PDA

View Full Version : Casey Anthony juror gets it right.




Anti Federalist
07-07-2011, 05:53 PM
In spite of the media Jacobins running around calling for blood, this woman got it right.

Jennifer Ford:


"If they want to charge and they want me to take someone's life, they have to prove it. They have to prove it, or else I'm a murderer too."

Too bad more people don't understand that and understand that applies to the wars as well.

The state is killing in your name and you if permit it and endorse it, you are just as guilty.

Cowlesy
07-07-2011, 05:54 PM
Yep, I heard that on the news this morning, and actually heard Bernard McGuirk (Imus sidekick) agreeing with her statement (shocked me).

This lady did exactly as instructed.

MelissaWV
07-07-2011, 05:56 PM
Yeah, I haven't followed this whole thing, but I did catch her comments. From the bit I've seen the prosecution overreached and simply did not make the case they claimed they would.

I also applaud the fact that just about everyone is now going after her financially for the wild goose chase she led most of the state on.

If only we could do that to the people who are guilty of "lying to the people" (instead of lying to the police) when it comes to the wars, spending, etc..

Pericles
07-07-2011, 05:56 PM
Under our system of justice, there will be cases where the guilty will not be convicted. This is the price we pay to try to prevent the not guilty from being convicted.

Over prosecution is hardly helpful to get to a just decision, either.

Anti Federalist
07-07-2011, 06:01 PM
Under our system of justice, there will be cases where the guilty will not be convicted. This is the price we pay to try to prevent the not guilty from being convicted.

Agreed.

I care not a whit about the guilty going free in the system we have now.

I am far more concerned about the innocent in prison and on death row.

Everybody, ask yourself an honest question:

If the suspect in this killing had been a young black man with a mile long "rap sheet" and not a young, distraught, obviously imbalanced, white girl, would the result have been the same?

trey4sports
07-07-2011, 06:05 PM
I truly believe that Casey killed her daughter, and although i don't think it was premeditated i do believe she has blood on her hands. But with that said, my job is not to decide if she is guilty or innocent, but rather to decide if she is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. To that extent I would have to agree the jurors did the right thing.

muzzled dogg
07-07-2011, 06:08 PM
source?

Napoleon's Shadow
07-07-2011, 06:12 PM
Under our system of justice, there will be cases where the guilty will not be convicted. This is the price we pay to try to prevent the not guilty from being convicted.

Over prosecution is hardly helpful to get to a just decision, either.There is an old axiom - 'better for 10 guilty men to go free than 1 innocent man to be found guilty'

Rothbardian Girl
07-07-2011, 06:17 PM
The quote in my signature means, roughly, "It is better that a crime is left unpunished than an innocent man is punished". Even the ancient Romans understood this, in contrast to all the talking heads on television today. The problem seems to be that too many people watch 24-7 media coverage and become too emotionally invested in the trial, leading to massive amounts of anger when a not-guilty verdict is reached. Hey, I'll even give props to Sean Hannity; I was listening to his coverage of the case on the radio today and he basically said the jury cannot be blamed for the conclusion it reached.

I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that more people cannot understand why the verdict was reached. I'm hoping it will all blow over soon, because it's really a no-brainer... the prosecution didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. I would never defend Casey Anthony's behavior after the disappearance and murder of her child, but that doesn't automatically equate to her guilt. If there is even a shadow of a doubt (there was plenty of that in this case), I would not feel comfortable sending someone to die.

aGameOfThrones
07-07-2011, 06:28 PM
There is an old axiom - 'better for 10 guilty men to go free than 1 innocent man to be found guilty'

William Blackstone.

squarepusher
07-07-2011, 06:31 PM
who searches for chlorform on the internet?

aGameOfThrones
07-07-2011, 06:36 PM
who searches for chlorform on the internet?


Dental students.

MelissaWV
07-07-2011, 06:41 PM
who searches for chlorform on the internet?

After this case? I bet a lot of people typed it in.

I don't even want to think about what my internet searches would look like out of context.

Vessol
07-07-2011, 06:45 PM
Agreed.

I care not a whit about the guilty going free in the system we have now.

I am far more concerned about the innocent in prison and on death row.

Everybody, ask yourself an honest question:

If the suspect in this killing had been a young black man with a mile long "rap sheet" and not a young, distraught, obviously imbalanced, white girl, would the result have been the same?

Judge Napolatano said when asked about this case on Fox News "Better a hundred guilty people go free than one innocent person be imprisoned."


who searches for chlorform on the internet?

I do. I search for a lot of "strange" things on the internet. Not for nefarious purposes, but rather because I like to learn random things.

Kregisen
07-07-2011, 07:11 PM
After this case? I bet a lot of people typed it in.

I don't even want to think about what my internet searches would look like out of context.

I think that's a fair point...if she made 3 google searches in a 1 month period and they happened to be "break neck", "how to make chloroform", "shovel" then that would be some evidence...


If there's 10,000 searches at different times and those 3 happen to be in there, I wouldn't say that says too much.

MelissaWV
07-07-2011, 07:12 PM
I think that's a fair point...if she made 3 google searches in a 1 month period and they happened to be "break neck", "how to make chloroform", "shovel" then that would be some evidence...


If there's 10,000 searches at different times and those 3 happen to be in there, I wouldn't say that says too much.

My last three searches appear to be...

bower bird
vessel sink
hygenic

Philmanoman
07-07-2011, 07:18 PM
who searches for chlorform on the internet?

Holy crap...Ive looked up all kinds of weird stuff up on the internet probably even that a few times just because I was curious about it.

Anti Federalist
07-07-2011, 07:19 PM
source?

Sorry.

Forgot to post.

http://news.yahoo.com/uncertain-future-casey-anthony-acquittal-074549738.html

Brian4Liberty
07-07-2011, 07:26 PM
Excuse the multiple posts of this quote, but it seems to apply to a lot of things:


Here's what they do believe in: they believe in a vast legal system, where all laws are open to debate and litigation. A system where any position can be defended or attacked on a "legal" basis. A system where the most powerful generally get their way, regardless of the letter or intent of the law. A system where anything can be justified. A system which enables power to reside with those with the most knowledge of the law, and how to use and manipulate it. A system where maximum employment is enjoyed for all those who desire to support, sustain and profit from the legal system.

They believe in no law at all, expertly disguised as a society fully enveloped in law.

The Constitution is the worst sort of law for them. It's far too clear, simple and supreme. The best law in their eyes is ambiguous, convoluted, complex and with no priorities at all.

Casey Anthony was a not a powerful person. But the notoriety of her case created an opportunity for some Defense lawyers to prove that they are better than your average Prosecution lawyer (who depends on the deck being stacked in their favor most of the time). An "advertising" dream for the Defense lawyers...

Brian4Liberty
07-07-2011, 07:30 PM
Holy crap...Ive looked up all kinds of weird stuff up on the internet probably even that a few times just because I was curious about it.

Lol! Ain't that the truth.

Rothbardian Girl
07-07-2011, 07:32 PM
who searches for chlorform on the internet?

