Casey Anthony Found Not Guilty On Main Murder Charges!

244 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
I didn't watch the trial or know most of the details of the case but Kacee has been found not guilty of 1st degree murder for the death of her daughter.

But she was found guilty of giving false statements to law enforcement officials.

I think she is to serve 4 years max.


TL
  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
    I didn't follow it at all, but it was naturally all over the news.
    I really didn't see that verdict coming from what I heard of the case.
    Signature

    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
    Getting old ain't for sissy's
    As you are I was, as I am you will be
    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4199116].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MerlynSanchez
      This is so sad.

      I really didn't expect her to get off.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4199177].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author carlcolllins
    This is crazy! It shows that things can really go either way with the legal system.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4199142].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    I was really surprised at this one. I'm thinking they just didn't have the evidence needed to be able to convict her. Another OJ case, I think.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4199152].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Candela
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      I was really surprised at this one. I'm thinking they just didn't have the evidence needed to be able to convict her. Another OJ case, I think.
      I do not see it as anything like the OJ case.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4213185].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    I don't think it was pre-mediated but she is a psychopathic liar.

    Like the prosecuting attorney said - who covers up an accidental death to make it look like murder?

    (one of her stories was the baby drowned in the pool - but the body was found with duct tape on her mouth dumped in the woods right near her parents house)

    Who would do that? Wouldn't you just call the cops?

    Then she waited 31 days to report her daughter missing and came up with all sorts of BS stories. (ironically this made it a 'dry bones case' - little forensic evidence after all that time - even longer to when they found the body).

    She should get at least 30 years.

    I don't even want to hear Nancy Grace and all the other court watcher people - they all wanted the death penalty and hated her gutts - there is going to be some ranting tonight!

    This is a huge travesty.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4199160].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      I don't think it was pre-mediated but she is a psychopathic liar.

      Like the prosecuting attorney said - who covers up an accidental death to make it look like murder?

      (one of her stories was the baby drowned in the pool - but the body was found with duct tape on her mouth dumped in the woods right near her parents house)

      Who would do that? Wouldn't you just call the cops?

      Then she waited 31 days to report her daughter missing and came up with all sorts of BS stories. (ironically this made it a 'dry bones case' - little forensic evidence after all that time - even longer to when they found the body).

      She should get at least 30 years.

      I don't even want to hear Nancy Grace and all the other court watcher people - they all wanted the death penalty and hated her gutts - there is going to be some ranting tonight!

      This is a huge travesty.
      I wholeheartedly agree. What parent goes partying after:

      1. Their kid drowns in the pool and dies (defense's theory), or

      2. Their kid was kidnapped by the babysitter and is missing (Casey Anthony's statement)

      What party girl abandons her car unless there is a VERY good reason for it (the smell of death in the trunk)?

      Who does that? SOMEONE threw that child away like trash in a swamp with duct tape around her face. The mother is the last one to have seen the child and there WAS no nanny. The next time the child was seen, she was bones in a swamp with duct tape around her face. What does that say to YOU??
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4201321].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Even her family just left without a word. I don't think she's going to get off. I think she's lost her family, friends, and any possibilities of a normal life whatsoever. Nobody will ever trust her again. She's not going to have it easy from here on in at all.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4199213].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    I don't understand why she EDIT: DIDN'T GET CONVICTED OF at least child endangerment, manslaughter, second degree murder, or something.

    She is going to get rich from this now - since she is not convicted there is nothing to stop her from making book and movie deals and profiting from them.

    I think her parents should also be charged for concealing evidence and pergury - forget 'loyalty' - what about the thousands of dollars spent looking for the body when they all knew where it was.

    I don't think it will bother her a bit about losing family and friends anymore than she cared about losing her daughter. She is a sociopath and a narcissist.

    ... at least she did 3 years.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4199350].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jducey1234
    Travesty of justice. Hey Ken, would you be "delighted" if it was your kid?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4199460].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by jducey1234 View Post

      Travesty of justice. Hey Ken, would you be "delighted" if it was your kid?
      What he is delighted about is not this little girl's murder -- it's that we still can't railroad people into jail and electric chairs just because we THINK someone did something. Think of the horrible results if juries didn't have to have enough evidence. People would be being put in prison for life or killed just because someone didn't like them.

      This jury may or may not have just let a murderer go - but they did so because they couldn't determine guilt on the basis of the facts and evidence they were given. I would rather have her free, than to see that system go down the drain and make this nation unsafe for anyone wrongfully accused of a crime.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4199669].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Nightengale
        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

        This jury may or may not have just let a murderer go - but they did so because they couldn't determine guilt on the basis of the facts and evidence they were given. I would rather have her free, than to see that system go down the drain and make this nation unsafe for anyone wrongfully accused of a crime.
        Bingo!

