution Mon, 25 Jun 2012 20:04:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2011/07/justice-for-casey-anthony/#comment-7140 Juan Filgueira Tue, 30 Aug 2011 19:04:14 +0000 http://blog-dev.constitutioncenter.org/?p=5941#comment-7140 I beg to differ Dr. Franks. As much as you might be correct on the interpetation of the law, in this case in particular this system if I may call it like that failed in a level that cannot be measured in any way shape or form. Trying to asses the diference between not guilty and innocent is as productive as one trying to kiss one’s shoulder. It’s of no importance at all if the person was found innocent or not guilty. Despite the ilogical explination of the differences between them, at the end, they’re both the same. There’s no difference between Not Guilty and Innocent, they’re exaclty the same thing. They mean the same thing and the result is the same. Can anyone explain what it means for Caysee, legally speaking to have been found Not guilty as of to being declared innocent? My believe is that it means nothing at all.
Now as to the opininon of other methonds of justice indicated by you, I too disagree with that. O.J. lived his life the way he wanted to do it after the trial, he vacationed, he travelled, he worked, he made money, he had relationships, he did not care what was said or believed about him. He has never nor will he ever pay for the crimes he commited, he hasn’t paid for them legally or socially either. There was no calibration of the scales of justice as you so eloquently say it. He lived his life the way he wanted it. The only reason he sits behing bars today is because he is a criminal, a thief, a bully and he got some justice for that. As of the assasination of Nicole, he was declared innocent, I mean Not Guilty and has been so since 94.
I believe that both OJ and Casey are cold blooded murderes that got away with their crimes thanks to a very weak interpretation of the law.

]]> http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2011/07/justice-for-casey-anthony/#comment-7137 Juan Filgueira Tue, 30 Aug 2011 19:04:14 +0000 http://blog-dev.constitutioncenter.org/?p=5941#comment-7137 I beg to differ Dr. Franks. As much as you might be correct on the interpetation of the law, in this case in particular this system if I may call it like that failed in a level that cannot be measured in any way shape or form. Trying to asses the diference between not guilty and innocent is as productive as one trying to kiss one’s shoulder. It’s of no importance at all if the person was found innocent or not guilty. Despite the ilogical explination of the differences between them, at the end, they’re both the same. There’s no difference between Not Guilty and Innocent, they’re exaclty the same thing. They mean the same thing and the result is the same. Can anyone explain what it means for Caysee, legally speaking to have been found Not guilty as of to being declared innocent? My believe is that it means nothing at all.
Now as to the opininon of other methonds of justice indicated by you, I too disagree with that. O.J. lived his life the way he wanted to do it after the trial, he vacationed, he travelled, he worked, he made money, he had relationships, he did not care what was said or believed about him. He has never nor will he ever pay for the crimes he commited, he hasn’t paid for them legally or socially either. There was no calibration of the scales of justice as you so eloquently say it. He lived his life the way he wanted it. The only reason he sits behing bars today is because he is a criminal, a thief, a bully and he got some justice for that. As of the assasination of Nicole, he was declared innocent, I mean Not Guilty and has been so since 94.
I believe that both OJ and Casey are cold blooded murderes that got away with their crimes thanks to a very weak interpretation of the law.