Even that is lousy evidence, though; how could she have been conclusively linked to that internet search? Anyone could have typed it in.

Brian4Liberty
07-07-2011, 07:53 PM
If the suspect in this killing had been a young black man with a mile long "rap sheet" and not a young, distraught, obviously imbalanced, white girl, would the result have been the same?

Of course he would be convicted.

This trial was about notoriety, which resulted in a powerful Defense team. They raised "doubt". Of course the law usually says "reasonable" doubt, which becomes confusing for people. There is always "doubt". Always. But is it reasonable? If enough semi-reasonable theories are thrown out there, do they carry enough weight to magically add up to a reasonable doubt? For many people, the answer is yes. This effect takes place in almost any debate. The smart defense attorney knows this. They also know that Jury selection is the most important phase of the process.

amy31416
07-07-2011, 08:39 PM
In spite of the media Jacobins running around calling for blood, this woman got it right.

Jennifer Ford:



Too bad more people don't understand that and understand that applies to the wars as well.

The state is killing in your name and you if permit it and endorse it, you are just as guilty.

Holy crap! It's even a woman who understood that. What gives?

tropicangela
07-07-2011, 09:05 PM
Free market & property rights

3,690 people like this on facebook and growing. (http://www.facebook.com/caseyupdates/posts/138128096265867)

A Florida restaurant is showing its displeasure in the Casey Anthony verdict by refusing to serve any jurors from the trial.

Read more: http://www.wesh.com/video/28477236/detail.html#ixzz1RTmP4zxp

specsaregood
07-07-2011, 09:12 PM
Free market & property rights
3,690 people like this on facebook and growing. (http://www.facebook.com/caseyupdates/posts/138128096265867)
A Florida restaurant is showing its displeasure in the Casey Anthony verdict by refusing to serve any jurors from the trial.
Read more: http://www.wesh.com/video/28477236/detail.html#ixzz1RTmP4zxp

Well it appears at least one restaurant owner didn't skip marketing 101.

nelsonwinters
07-07-2011, 09:38 PM
Here's a similar quote from Thomas Jefferson: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

pcosmar
07-07-2011, 10:12 PM
Of course he would be convicted.

This trial was about notoriety, which resulted in a powerful Defense team. They raised "doubt". Of course the law usually says "reasonable" doubt, which becomes confusing for people. There is always "doubt". Always. But is it reasonable? If enough semi-reasonable theories are thrown out there, do they carry enough weight to magically add up to a reasonable doubt? For many people, the answer is yes. This effect takes place in almost any debate. The smart defense attorney knows this. They also know that Jury selection is the most important phase of the process.

Actually the prosecution had no proof of guilt. There was a media campaign of guilt but very little evidence to back it up.
Suspicion and inconclusive, faulty, and circumstantial evidence are not something you hang a 1st degree murder case on.

All the defense did was show that there was no real evidence.
For those that had her convicted on sensational media reporting,, they deserve the butthurt they are feeling.

What part of "Innocent till proven guilty" do folks not understand?

tsai3904
07-07-2011, 10:34 PM
Actually the prosecution had no proof of guilt. There was a media campaign of guilt but very little evidence to back it up.
Suspicion and inconclusive, faulty, and circumstantial evidence are not something you hang a 1st degree murder case on.


Why did the prosecution try this case if there was so little physical evidence? If she really did commit the crime, I find this to be a failure of the system in the sense that the prosecution didn't do it's job in gathering enough evidence to convince a jury.

angelatc
07-07-2011, 10:41 PM
who searches for chlorform on the internet?

How was chloroform even connected to the girl's death?

pcosmar
07-07-2011, 10:47 PM
Why did the prosecution try this case if there was so little physical evidence? .
Political motivations.
it is why Prosecutors exist.

Brian4Liberty
07-07-2011, 11:07 PM
Actually the prosecution had no proof of guilt. There was a media campaign of guilt but very little evidence to back it up.
Suspicion and inconclusive, faulty, and circumstantial evidence are not something you hang a 1st degree murder case on.

All the defense did was show that there was no real evidence.
For those that had her convicted on sensational media reporting,, they deserve the butthurt they are feeling.

What part of "Innocent till proven guilty" do folks not understand?

Well, for multiple reasons the death penalty was not appropriate, so that was a big fail for the prosecution.

Innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. There is always some doubt, and that applies to all evidence. Eye witnesses are often wrong. Fingerprints can be misleading. The biggest piece of evidence was that she hid the fact that her daughter was gone. She was the parent, the custodian, the guardian. This is not something you overlook. Why the lies? If it were an accident, she would report it. Done deal. The girl isn't stupid (according to a friend who was with her almost that whole month she was covering up). The case can be made that the death was not premeditated, but she feared it would be blamed on her. That is essentially the case that the defense made, along with adding a lot of other people to the mix. Just a little FUD added for good measure.

The fact that the government abuses power and that the legal system is often wrong does not make everyone innocent, just like their convictions don't always mean that people are truly guilty.

MaxPower
07-07-2011, 11:27 PM
I understand why people are so angry about this. From what I've heard and read, I feel quite confident that she did kill her daughter, and I think most reasonable people who have been following the case feel the same way. As such, it is no doubt deeply infuriating for someone who has become emotionally-invested in the matter to see her acquitted and set free.

That said, if the prosecution indeed failed to prove her guilt, then no one may blame the jury for their decision.

SimpleName
07-08-2011, 12:11 AM
How interesting is it to see the views here as compared to the general public? Almost every post I've read points to not guilty, at least not by evidence. Strange that the people who are so viciously attacked for rejecting "our way of life" and our "system" are the exact ones standing up for it. As objectively as I possibly can be here, I have to say that libertarians clearly are the most principled, most logically thinking folks on the planet. And it appears that they also are some of the most law-abiding folks. We stick by the law (the constitution) when all others fail to do so.

tangent4ronpaul
07-08-2011, 12:37 AM
Not finding it here, but someone was glee fulling saying they were glad Casey was being billed for / sued for all the time and effort the state put into this.

If anything, I think she should be suing the media. She will never be able to work again, beyond some interviews and a book deal, she will have to spend the rest of her life in hiding. Her life (as well as those of her family) have been destroyed over this.

-t

tropicangela
07-08-2011, 12:43 AM
Wow, great point Tangent. What are the state people who spent time on this case receiving paychecks for again?

MelissaWV
07-08-2011, 04:31 AM
Not finding it here, but someone was glee fulling saying they were glad Casey was being billed for / sued for all the time and effort the state put into this.

If anything, I think she should be suing the media. She will never be able to work again, beyond some interviews and a book deal, she will have to spend the rest of her life in hiding. Her life (as well as those of her family) have been destroyed over this.

-t

I wasn't gleeful, but I said it was a good move.

The people suing her (and I don't understand why people think it's just "the State" suing her) have grounds to do so on the conviction showing that she lied about the nanny and the other stories that led to extensive searches for her daughter.


A Texas organization may sue Casey Anthony to replace the money spent looking for Caylee.