        The burden of the law is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And the prosecution simply couldn't hold it's case to that standard.

        There are some things we just don't know -- and never will. We STILL don't know exactly how Caylee died, who put her in the trunk or dumped her in the woods. Did Casey act alone? Did she kill Caylee deliberately? Was it premeditated? Or was it just a horrible accident she tried to cover up?

        Even after the investigation and trial, we STILL don't know these things. There's NO hard evidence tying Casey to Caylee's murder.

        I, too, think she's guilty. I think she either DELIBERATELY killed Caylee or simply got fed up with the child and tried to keep her quiet for an extended period (putting duct tape on her mouth, etc.) which resulted in her death. To me, covering up an accidental death after causing it is just as bad as deliberately killing her.

        But there is NO PROOF. And regardless of my personal feelings, I too, would have to acquit her if I were on that jury. Moral guilt is different than LEGAL guilt. Legally, there's no proof, and certainly no proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

        Much as I hate it, I think the jury made the right decision. We MUST preserve the integrity of the judicial system, regardless of our personal feelings.

        I have to wonder, though, why the jury couldn't convict on aggravated child abuse. Not reporting your child missing for 31 days, making up a nanny that didn't exist... etc. which all ended in the child's death certainly seems to be child abuse. Heck, children can be removed from their parents' home on charges of neglect, nevermind abuse! Parents ARE responsible for their children's well being. It seems to me that she could at least be found guilty of THAT. But then, I don't know the legal definition of aggravated child abuse and if it would apply to this case.

        Personally, I think Casey Anthony is a horrible person. She's a slut and a horrible mother. I think Caylee got in the way of her partying and boyfriends. I think she DID kill Caylee. And I hope society metes out some of the justice that the justice system couldn't. (I keep wondering if anyone (other than family or close friends) will ever give her a job.)

        But legally, I think they made the right decision. It galls me, but I think they did.

        Michelle
        Signature
        "You can't market here. This is a marketing discussion forum!"
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4201300].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
          Originally Posted by Nightengale View Post

          Bingo!

          The burden of the law is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And the prosecution simply couldn't hold it's case to that standard.

          There are some things we just don't know -- and never will. We STILL don't know exactly how Caylee died, who put her in the trunk or dumped her in the woods. Did Casey act alone? Did she kill Caylee deliberately? Was it premeditated? Or was it just a horrible accident she tried to cover up?

          Even after the investigation and trial, we STILL don't know these things. There's NO hard evidence tying Casey to Caylee's murder.

          I, too, think she's guilty. I think she either DELIBERATELY killed Caylee or simply got fed up with the child and tried to keep her quiet for an extended period (putting duct tape on her mouth, etc.) which resulted in her death. To me, covering up an accidental death after causing it is just as bad as deliberately killing her.

          But there is NO PROOF. And regardless of my personal feelings, I too, would have to acquit her if I were on that jury. Moral guilt is different than LEGAL guilt. Legally, there's no proof, and certainly no proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

          Much as I hate it, I think the jury made the right decision. We MUST preserve the integrity of the judicial system, regardless of our personal feelings.

          I have to wonder, though, why the jury couldn't convict on aggravated child abuse. Not reporting your child missing for 31 days, making up a nanny that didn't exist... etc. which all ended in the child's death certainly seems to be child abuse. Heck, children can be removed from their parents' home on charges of neglect, nevermind abuse! Parents ARE responsible for their children's well being. It seems to me that she could at least be found guilty of THAT. But then, I don't know the legal definition of aggravated child abuse and if it would apply to this case.

          Personally, I think Casey Anthony is a horrible person. She's a slut and a horrible mother. I think Caylee got in the way of her partying and boyfriends. I think she DID kill Caylee. And I hope society metes out some of the justice that the justice system couldn't. (I keep wondering if anyone (other than family or close friends) will ever give her a job.)

          But legally, I think they made the right decision. It galls me, but I think they did.

          Michelle

          I think a HUGE part of the problem was that no one came up with the cause of death. Even for me (who thinks the mother is guilty as sin), that is a very large problem.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4201325].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author gareth
        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

        What he is delighted about is not this little girl's murder -- it's that we still can't railroad people into jail and electric chairs just because we THINK someone did something. Think of the horrible results if juries didn't have to have enough evidence. People would be being put in prison for life or killed just because someone didn't like them.