]]> http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2011/07/justice-for-casey-anthony/#comment-7135 Juan Filgueira Tue, 30 Aug 2011 19:04:14 +0000 http://blog-dev.constitutioncenter.org/?p=5941#comment-7135 I beg to differ Dr. Franks. As much as you might be correct on the interpetation of the law, in this case in particular this system if I may call it like that failed in a level that cannot be measured in any way shape or form. Trying to asses the diference between not guilty and innocent is as productive as one trying to kiss one’s shoulder. It’s of no importance at all if the person was found innocent or not guilty. Despite the ilogical explination of the differences between them, at the end, they’re both the same. There’s no difference between Not Guilty and Innocent, they’re exaclty the same thing. They mean the same thing and the result is the same. Can anyone explain what it means for Caysee, legally speaking to have been found Not guilty as of to being declared innocent? My believe is that it means nothing at all.
Now as to the opininon of other methonds of justice indicated by you, I too disagree with that. O.J. lived his life the way he wanted to do it after the trial, he vacationed, he travelled, he worked, he made money, he had relationships, he did not care what was said or believed about him. He has never nor will he ever pay for the crimes he commited, he hasn’t paid for them legally or socially either. There was no calibration of the scales of justice as you so eloquently say it. He lived his life the way he wanted it. The only reason he sits behing bars today is because he is a criminal, a thief, a bully and he got some justice for that. As of the assasination of Nicole, he was declared innocent, I mean Not Guilty and has been so since 94.
I believe that both OJ and Casey are cold blooded murderes that got away with their crimes thanks to a very weak interpretation of the law.

]]> http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2011/07/justice-for-casey-anthony/#comment-7136 Juan Filgueira Tue, 30 Aug 2011 19:04:14 +0000 http://blog-dev.constitutioncenter.org/?p=5941#comment-7136 I beg to differ Dr. Franks. As much as you might be correct on the interpetation of the law, in this case in particular this system if I may call it like that failed in a level that cannot be measured in any way shape or form. Trying to asses the diference between not guilty and innocent is as productive as one trying to kiss one’s shoulder. It’s of no importance at all if the person was found innocent or not guilty. Despite the ilogical explination of the differences between them, at the end, they’re both the same. There’s no difference between Not Guilty and Innocent, they’re exaclty the same thing. They mean the same thing and the result is the same. Can anyone explain what it means for Caysee, legally speaking to have been found Not guilty as of to being declared innocent? My believe is that it means nothing at all.
Now as to the opininon of other methonds of justice indicated by you, I too disagree with that. O.J. lived his life the way he wanted to do it after the trial, he vacationed, he travelled, he worked, he made money, he had relationships, he did not care what was said or believed about him. He has never nor will he ever pay for the crimes he commited, he hasn’t paid for them legally or socially either. There was no calibration of the scales of justice as you so eloquently say it. He lived his life the way he wanted it. The only reason he sits behing bars today is because he is a criminal, a thief, a bully and he got some justice for that. As of the assasination of Nicole, he was declared innocent, I mean Not Guilty and has been so since 94.
I believe that both OJ and Casey are cold blooded murderes that got away with their crimes thanks to a very weak interpretation of the law.

]]> http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2011/07/justice-for-casey-anthony/#comment-7134 Juan Filgueira Tue, 30 Aug 2011 19:04:14 +0000 http://blog-dev.constitutioncenter.org/?p=5941#comment-7134 I beg to differ Dr. Franks. As much as you might be correct on the interpetation of the law, in this case in particular this system if I may call it like that failed in a level that cannot be measured in any way shape or form. Trying to asses the diference between not guilty and innocent is as productive as one trying to kiss one’s shoulder. It’s of no importance at all if the person was found innocent or not guilty. Despite the ilogical explination of the differences between them, at the end, they’re both the same. There’s no difference between Not Guilty and Innocent, they’re exaclty the same thing. They mean the same thing and the result is the same. Can anyone explain what it means for Caysee, legally speaking to have been found Not guilty as of to being declared innocent? My believe is that it means nothing at all.
Now as to the opininon of other methonds of justice indicated by you, I too disagree with that. O.J. lived his life the way he wanted to do it after the trial, he vacationed, he travelled, he worked, he made money, he had relationships, he did not care what was said or believed about him. He has never nor will he ever pay for the crimes he commited, he hasn’t paid for them legally or socially either. There was no calibration of the scales of justice as you so eloquently say it. He lived his life the way he wanted it. The only reason he sits behing bars today is because he is a criminal, a thief, a bully and he got some justice for that. As of the assasination of Nicole, he was declared innocent, I mean Not Guilty and has been so since 94.
I believe that both OJ and Casey are cold blooded murderes that got away with their crimes thanks to a very weak interpretation of the law.