Texas Equusearch says it spent $112,000 looking for the missing toddler.

"We're just looking at all of our options on whether we even really have a lawsuit, and you know, it's for no other then that we (were) lied to, and of course Jose Baez's opening statements were Caylee was never missing, so why did they call us? Why did they put us through all of that? Why did we spend $112,000? Why then did they subpoena all of our records and we spent two weeks with Cheney Mason and Jose Baez going through every one of our records," said Tim Miller, Texas Equusearch.

Anthony was found not guilty of murdering Caylee, but she was convicted of lying to investigators.

She will be released from jail Wednesday after getting credit for time served.

You don't believe a private organization has grounds to go after someone who admits their child was never missing and she was lying about it,even as that organization goes through over $100,000 of resources (that would theoretically go towards another search) to work on the case?


Texas EquuSearch relies on donations. Miller said he owes it to his donors to try and get that money back.

Danke
07-08-2011, 04:32 AM
Holy crap! It's even a woman who understood that. What gives?

Freaks of nature happen. You of all people should understand this.

amy31416
07-08-2011, 04:38 AM
Freaks of nature happen. You of all people should understand this.

I'm enraged! Angry! Pissed! Miffed! Torqued! Peeved! Irked! Offended!

Bah..

MelissaWV
07-08-2011, 04:40 AM
I'm enraged! Angry! Pissed! Miffed! Torqued! Peeved! Irked! Offended!

Bah..

Just like a woman to get all emotional :p

(I am fairly sure most of our regular posters are actually women, based on their emotional responses to events.)

Danke
07-08-2011, 04:41 AM
I'm enraged! Angry! Pissed! Miffed! Torqued! Peeved! Irked! Offended!

Bah..
At whom? Kludge's parents. :D:p :collins:

amy31416
07-08-2011, 04:44 AM
Just like a woman to get all emotional :p

(I am fairly sure most of our regular posters are actually women, based on their emotional responses to events.)


At whom? Kludge's parents. :D:p :collins:

Double bah!

MelissaWV
07-08-2011, 04:46 AM
Double bah!

Don't "bah" me. Your earlier post inspired some cross-pollentation is all.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?302206-Does-Ron-Paul-appeal-to-females/page9

Philhelm
07-08-2011, 06:24 AM
How interesting is it to see the views here as compared to the general public? Almost every post I've read points to not guilty, at least not by evidence. Strange that the people who are so viciously attacked for rejecting "our way of life" and our "system" are the exact ones standing up for it. As objectively as I possibly can be here, I have to say that libertarians clearly are the most principled, most logically thinking folks on the planet. And it appears that they also are some of the most law-abiding folks. We stick by the law (the constitution) when all others fail to do so.

It's because they're INTJ's.

Warrior_of_Freedom
07-08-2011, 06:35 AM
Agreed.

I care not a whit about the guilty going free in the system we have now.

I am far more concerned about the innocent in prison and on death row.

Everybody, ask yourself an honest question:

If the suspect in this killing had been a young black man with a mile long "rap sheet" and not a young, distraught, obviously imbalanced, white girl, would the result have been the same?

Last time I recalled, OJ Simpson was a black man.

pcosmar
07-08-2011, 06:51 AM
Well, for multiple reasons the death penalty was not appropriate, so that was a big fail for the prosecution.

Innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. There is always some doubt, and that applies to all evidence. Eye witnesses are often wrong. Fingerprints can be misleading. The biggest piece of evidence was that she hid the fact that her daughter was gone. She was the parent, the custodian, the guardian. This is not something you overlook. Why the lies? If it were an accident, she would report it. Done deal. The girl isn't stupid (according to a friend who was with her almost that whole month she was covering up). The case can be made that the death was not premeditated, but she feared it would be blamed on her. That is essentially the case that the defense made, along with adding a lot of other people to the mix. Just a little FUD added for good measure.

The fact that the government abuses power and that the legal system is often wrong does not make everyone innocent, just like their convictions don't always mean that people are truly guilty.

She was very likely guilty of being a piss poor mother, and even of being a selfish and shallow individual.
That does not prove in any way that she killed the kid.
A person can be a Horrible person, and still not guilty of the crime that they are charged with.

This failure started with the investigation. It was piss poor, inept police work. Likely because the investigators focused on her and her lifestyle rather than the facts. They tried to make the facts fit their preconceived theory or "gut feeling" that she did it.

That was the same in OJ's case. Focusing on him and trying to make the evidence fit their theory.
Poor investigation and a politically motivated prosecutor. A bad combination every time.

Peace&Freedom
07-08-2011, 07:45 AM
She was very likely guilty of being a piss poor mother, and even of being a selfish and shallow individual.
That does not prove in any way that she killed the kid.
A person can be a Horrible person, and still not guilty of the crime that they are charged with.

This failure started with the investigation. It was piss poor, inept police work. Likely because the investigators focused on her and her lifestyle rather than the facts. They tried to make the facts fit their preconceived theory or "gut feeling" that she did it.

That was the same in OJ's case. Focusing on him and trying to make the evidence fit their theory.
Poor investigation and a politically motivated prosecutor. A bad combination every time.

In the OJ case, presuming no evidence manipulation on this point, police found OJ's blood at the scene, and his wife's blood in his truck and at his house. It was a bit more serious than a make the evidence fit the theory situation. Perhaps they stretched and tried to make ALL the data fit and failed to, hence the acquittal.

RonPaulFanInGA
07-08-2011, 07:55 AM
It's sad because, there will never be anyone else tried because the murderer walked. Like with O.J. Simpson; no one else was ever tried for the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman. Apparently no one killed them.

acptulsa
07-08-2011, 08:10 AM
A Florida restaurant is showing its displeasure in the Casey Anthony verdict by refusing to serve any jurors from the trial.

I wish I was in competition with these idiots. I'd beat them like a drum by refusing to serve the prosecution team and investigators.

The jury did their job. It isn't their place to make up for the prosecution's incompetence.

TonySutton
07-08-2011, 08:16 AM
There is an old axiom - 'better for 10 guilty men to go free than 1 innocent man to be found guilty'

That is from William Blackstone

aGameOfThrones
07-08-2011, 08:17 AM
Free market & property rights

3,690 people like this on facebook and growing. (http://www.facebook.com/caseyupdates/posts/138128096265867)

A Florida restaurant is showing its displeasure in the Casey Anthony verdict by refusing to serve any jurors from the trial.

Read more: http://www.wesh.com/video/28477236/detail.html#ixzz1RTmP4zxp

They will make great lynch mob participants.

affa
07-08-2011, 09:46 AM
Well, for multiple reasons the death penalty was not appropriate, so that was a big fail for the prosecution.

Innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. There is always some doubt, and that applies to all evidence. Eye witnesses are often wrong. Fingerprints can be misleading. The biggest piece of evidence was that she hid the fact that her daughter was gone. She was the parent, the custodian, the guardian. This is not something you overlook. Why the lies? If it were an accident, she would report it. Done deal. The girl isn't stupid (according to a friend who was with her almost that whole month she was covering up). The case can be made that the death was not premeditated, but she feared it would be blamed on her. That is essentially the case that the defense made, along with adding a lot of other people to the mix. Just a little FUD added for good measure.