        This jury may or may not have just let a murderer go - but they did so because they couldn't determine guilt on the basis of the facts and evidence they were given. I would rather have her free, than to see that system go down the drain and make this nation unsafe for anyone wrongfully accused of a crime.
        Absolutely true but here in New Zealand 1:10 rapes is reported and of those 9:10 do not end in conviction which means theres a 99% chance you can commit rape here and get away with it.

        So there have to be limits and precedents that protect the public in both respects.

        Some people argue that not a single innocent should be wrongfully imprisoned and this should be upheld at the cost of not punishing criminals.

        I on the other hand say that as the system is imperfect, some innocent people must be sacrificed to uphold the greater justice and deter crime. As science and technology improve the justice system less wrongful convictions will occur.

        The problem here is we had a murder case decades ago that the media fed on like wolves - Aurthur Allen Thomas - a guy wrongfully convicted of murder.

        But so many serious crimes have gone unpunished since its an atrocity.

        The sad fact is that if you want social justice - some innocent people will be mistakenly imprisoned. If you cant stomach that then instead of preaching leniency why not put your energy into finding a technical forensic solution ?

        Because its easier to mouth off and blame the system is why.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4208241].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sunfyre7896
    You can't just keep introducing circumstantial evidence and things like sniffers after the fact without informing the defense. That's pretty underhanded. They interviewed all of the jurors and not ONE even thought she was guilty. She may be slutty as they said and she may be a liar, but if 12 people find that the evidence is just not there, then that is something else entirely.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4199794].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Well, I'm not surprised. But 4 years for lying? Isn't that usually more like months?

    As for the jury hearing something we didn't, it is possible, but they are generally prevented from hearing things most others hear. Generally, they are tested on what they know and how they react. The prosecution or defense may then often get rid of them, and they are FREE! Those that remain often have to basically pretend that this never happened and avoid exposure to anything to the contrary. They ONLY new stuff they can hear is that in the courtroom. Too many people forget that little fact. So if a person is viewed as having committed the murder, and confesses to it on national TV, and they exclude EVERY other person on the planet, it is ILLEGAL for them to use ANY of that unless it is presented in the trial. Of course, in such a case, the prosecution would probably use it, if meaningful evidence were admissible. IF, for example, every lie detector examiner tested the defendant, and found he murdered the person, and another heard another say that the defendant confessed, they can't mention it in the courtroom since neither is considered valid.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4200229].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      Well, I'm not surprised. But 4 years for lying? Isn't that usually more like months?

      As for the jury hearing something we didn't, it is possible, but they are generally prevented from hearing things most others hear. Generally, they are tested on what they know and how they react. The prosecution or defense may then often get rid of them, and they are FREE! Those that remain often have to basically pretend that this never happened and avoid exposure to anything to the contrary. They ONLY new stuff they can hear is that in the courtroom. Too many people forget that little fact. So if a person is viewed as having committed the murder, and confesses to it on national TV, and they exclude EVERY other person on the planet, it is ILLEGAL for them to use ANY of that unless it is presented in the trial. Of course, in such a case, the prosecution would probably use it, if meaningful evidence were admissible. IF, for example, every lie detector examiner tested the defendant, and found he murdered the person, and another heard another say that the defendant confessed, they can't mention it in the courtroom since neither is considered valid.

      Steve
      From what I've been hearing the Jury was from Clearwater and where sequestered for the whole trial.
      They gave a reason why they choose their verdict, but I don't remember what it was.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4200418].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Lou Diamond
    Hello,
    she should never be allowed to have children again.
    Signature

    Something new soon.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4200390].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
    Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

    I am delighted. There was not enough evidence to convict, so she was acquitted.

    Justice is served.
    You simply do not know that for sure.

    However, based on what THAT jury saw in THAT courtroom, the proper verdict was most likely handed down.

    Was that true justice for what happened? Who knows. I don't, and neither do you.

    That being said, I think she was guilty. BUT...if we only convicted people based on the court of public opinion, then we would be a country without any politicians.

    Hey! Wiat a minute...maybe...



    All the best,
    Michael
    Signature

    "Ich bin en fuego!"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4200405].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    I wonder if ala OJ Simpson somebody can file a wrongful death law suit against her -

    After all this verdict does not say she is innocent, just that they couldn't prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that she is guilty.

    I wonder if like a citizen's arrest if some group of deep pockets couldn't at least tie her and her financial windfall from this up in court and make her life a little miserable for a while.