]]> http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2011/07/justice-for-casey-anthony/#comment-7132 Juan Filgueira Tue, 30 Aug 2011 19:04:14 +0000 http://blog-dev.constitutioncenter.org/?p=5941#comment-7132 I beg to differ Dr. Franks. As much as you might be correct on the interpetation of the law, in this case in particular this system if I may call it like that failed in a level that cannot be measured in any way shape or form. Trying to asses the diference between not guilty and innocent is as productive as one trying to kiss one’s shoulder. It’s of no importance at all if the person was found innocent or not guilty. Despite the ilogical explination of the differences between them, at the end, they’re both the same. There’s no difference between Not Guilty and Innocent, they’re exaclty the same thing. They mean the same thing and the result is the same. Can anyone explain what it means for Caysee, legally speaking to have been found Not guilty as of to being declared innocent? My believe is that it means nothing at all.
Now as to the opininon of other methonds of justice indicated by you, I too disagree with that. O.J. lived his life the way he wanted to do it after the trial, he vacationed, he travelled, he worked, he made money, he had relationships, he did not care what was said or believed about him. He has never nor will he ever pay for the crimes he commited, he hasn’t paid for them legally or socially either. There was no calibration of the scales of justice as you so eloquently say it. He lived his life the way he wanted it. The only reason he sits behing bars today is because he is a criminal, a thief, a bully and he got some justice for that. As of the assasination of Nicole, he was declared innocent, I mean Not Guilty and has been so since 94.
I believe that both OJ and Casey are cold blooded murderes that got away with their crimes thanks to a very weak interpretation of the law.

]]> http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2011/07/justice-for-casey-anthony/#comment-7130 Juan Filgueira Tue, 30 Aug 2011 19:04:14 +0000 http://blog-dev.constitutioncenter.org/?p=5941#comment-7130 I beg to differ Dr. Franks. As much as you might be correct on the interpetation of the law, in this case in particular this system if I may call it like that failed in a level that cannot be measured in any way shape or form. Trying to asses the diference between not guilty and innocent is as productive as one trying to kiss one’s shoulder. It’s of no importance at all if the person was found innocent or not guilty. Despite the ilogical explination of the differences between them, at the end, they’re both the same. There’s no difference between Not Guilty and Innocent, they’re exaclty the same thing. They mean the same thing and the result is the same. Can anyone explain what it means for Caysee, legally speaking to have been found Not guilty as of to being declared innocent? My believe is that it means nothing at all.
Now as to the opininon of other methonds of justice indicated by you, I too disagree with that. O.J. lived his life the way he wanted to do it after the trial, he vacationed, he travelled, he worked, he made money, he had relationships, he did not care what was said or believed about him. He has never nor will he ever pay for the crimes he commited, he hasn’t paid for them legally or socially either. There was no calibration of the scales of justice as you so eloquently say it. He lived his life the way he wanted it. The only reason he sits behing bars today is because he is a criminal, a thief, a bully and he got some justice for that. As of the assasination of Nicole, he was declared innocent, I mean Not Guilty and has been so since 94.
I believe that both OJ and Casey are cold blooded murderes that got away with their crimes thanks to a very weak interpretation of the law.