The fact that the government abuses power and that the legal system is often wrong does not make everyone innocent, just like their convictions don't always mean that people are truly guilty.

lying is not murder.

affa
07-08-2011, 09:51 AM
I understand why people are so angry about this. From what I've heard and read, I feel quite confident that she did kill her daughter, and I think most reasonable people who have been following the case feel the same way.

But you're seeing everything through the filter of the media, who were convicting her on a daily basis. That also means they could easily have been leaving out / not covering any detail which created doubt, or even evidence that she might not have done it.

I didn't even know about this case till a few days ago. I have very little background on it. But I know this -- twelve people (more, if you count the alternates) unanimously decided her not guilty. They are the ones who sat through all the evidence, and all the arguments. A jury will not always get it right, but, in general, I trust them more than I trust someone who watched it via newsbites.

And, actually, the jury gets it wrong enough (when the innocent are convicted) that I don't even like having to defend them here.

Brian4Liberty
07-08-2011, 10:07 AM
lying is not murder.

A dead girl is. How did she die?

pcosmar
07-08-2011, 10:16 AM
A dead girl is. How did she die?
Good question.
One that investigators should have answered BEFORE charges were brought.

The Media and the prosecutor should have kept their mouths shut till that could be answered.

As it is the child could have died by accident or been killed by someone else. Faulty prosecution and faulty investigation will not answer that.
Justifying Faulty Investigation and Prosecution will not answer that question.

Charging someone for Deliberate Premeditated Murder without facts to prove it is not an answer.

amy31416
07-08-2011, 10:21 AM
The only thing I've learned for certain from all of this trial hullabaloo is that it'd probably be very unwise to hire her as a babysitter.

acptulsa
07-08-2011, 10:22 AM
Charging someone for Deliberate Premeditated Murder without facts to prove it is not an answer.

Neither is trying her in the Court of Public Opinion. And trying and convicting the jury, as one Florida restauranteur is doing, is most certainly not the answer.

Boycotting any media outlet that covers a trial before it's over sure has merits, though. Too bad it's so extraordinarily unlikely to happen, isn't it?

Brian4Liberty
07-08-2011, 10:33 AM
As it is the child could have died by accident or been killed by someone else.

Why didn't the mother acknowledge this considerably less than trivial occurrence?

daviddee
07-08-2011, 10:39 AM
...

daviddee
07-08-2011, 10:42 AM
...

pcosmar
07-08-2011, 10:47 AM
Why didn't the mother acknowledge this considerably less than trivial occurrence?

I have no idea, but can think of several possible reasons.

Why did the Prosecutor charge her with premeditated Murder and seek the Death Penalty when he had no evidence to support that charge?

It would have been easy to make a case for neglect. But that doesn't have the media impact.

She was not being charged with being a "bad Mother". She was being charged with deliberately murdering the child.

It could have been an accident, and the coverup out of fear(rightly so).
It could have been someone else killed her, and the coverup out of either fear or loyalty.
The focus was on her and other possibilities were ignored by investigators and Prosecution.

There was no evidence for the Charge.
There is (from what I have heard) evidence of neglect,,but that was not the charge.

AuH20
07-08-2011, 10:47 AM
Explain to me how the jurors missed these two charges.

Count Two, Aggravated Child Abuse: The maximum penalty for aggravated child is 15 years in prison. The estimated minimum sentence for this charge and other charges which might result in conviction along with this count would be 12 years, 1 month.

Count Three, Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child: If Casey Anthony is convicted of causing the death of Caylee by culpable negligence the maximum sentence is 30 years in prison. The estimated minimum sentence for this charge and other charges which might result in conviction along with this count would be 16 years and 6 months.

We talking about clueless idiots that epitomize the conditioning of the state. Yes, Casey we believe you that no malfeasance was involved when searching for the term "chloroform" on the Google search engine. No, it wasn't strange at all that your father commented that something may have died in the car, due to the unbearable stench. No, it wasn't peculiar that the corpse of Caylee was found with personal belongings like a baby blanket. I'm sure the serial killer who dropped off the body nearby your house made sure to they grabbed Caylee's personal belongings for the purpose of creating a sentimental crime scene. No, Casey it's perfectly normal to act flippantly to news of your 2 year old daughter's appearance for roughly a month, as if you lost your cell phone.

Brian4Liberty
07-08-2011, 10:51 AM
A few scenarios.

1. She is a pathological liar. Pathological liars do not instantly see the light and say, "Hey, it was an accident. Maybe now would be a great time to stop lying and admit this was an accident".

2. She is -not- a pathological liar and was actually trying to cover up another, lesser, crime. Like say accidental poisoning/overdose.

3. She is a RPF reader and knows full well what happens when you introduce law enforcement into your life.

Must be option 3! :) (But she could have told other people).

Pathological liars and sociopaths are not stupid. That seems to be one of the "doubts" that the defense raised. IMHO, it's not "reasonable". I heard an hour interview with one of her friends yesterday, and he gave a pretty good description of her mentality. She was just another Scott Peterson.

Option 2 is within reasonable doubt. It was not premeditated, but it was something she thought she might take the blame for. That is why the death penalty was not appropriate.

Brian4Liberty
07-08-2011, 10:55 AM
Why did the Prosecutor charge her with premeditated Murder and seek the Death Penalty when he had no evidence to support that charge?


Because he was an incompetent boob that depends on the deck being heavily stacked in his favor, and he was also grandstanding for the media and public to further his career?

Romulus
07-08-2011, 10:57 AM
I truly believe that Casey killed her daughter, and although i don't think it was premeditated i do believe she has blood on her hands. But with that said, my job is not to decide if she is guilty or innocent, but rather to decide if she is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. To that extent I would have to agree the jurors did the right thing.

what little knowledge I have of the case, I thought that she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Is there anyone, with all of the circumstantial evidence, that believes she is innocent?

pcosmar
07-08-2011, 10:58 AM
Explain to me how the jurors missed these two charges.

Because the State had NO EVIDENCE.
An accusation is not evidence. A suspicion is NOT evidence.

The State (investigators & Prosecution) Failed. They brought charges they had NO evidence of.

daviddee
07-08-2011, 11:04 AM
...

pcosmar
07-08-2011, 11:07 AM
what little knowledge I have of the case, I thought that she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Is there anyone, with all of the circumstantial evidence, that believes she is innocent?

I believe she was innocent of the charge. 1st Degree Murder. A planned and premeditated deliberate murder.

She was likely guilty of other things, but that was the main charge.

Covering up a accidental death is NOT 1st degree murder.
killing someone by being stupid or irresponsible, is NOT 1st degree murder.
Covering up the murder by someone else is NOT 1st degree murder.

Being a irresponsible person, a liar, or mentally disturbed is not 1st degree murder.