    Those relatives of Ron Golden have exploited their tragedy to the 'inth' degree and have OJ paying them for every cent he makes.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4200748].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      I wonder if ala OJ Simpson somebody can file a wrongful death law suit against her -

      After all this verdict does not say she is innocent, just that they couldn't prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that she is guilty.

      I wonder if like a citizen's arrest if some group of deep pockets couldn't at least tie her and her financial windfall from this up in court and make her life a little miserable for a while.

      Those relatives of Ron Golden have exploited their tragedy to the 'inth' degree and have OJ paying him for every cent he makes.
      Unfortunately, Civil cases have been deemed to NOT present jeopardy, so double jeopardy doesn't apply. THAT is basically the only common law in the US preventing multiple trials, so a person could be hauled into court 100 times on the SAME civil charge even though they have always been found "not guilty", and already won in a criminal case. On one TV court show, they recently asked if you could be tried for the same thing ad nauseum, and they said you CAN be.

      BTW TECHNICALLY, this ruling means that they could not cause the jury to all agree that the evidence in the case removed all reasonable doubt. MAYBE there WAS enough evidence! MAYBE 11 DID agree! All this means is that at least one decided not to agree.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4200853].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      I don't understand why she doesn't get charged with at least child endangerment, manslaughter, second degree murder, or something.
      All of those charges WERE made - and the jury could pick from Murder One on down to manslaughter.

      I was surprised - but I'm not going to second guess the jury. We listened to news and talking heads conjecturing and focusing on "highlights" (the juiciest stuff). The jury heard none of that stuff and that's how it should be.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
      what it is instead of what you think it should be.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4200868].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MerlynSanchez
      Yeah, but who would file a wrongful death suit against her?

      No one knows who Caylee's father is/was and her parent's aren't going to do it.

      It makes me sick.


      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      I wonder if ala OJ Simpson somebody can file a wrongful death law suit against her -

      After all this verdict does not say she is innocent, just that they couldn't prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that she is guilty.

      I wonder if like a citizen's arrest if some group of deep pockets couldn't at least tie her and her financial windfall from this up in court and make her life a little miserable for a while.

      Those relatives of Ron Golden have exploited their tragedy to the 'inth' degree and have OJ paying them for every cent he makes.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4201878].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Patrician
        Originally Posted by MerlynSanchez View Post

        Yeah, but who would file a wrongful death suit against her?

        No one knows who Caylee's father is/was and her parent's aren't going to do it.

        It makes me sick.
        That's what I am wondering - why couldn't a 'class action' suit of 'concerned/outraged citizens' file it? There is such a thing as a 'citizen's arrest', right? Same concept sort of?

        Not sure but I don't think you have to be a relative - just to say that she shouldn't be allowed to make money on this situation on top of everything else she did - perhaps a group that would give any money she makes to an abused children's organization or something like that?

        ... and make no mistake - the lies she told and all the 'evasive action' she took led directly to the fact that there was no evidence due to the length of time it took, etc - this creep is dumb like a fox.

        I am also praying the judge will slap her with something like she needs to pay back the government for all the money spent searching for Caylee when she and her parents knew all the time where she was.

        (what really gets me is I can just see the little narcissist sociopath GLOATING that she got away with this. 'how cool am I'.)

        I really still don't want to believe she killed her on purpose - but she is definitely responsible no matter how you look at it...
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4202070].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

          That's what I am wondering - why couldn't a 'class action' suit of 'concerned/outraged citizens' file it? There is such a thing as a 'citizen's arrest', right? Same concept sort of?
          There has to be a legal INTEREST in a case to file it! WHO would be the class? And Yeah, Citizens ARREST! That is a CRIMINAL matter, and in a CRIMINAL matter the GOVERNMENT, of which the CITIZENS are a part, has an interest. It is actually ILLEGAL for the givernment to have an interest in this case, because that would be considered JEOPARDY, and violate the double jeopardy rule since she was ALREADY tried!

          Not sure but I don't think you have to be a relative - just to say that she shouldn't be allowed to make money on this situation on top of everything else she did - perhaps a group that would give any money she makes to an abused children's organization or something like that?
          You can't have a civil court case that says a person should be denied rights to money unless the money is coming from, or should go to, you.

          I am also praying the judge will slap her with something like she needs to pay back the government for all the money spent searching for Caylee when she and her parents knew all the time where she was.
          They have tried to fight for such a rule for DECADES! I don't think they ever got it.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4204223].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author jeffrey73
      IMO, O.J. is one of the biggest scumbags on the planet. Casey Anthony isn't even quite in his "league". Did the Goldman's even get any money from him? All I've ever heard was that he finds a new "loophole" to get out of paying. He may not be living the life personally, but he has ruined plenty of other people's lives permanently. The Goldmans did not even get 1/100th of what they deserve to get from that POS, no matter what they've received.