]]> http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2011/07/justice-for-casey-anthony/#comment-7133 Juan Filgueira Tue, 30 Aug 2011 19:04:14 +0000 http://blog-dev.constitutioncenter.org/?p=5941#comment-7133 I beg to differ Dr. Franks. As much as you might be correct on the interpetation of the law, in this case in particular this system if I may call it like that failed in a level that cannot be measured in any way shape or form. Trying to asses the diference between not guilty and innocent is as productive as one trying to kiss one’s shoulder. It’s of no importance at all if the person was found innocent or not guilty. Despite the ilogical explination of the differences between them, at the end, they’re both the same. There’s no difference between Not Guilty and Innocent, they’re exaclty the same thing. They mean the same thing and the result is the same. Can anyone explain what it means for Caysee, legally speaking to have been found Not guilty as of to being declared innocent? My believe is that it means nothing at all.
Now as to the opininon of other methonds of justice indicated by you, I too disagree with that. O.J. lived his life the way he wanted to do it after the trial, he vacationed, he travelled, he worked, he made money, he had relationships, he did not care what was said or believed about him. He has never nor will he ever pay for the crimes he commited, he hasn’t paid for them legally or socially either. There was no calibration of the scales of justice as you so eloquently say it. He lived his life the way he wanted it. The only reason he sits behing bars today is because he is a criminal, a thief, a bully and he got some justice for that. As of the assasination of Nicole, he was declared innocent, I mean Not Guilty and has been so since 94.
I believe that both OJ and Casey are cold blooded murderes that got away with their crimes thanks to a very weak interpretation of the law.

]]> http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2011/07/justice-for-casey-anthony/#comment-7131 Juan Filgueira Tue, 30 Aug 2011 19:04:14 +0000 http://blog-dev.constitutioncenter.org/?p=5941#comment-7131 I beg to differ Dr. Franks. As much as you might be correct on the interpetation of the law, in this case in particular this system if I may call it like that failed in a level that cannot be measured in any way shape or form. Trying to asses the diference between not guilty and innocent is as productive as one trying to kiss one’s shoulder. It’s of no importance at all if the person was found innocent or not guilty. Despite the ilogical explination of the differences between them, at the end, they’re both the same. There’s no difference between Not Guilty and Innocent, they’re exaclty the same thing. They mean the same thing and the result is the same. Can anyone explain what it means for Caysee, legally speaking to have been found Not guilty as of to being declared innocent? My believe is that it means nothing at all.
Now as to the opininon of other methonds of justice indicated by you, I too disagree with that. O.J. lived his life the way he wanted to do it after the trial, he vacationed, he travelled, he worked, he made money, he had relationships, he did not care what was said or believed about him. He has never nor will he ever pay for the crimes he commited, he hasn’t paid for them legally or socially either. There was no calibration of the scales of justice as you so eloquently say it. He lived his life the way he wanted it. The only reason he sits behing bars today is because he is a criminal, a thief, a bully and he got some justice for that. As of the assasination of Nicole, he was declared innocent, I mean Not Guilty and has been so since 94.
I believe that both OJ and Casey are cold blooded murderes that got away with their crimes thanks to a very weak interpretation of the law.

]]> http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2011/07/justice-for-casey-anthony/#comment-7138 Juan Filgueira Tue, 30 Aug 2011 19:04:14 +0000 http://blog-dev.constitutioncenter.org/?p=5941#comment-7138 I beg to differ Dr. Franks. As much as you might be correct on the interpetation of the law, in this case in particular this system if I may call it like that failed in a level that cannot be measured in any way shape or form. Trying to asses the diference between not guilty and innocent is as productive as one trying to kiss one’s shoulder. It’s of no importance at all if the person was found innocent or not guilty. Despite the ilogical explination of the differences between them, at the end, they’re both the same. There’s no difference between Not Guilty and Innocent, they’re exaclty the same thing. They mean the same thing and the result is the same. Can anyone explain what it means for Caysee, legally speaking to have been found Not guilty as of to being declared innocent? My believe is that it means nothing at all.
Now as to the opininon of other methonds of justice indicated by you, I too disagree with that. O.J. lived his life the way he wanted to do it after the trial, he vacationed, he travelled, he worked, he made money, he had relationships, he did not care what was said or believed about him. He has never nor will he ever pay for the crimes he commited, he hasn’t paid for them legally or socially either. There was no calibration of the scales of justice as you so eloquently say it. He lived his life the way he wanted it. The only reason he sits behing bars today is because he is a criminal, a thief, a bully and he got some justice for that. As of the assasination of Nicole, he was declared innocent, I mean Not Guilty and has been so since 94.
I believe that both OJ and Casey are cold blooded murderes that got away with their crimes thanks to a very weak interpretation of the law.

]]>