She was charged with 1st Degree Murder. There was no evidence of that.

AuH20
07-08-2011, 11:09 AM
Because the State had NO EVIDENCE.
An accusation is not evidence. A suspicion is NOT evidence.

The State (investigators & Prosecution) Failed. They brought charges they had NO evidence of.

I find that hard to believe. There was more than enough circumstantial evidence to nail her on either aggravated manslaughter or aggravated child abuse. It was a slam dunk as a collection of evidence. Not every case has the luxury of discovering a bloody murder weapon with the defendant's name on it.

pcosmar
07-08-2011, 11:13 AM
I find that hard to believe. There was more than enough circumstantial evidence to nail her on either aggravated manslaughter or aggravated child abuse. It was a slam dunk as a collection of evidence. Not every case has the luxury of discovering a bloody murder weapon with the defendant's name on it.

12 people looked at all the evidence presented in court, without the media spin and hype.
They disagreed.

acptulsa
07-08-2011, 11:14 AM
I find that hard to believe. There was more than enough circumstantial evidence to nail her on either aggravated manslaughter or aggravated child abuse. It was a slam dunk as a collection of evidence. Not every case has the luxury of discovering a bloody murder weapon with the defendant's name on it.

Circumstancial evidence is a hard thing to send someone to death on, and a jury can only convict someone on charges that are actually brought against the defendant.

AuH20
07-08-2011, 11:17 AM
12 people looked at all the evidence presented in court, without the media spin and hype.
They disagreed.

It was a travesty and a testament to the subservient nature running through this populace. Do what the lawyer outlines. The jurors sure as hell did that because they're dumb as bricks. Of course, there wasn't any tangible evidence to produce a murder charge, but the circumstantial evidence as an entire narrative was overwhelming in terms of a manslaughter coverup or child abuse.

pcosmar
07-08-2011, 11:38 AM
but the circumstantial evidence as an entire narrative was overwhelming in terms of a manslaughter coverup or child abuse.

But that was not the charge, nor was it what the jury was deciding.
She was charged with Premeditated Murder.

It does NOT MATTER what the jury thought beyond that. This was a 1st degree Murder case. The jury has to decide on that. Not on some other charge of their choosing.
They found her Not Guilty AS CHARGED.

Brian4Liberty
07-08-2011, 11:46 AM
I lean towards Option #2 as I live in Florida and I know the mindset of "good time girls"... Especially in the Orlando and Tampa area.

I believe the scenario is a simple one: She used to give the kid pieces of Xanax to get her to sleep the night and she could go out and party. I believe she did love the kid as shown in all of the photos (huge smiles), but she was also young and still liked to party. She ran out of Xanax and tried Chloroform. She killed the kid by accident. This is no different than the parents who give their kids cough syrup to "get them to sleep" or a swipe of whiskey on the gums in the old days to "ease teething". She fucked up and killed the kid.

If she had an abortion and killed the kid a long time ago she would have gotten no charges. So this is an almost an alignment of penalties. Kill the kid intentionally before it is born = no charges. Accidentally kill the kid after it is born = Murder 1?

The prosecution totally screwed up. They should have charged her with child neglect, had her cop plea, she would have done 4 to 5 years. Instead they go for Murder 1 (which it wasn't), waste millions of dollars, and she receives a few years... for lying to pigs.

No one can really say what the penalty should be in cases like these. Guilt does not end when your prison sentence is over.

Yeah, there is reasonable doubt that can be raised when it comes to the premeditated (death penalty) murder charge. Although even if it was an accident, the remorseless and sorrowless cover-up point to a classic sociopath.

Romulus
07-08-2011, 11:58 AM
I believe she was innocent of the charge. 1st Degree Murder. A planned and premeditated deliberate murder.

She was likely guilty of other things, but that was the main charge.

Covering up a accidental death is NOT 1st degree murder.
killing someone by being stupid or irresponsible, is NOT 1st degree murder.
Covering up the murder by someone else is NOT 1st degree murder.

Being a irresponsible person, a liar, or mentally disturbed is not 1st degree murder.

She was charged with 1st Degree Murder. There was no evidence of that.

I dont disagree with that..

it think the jury should have been able to charge her on other charges then... what do I know..

tropicangela
07-08-2011, 03:47 PM
I thought she committed this crime by not getting her medical attention at the time of the supposed drowning, and by not reporting her dead body which caused permanent disfigurement (decomposition.)

(b) A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects a child and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

http://statutes.laws.com/florida/TitleXLVI/chapter827/827_03

tropicangela
07-08-2011, 03:53 PM
The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, “Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” The state is forever barred from prosecuting Casey Anthony for any of the offenses arising from the charges contained in the indictment. Child neglect charges would be charges arising from the charges contained in the indictment. -- Judge O.H. Eaton

Read more: http://www.wesh.com/casey-anthony-extended-coverage/28464719/detail.html#ixzz1RYMOE6HV

MelissaWV
07-08-2011, 04:18 PM
I find that hard to believe. There was more than enough circumstantial evidence to nail her on either aggravated manslaughter or aggravated child abuse. It was a slam dunk as a collection of evidence. Not every case has the luxury of discovering a bloody murder weapon with the defendant's name on it.

It was such a slam dunk that they don't even have a definitive cause of death.

The focus of the case did not appear to be child abuse, which they could have honed in on and had a much better chance of getting her put away on. If it had been, though, the defense would have argued that her oh-so-abusive parents were the ones responsible for anything that happened to the child.

The case just did not contain all the pieces --- even the big pieces --- to convict her of the charges at hand.

Golding
07-08-2011, 05:33 PM
what little knowledge I have of the case, I thought that she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Is there anyone, with all of the circumstantial evidence, that believes she is innocent?Part of the limitation may be the little knowledge you have of the case, I think. By watching the case peripherally, reading and watching the way news reported on the case, one would have thought Casey Anthony was arrested while holding her daughter's decapitated head in one hand and a bloodied knife in the other.

Circumstantial evidence is not by itself proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. There is no such thing as "overwhelming circumstantial evidence". Circumstantial evidence is properly used as an adjunct to direct evidence, which is something that the prosecution appeared to lack. That's why they were foolish to pursue a first degree murder charge, as has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread. While the prosecution painted a nice picture with the circumstantial evidence they had, Casey's mother demonstrated the flaws of such evidence by providing alternative innocent reasons that "chloroform" and "neck breaking" showed up on their computer's searching history. Part of why people are eager to declare Casey Anthony a murderer, in my opinion, is because a female sociopath is something that the public has already been exposed to (even if not as often as male sociopaths). Casey Anthony shows more signs, in my opinion, of criminal neglect. I think that people have less of an understanding of how anyone can be so neglectful to not report their child missing for a month, even if it does seem to better explain things than "she murdered her child".

AFPVet
07-08-2011, 05:59 PM
Holy crap...Ive looked up all kinds of weird stuff up on the internet probably even that a few times just because I was curious about it.

I have too... gotta be careful though. The systems like to look for patterns in what you search for. Luckily, the computers would only conclude that I really like muscle cars and academic research material lol.

tangent4ronpaul
07-08-2011, 07:33 PM
Part of the limitation may be the little knowledge you have of the case, I think. By watching the case peripherally, reading and watching the way news reported on the case, one would have thought Casey Anthony was arrested while holding her daughter's decapitated head in one hand and a bloodied knife in the other.



http://www.trepaning.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/alice.jpg

Couldn't find the original artwork with blood dripping off the knife...

-t

tangent4ronpaul
07-08-2011, 07:41 PM
I lean towards Option #2 as I live in Florida and I know the mindset of "good time girls"... Especially in the Orlando and Tampa area.

I believe the scenario is a simple one: She used to give the kid pieces of Xanax to get her to sleep the night and she could go out and party. I believe she did love the kid as shown in all of the photos (huge smiles), but she was also young and still liked to party. She ran out of Xanax and tried Chloroform. She killed the kid by accident. This is no different than the parents who give their kids cough syrup to "get them to sleep" or a swipe of whiskey on the gums in the old days to "ease teething". She fucked up and killed the kid.

If she had an abortion and killed the kid a long time ago she would have gotten no charges. So this is an almost an alignment of penalties. Kill the kid intentionally before it is born = no charges. Accidentally kill the kid after it is born = Murder 1?

The prosecution totally screwed up. They should have charged her with child neglect, had her cop plea, she would have done 4 to 5 years. Instead they go for Murder 1 (which it wasn't), waste millions of dollars, and she receives a few years... for lying to pigs.

No one can really say what the penalty should be in cases like these. Guilt does not end when your prison sentence is over.

And her sentence won't end when she's released from prison.

Assume for a moment that she is completely innocent or it was an accidental death.

She has lost her child.
She's been held in solitary confinement for 3 years, which is known to drive people crazy.
She's just had the threat of loosing her life lifted from her shoulders and has been dealing with that for 3 years.
She's getting a steady stream of death threats.
Her life has been destroyed.

She's now going into hiding and her defense team is going to get her psychiatric help because the system turned her into a basket case.

-t

AFPVet
07-08-2011, 08:00 PM
And her sentence won't end when she's released from prison.

Assume for a moment that she is completely innocent or it was an accidental death.

She has lost her child.
She's been held in solitary confinement for 3 years, which is known to drive people crazy.
She's just had the threat of loosing her life lifted from her shoulders and has been dealing with that for 3 years.
She's getting a steady stream of death threats.
Her life has been destroyed.

She's now going into hiding and her defense team is going to get her psychiatric help because the system turned her into a basket case.

-t

... and she must live with the choices that she made. There are still a lot of disconcerting facts about the case which justify what she is going to have to face. No person in their right mind would let their daughter drown (unsupervised) and dispose of her body following the drowning. Yes, there may have been others involved, but she knew what happened and did not cooperate during the investigation. This is simple negligent homicide—not murder.

MelissaWV
07-08-2011, 08:11 PM
"I always wanted to adopt a baby or child from another country -- is it selfish to want one from Ireland? Accent and all?”

...

"I had a dream not too long ago that I was pregnant," Anthony wrote to another inmate. "It was like having Cays all over again." People Magazine added that Anthony, in the 250-plus handwritten pages, also wrote about her life behind bars and her hopes for freedom.

The letter was released last year and takes on new meaning now that Casey's close to being set free after she was acquitted Tuesday of murdering her 2-year-old daughter Caylee. "I've thought about adopting, which even sounds weird to me saying it, but there are so many children that deserve to be loved," Anthony wrote to inmate Robyn Adams while at Florida's Orlando County Jail. "Let's make a deal? Let's get pregnant together?"

She is cuckoo. That doesn't make her guilty of 1st degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, but let's not go painting her as a suffering dutiful mommy.

Brett85
07-08-2011, 08:28 PM
I'm not exactly sure how it wasn't "proven" that Caylee Anthony didn't kill her daughter. She obviously did, and there have been people convicted of murder in cases where there was much less evidence than this. There have even been cases where people have been convicted of murder even though no body was actually found.

tangent4ronpaul
07-08-2011, 08:56 PM
I'm not exactly sure how it wasn't "proven" that Caylee Anthony didn't kill her daughter. She obviously did, and there have been people convicted of murder in cases where there was much less evidence than this. There have even been cases where people have been convicted of murder even though no body was actually found.

It is not the Defenses job to prove that she didn't do it, it's the prosecutions job to prove that she did. That is our legal system. The prosecution couldn't prove that she did it so she is NOT GUILTY!

-t

Brett85
07-08-2011, 09:11 PM
It is not the Defenses job to prove that she didn't do it, it's the prosecutions job to prove that she did. That is our legal system. The prosecution couldn't prove that she did it so she is NOT GUILTY!

-t

Proof that she did it:

1) She didn't report it for 31 days.
2) She went out and had the time of her life for those 31 days with no regard for her missing child.
3) She looked up different ways to kill her child on the internet. (Chloroform, neck breaking, etc)
4) Duct tape was found over Caylee's mouth, which proved that it was a murder rather than an accident.
5) Casey lied repeatedly to investigators, coming up with absurd claims such as leaving Caylee with a nanny named "Zanny."

affa
07-08-2011, 09:37 PM
A dead girl is. How did she die?

that's for the justice system to determine, correct?

but my point is that I can lie a hundred times about a murder, and still not be the murderer. so i repeat: lying is not murder.

tangent4ronpaul
07-08-2011, 09:45 PM
Proof that she did it:

1) She didn't report it for 31 days.
2) She went out and had the time of her life for those 31 days with no regard for her missing child.
3) She looked up different ways to kill her child on the internet. (Chloroform, neck breaking, etc)
4) Duct tape was found over Caylee's mouth, which proved that it was a murder rather than an accident.
5) Casey lied repeatedly to investigators, coming up with absurd claims such as leaving Caylee with a nanny named "Zanny."

:rolleyes:
1) does not prove guilt. Bad judgement, yes, but not guilt.
2) she continued her usual routine in following month, and this appears to only be weekends.
3) she looked up part of the Facebook username of someone she had met and was considering dating to find out what it meant (chloroform) and looked up neck breaking in relationship to martial arts. No evidence of chloroform being used was proven and calee's neck was not broken.
4) duct tape was found near Caylee's mouth and like her remains that got spread around, could have been from a different source - there was a lot of dumped trash in the area and the weather/water was mixing everything up real good. No duct tape was found where Casey lived in the police searches. Forensics experts were unable to prove that it had ever been attached to the child.
5) Casey continued the lies that kept her parents out of her hair about supervision of the child that let her go out at night.

I guess you watched even less of the trial than I did. Or did you get all your info from Judge Judy spinning and serving up what she wanted you t think. Did you watch any of the actual trial? It was all streamed and all the video is archived and available to watch.

-t

acptulsa
07-08-2011, 10:01 PM
I'm not exactly sure how it wasn't "proven" that Caylee Anthony didn't kill her daughter.

It's proven beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt that Caylee Anthony didn't kill her daughter because Caylee Anthony died long before she achieved puberty. Which makes it hard to take the rest of the post seriously. Especially when the Constitution calls for the prosecution, when they charge someone with premeditated murder, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony did kill her daughter. That's what seperates courts of law from lynch mobs.

affa
07-08-2011, 10:03 PM
Proof that she did it:

1) She didn't report it for 31 days.
2) She went out and had the time of her life for those 31 days with no regard for her missing child.
3) She looked up different ways to kill her child on the internet. (Chloroform, neck breaking, etc)
4) Duct tape was found over Caylee's mouth, which proved that it was a murder rather than an accident.
5) Casey lied repeatedly to investigators, coming up with absurd claims such as leaving Caylee with a nanny named "Zanny."


you do realize that none of that is 'proof', correct?

Rothbardian Girl
07-08-2011, 10:37 PM
you do realize that none of that is 'proof', correct?

++ I was going to post the same thing, but didn't want to come off as sounding "trollish". I am wondering when this topic is going to be dead.

tangent4ronpaul
07-09-2011, 05:32 AM
Why do you wish the topic to be "dead"????

Brooklyn Red Leg
07-09-2011, 06:26 AM
Agreed.

I care not a whit about the guilty going free in the system we have now.

I am far more concerned about the innocent in prison and on death row.

Everybody, ask yourself an honest question:

If the suspect in this killing had been a young black man with a mile long "rap sheet" and not a young, distraught, obviously imbalanced, white girl, would the result have been the same?

Argh! Double Argh! Triple Argh! I can't rep you. :(

newbitech
07-09-2011, 06:48 AM
Proof that she did it:

1) She didn't report it for 31 days.
2) She went out and had the time of her life for those 31 days with no regard for her missing child.
3) She looked up different ways to kill her child on the internet. (Chloroform, neck breaking, etc)
4) Duct tape was found over Caylee's mouth, which proved that it was a murder rather than an accident.
5) Casey lied repeatedly to investigators, coming up with absurd claims such as leaving Caylee with a nanny named "Zanny."


I was curious about point 4 as I'd like a better idea of how this child died. Apparently, the state medical examiner didn't even bother to examine the interior of the skull which would have shown evidence of suffocation by the duct tape.

This is why they didn't get a conviction. I'd be willing to bet that the state medical examiner DID examine the interior of the skull looking for this evidence, and when she didn't find that evidence that suffocation occurred, they decided to leave it up to the jury to assume it was the duct tape.

See that bullshit right there is how state prosecutors "play the game" with juries. The evidence did not support the conclusion, so just pretend like you didn't look for the evidence and the jury and the general public will probably not have the knowledge to realize that duct tape on the skull doesn't automatically point to the cause of death.

That particular circumstance was blown out of the water since the evidence shows reasonable doubt the tape was NOT the cause of death. Not guilty of murder by duct tape!

pcosmar
07-09-2011, 07:17 AM
I'm not exactly sure how it wasn't "proven" that Caylee Anthony didn't kill her daughter. She obviously did, and there have been people convicted of murder in cases where there was much less evidence than this. There have even been cases where people have been convicted of murder even though no body was actually found.

There have been people convicted of murder that were completely and entirely innocent.
I knew one. He was in Jeff City 6 months sentenced to Life in Prison. Convicted by a jury.
He did not do it. Had NOTHING to do with it. Was just walking down a street , was arrested and tried for a murder he did not commit.

The real killers got arrested for another crime and ended up snitching on each other.
I was on the yard when the Federal Marshals came and escorted him out.

It happens,,way too often.
:mad:

Brett85
07-09-2011, 08:42 AM
:rolleyes:
1) does not prove guilt. Bad judgement, yes, but not guilt.

I think it proves more than just bad judgement. If she was innocent, I don't see any reason at all that she wouldn't have called 9-11 right away. But either way, I'm not terribly upset about this verdict. This is just one out of about 50 million babies/children that have been murdered over the last 40 years. If Casey Anthony had killed Caylee in the womb over two years earlier, it would've been perfectly legal, and she would've been praised for making a "courageous decision."

MelissaWV
07-09-2011, 10:00 AM
I think it proves more than just bad judgement. If she was innocent, I don't see any reason at all that she wouldn't have called 9-11 right away. But either way, I'm not terribly upset about this verdict. This is just one out of about 50 million babies/children that have been murdered over the last 40 years. If Casey Anthony had killed Caylee in the womb over two years earlier, it would've been perfectly legal, and she would've been praised for making a "courageous decision."

It depends. If she had the impression that she could get away with it (had help disposing of the accidentally-dead body, etc.) and continue her life, I doubt she would call 9-1-1. She's a selfish brat. I think that's been pretty well established. Being selfish =/= being a murderer.

Brian4Liberty
07-09-2011, 10:36 AM
It depends. If she had the impression that she could get away with it (had help disposing of the accidentally-dead body, etc.) and continue her life, I doubt she would call 9-1-1. She's a selfish brat. I think that's been pretty well established. Being selfish =/= being a murderer.

Why would anyone intentionally turn an obvious accident into a murder scenario?

MelissaWV
07-09-2011, 10:42 AM
Why would anyone intentionally turn an obvious accident into a murder scenario?

I don't get what you mean by "murder scenario." Do you mean that by not calling the police she made herself seem more guilty? If she'd been thinking that clearly, she would likely have been the complete and utter psychopath people have tried to make her out to be, ironically enough.

There are people who confess to crimes they could not possibly have done.

There are people who bring their dead babies home to spend time with the family.

There are people who cut themselves rather than deal with physical pain.

There are people who harm their own children in order to garner attention for themselves.

I don't think, in that world, it's a huge stretch to say that there are people who would, given the threat of their freedom being taken away for an "accident," would not dial 9-1-1 and would try to sustain a lie in order to look completely innocent rather than guilty of being a bad mom.

You'd have to prove it to me beyond a reasonable doubt that she actually killed her child. They did not even prove manslaughter, since they could not provide a cause of death, nor even exclude the defense's theoretical cause of death.

When you say "that lady killed someone, but I don't know how that someone died, and my damning evidence actually doesn't seem to have had anything to do with what little we know about the means of that death," you sound kind of dumb, no?

Brian4Liberty
07-09-2011, 10:50 AM
Turning a non-crime into a crime, why would anyone do that? She was not stupid, according to her friends.

acptulsa
07-09-2011, 10:52 AM
Turning a non-crime into a crime, why would anyone do that? She was not stupid, according to her friends.

Smart people do stupid things every day.

MelissaWV
07-09-2011, 10:53 AM
Turning a non-crime into a crime, why would anyone do that? She was not stupid, according to her friends.

When I watch television, and someone's kid drowns because they weren't watching them, there seems to be a bit of a witch hunt to find those parents. If you watch crime dramas, sometimes it even leads to jail time.

I would take whatever her friends (I assume that's some of them dancing drunk in their short skirts around her at clubs?) say with a little grain of salt. Palin's friends swear she is a wholesome, liberty-loving, intelligent lady.

Brian4Liberty
07-09-2011, 11:07 AM
When I watch television, and someone's kid drowns because they weren't watching them, there seems to be a bit of a witch hunt to find those parents. If you watch crime dramas, sometimes it even leads to jail time.

I would take whatever her friends (I assume that's some of them dancing drunk in their short skirts around her at clubs?) say with a little grain of salt. Palin's friends swear she is a wholesome, liberty-loving, intelligent lady.

Usually people are concerned about resuscitation in drowning accidents. "Obvious" accidents do not need cover-ups. Others, like the common "shaken baby" accident might make someone decide to cover-up.

Most of my knowledge of the details came from a hour long interview with the male roommate of Casey's boyfriend. She was at their house almost every day during the famous thirty days of denial.

Rothbardian Girl
07-09-2011, 11:10 AM
Why do you wish the topic to be "dead"????
Well, I mean, it seems fairly obvious why the verdict was reached. I don't want to sit here and re-type everything that has been said, but the way the evidence was presented led to the not-guilty verdict. It seems like the prosecutors thought they had this conviction in the bag and skipped over important details and procedures in the case.

Others here have made very insightful posts that basically clear up the debate for me. I'm sure Casey Anthony will be ostracized wherever she goes if enough people feel she is guilty. While I'm not a huge fan of "lynch-mob/vigilante justice" on flimsy evidence such as what happened in this case, I would assume it works pretty well.

Anti Federalist
07-09-2011, 11:14 AM
No kidding, way too often.


There have been people convicted of murder that were completely and entirely innocent.
I knew one. He was in Jeff City 6 months sentenced to Life in Prison. Convicted by a jury.
He did not do it. Had NOTHING to do with it. Was just walking down a street , was arrested and tried for a murder he did not commit.

The real killers got arrested for another crime and ended up snitching on each other.
I was on the yard when the Federal Marshals came and escorted him out.

It happens,,way too often.
:mad:

pcosmar
07-09-2011, 11:38 AM
Most of my knowledge of the details came from a hour long interview with the male roommate of Casey's boyfriend. She was at their house almost every day during the famous thirty days of denial.
in other words,
"hearsay"

At best hearsay, but also possibly one of those not fully investigated, as possibly connected to the death.
And how did you hear this "Hearsay" ? The Media? Why? (it is not admissible in court for good reason)
What was his involvement in the attempted coverup?
Did the boyfriend kill the kid? Were they threatening her to not call and report it?
Who investigated his story?

You see,,, this raises more questions than it answers.

MelissaWV
07-09-2011, 11:46 AM
Usually people are concerned about resuscitation in drowning accidents. "Obvious" accidents do not need cover-ups. Others, like the common "shaken baby" accident might make someone decide to cover-up.

Most of my knowledge of the details came from a hour long interview with the male roommate of Casey's boyfriend. She was at their house almost every day during the famous thirty days of denial.

Consider a scenario based on pure speculation, yet that would fit with her lifestyle.

Mommy's in a stupor after being on a bender. Drugs/alcohol are involved. She's "dead to the world."

At some point grandma leaves the screen door open or else Mommy did when she sneaked in at night, staggering, generally too wasted to be bothered. Maybe Mommy had some company at the time.

Hours and hours and hours later, when Mommy wakes up from her astoundingly bad hangover, there's a dead child who has been dead for quite some time. There's nothing that can be done to change that, and it's Mommy's fault for all of the aforementioned.

Is that even manslaughter? Yet is it enough to freak the person in question out, and set off a chain of lies that continued in perpetuity as she tries to get out of jail time by accusing everyone she can think of?

Brooklyn Red Leg
07-09-2011, 11:56 AM
Palin's friends swear she is a wholesome, liberty-loving, intelligent lady.

Yea? I'm Napoleon Bonaparte if Palin is a wholesome, liberty-loving, intelligent lady. :D

Brian4Liberty
07-09-2011, 12:00 PM
in other words,
"hearsay"

At best hearsay, but also possibly one of those not fully investigated, as possibly connected to the death.
And how did you hear this "Hearsay" ? The Media? Why? (it is not admissible in court for good reason)
What was his involvement in the attempted coverup?
Did the boyfriend kill the kid? Were they threatening her to not call and report it?
Who investigated his story?

You see,,, this raises more questions than it answers.

It was a post-trial radio interview, so they talked about many aspects of the trial. He testified at the trial, and he followed it closely (makes sense in his case). He had never seen the child, and even jokingly accused Casey of not really having one, since she was at their house every day with no sign of a kid.

Brian4Liberty
07-09-2011, 12:07 PM
Consider a scenario based on pure speculation, yet that would fit with her lifestyle.

Mommy's in a stupor after being on a bender. Drugs/alcohol are involved. She's "dead to the world."

At some point grandma leaves the screen door open or else Mommy did when she sneaked in at night, staggering, generally too wasted to be bothered. Maybe Mommy had some company at the time.

Hours and hours and hours later, when Mommy wakes up from her astoundingly bad hangover, there's a dead child who has been dead for quite some time. There's nothing that can be done to change that, and it's Mommy's fault for all of the aforementioned.

Is that even manslaughter? Yet is it enough to freak the person in question out, and set off a chain of lies that continued in perpetuity as she tries to get out of jail time by accusing everyone she can think of?

I'm not a lawyer (but I play one on the internet) ;), so I don't know that there would be a charge for that scenario. People are found dead in the morning quite often of natural causes, so it it wouldn't seem to be a situation where anyone would get charged with anything.

tangent4ronpaul
07-09-2011, 04:02 PM
Is that even manslaughter? Yet is it enough to freak the person in question out, and set off a chain of lies that continued in perpetuity as she tries to get out of jail time by accusing everyone she can think of?

Something like this seems most likely - with or without the hangover. You know, "good the kids napping - I can get some me time - lets do a marathon call the the bf"...

ForLiberty2012
07-09-2011, 05:15 PM
Well you surely can't prove her innocent either.... she was murdered that means someone is responsible. Who did it?

MelissaWV
07-09-2011, 05:19 PM
Well you surely can't prove her innocent either.... she was murdered that means someone is responsible. Who did it?

There are many crimes where you do not have enough evidence to prove someone is guilty of it. That doesn't mean the crime did not occur.

tangent4ronpaul
07-09-2011, 05:38 PM
Well you surely can't prove her innocent either.... she was murdered that means someone is responsible. Who did it?

The coroners summary read: "Homicide, cause of death unknown".

That's an oxymoron, in case you didn't catch it. They made quite clear during the trial that it was unknown if she was murdered.

No one has to prove they are innocent, the prosecution has to prove you are guilty.

-t

osan
07-09-2011, 08:59 PM
Under our system of justice, there will be cases where the guilty will not be convicted. This is the price we pay to try to prevent the not guilty from being convicted.

Over prosecution is hardly helpful to get to a just decision, either.

Better we see every guilty man go free than see a single innocent man punished.