      Anyone that can come back "after the fact", and write a book called: IF I DID IT HERE'S WHAT I WOULD'VE DONE, is seriously mentally screwed in the head beyond all belief.

      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      Those relatives of Ron Golden have exploited their tragedy to the 'inth' degree and have OJ paying them for every cent he makes.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4202101].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    It's interesting how the 'law' works.

    Look at Scott Peterson - convicted, sentenced to death. Circumstantial evidence only case (I feel the difference was the adultery motive and I am happy that people see that as demonizing because it is). But you could argue it makes him a liar and a total creep but doesn't prove murder -- but when that was exposed was when I definitely felt all the energy he had on his side leave the room.

    OJ Simpson - not convicted - lots of forensic evidence AND circumstantial evidence - even a history of domestic violence - and he walked - he was ruined but he walked.

    Casey Anthony - case was circumstantial - but the added element where she was caught in lie after lie - I don't care what pundits say - when I heard she didn't report her child missing for over 30 days in my mind she was guilty - (now I understand though - she was never missing) - so it was just concealing the death -

    ... but again, why wouldn't you just report a child drowned accidentally? - maybe because Casey was ripped and partying and didn't want criminal child endangerment charges? Maybe because the child had been chloroformed to get her to sleep? Yeah criminal endangerment - but of course that was all speculation - couldn't prove it.

    Kay I realize she WAS charged with a laundry list - I meant to say CONVICTED of something other than lying to police...

    It is not only the pundits on TV who wanted her convicted - it sounds like everybody in the country but the defense and the jury is outraged. (but acknowledge they just couldn't prove anything).

    I think (and heard this from the pundits) they overcharged her - they shouldn't have made it a death penalty case or 1st degree murder but should have just gone with the lesser possibilities. (but yeah then why didn't they just convict on one of those)...

    Justice is really blind alright.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4201235].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author waterotter
    I'm really disappointed with the reality that Casey will probably have offers of movie/book deals for which she will be paid mega bucks.

    She will come out ahead at the expense of precious little Caylee. Will we ever see justice for Caylee? I've got a gut feeling we won't. JMO.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4201507].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Yeah, I see caylee in that pose, and it even seems WORSE! There are SO many ways a kid could die, and caylee may well have been past nearly all of the danger. Frankly, the prosecution, and CERTAINLY the defense NEVER made their case! The BIGGEST asset the prosecution had was the stupidity of the defense. At this point, if casey SCREAMS she is guilty, she is FREE. So if caylee WAS murdered by someone else, I hope they have something fantastic happen, like winning $100Million in the lottery, only to have every penny taken away with everything else because of the murder.

    You NEVER know! Maybe casey had a boyfriend she loved that accidently killed caylee through abuse, and she was trying to protect him. That could explain the duct tape too, since it could cover much of the evidence. If he held her mouth until she stopped breathing, there could be toothmarks in the lip, brusing around the mouth, and you could tell she suffocated. The TAPE could spread the brusing, cause the same biting, and explain suffocation. Just ONE possible thing.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4201658].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author msmir75
    Maybe the jury said "not guilty" but most people intuitively know the truth. She certainly does. She is a sociopath. I mean what kind of parent goes out and gets a tattoo swith the words "Bella Vita" knowing that his/her child's corpse is rotting in a swamp? She is guilty as sin and she will pay one day. Even if she does end up becoming rich from movie deals, book deals, etc... her world is going to come crashing down and karma will bite back 10 fold.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4201688].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MerlynSanchez
    People get convicted on circumstantial evidence all the time.

    They certainly get convicted on far less than was presented in her case.

    I'm in Florida and we've been living and breathing this case since
    Caylee went missing. You have to live under a rock not to be aware of the
    case.

    • She killed her daughter, either accidentally or deliberately.
    • She threw her away like garbage.
    • She partied for over a month before her parents finally caught up with her.
    • She was the last person seen with Caylee.
    I agree that the prosecution may have overcharged her and perhaps did not include lesser charges.

    If the only option was for first degree murder, then it might have been difficult for the jury. If the prosecution didn't allow for a lesser charge of
    second degree murder, etc., then their hands were tied.

    It's disgusting.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4201920].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Merlyn, you are right. The circumstantial evidence was pretty convincing to me. Here's something I don't think the defense explained:

      Experts took the stand Wednesday telling the jury, months before Caylee Anthony disappeared, there were 84 searches for chloroform on the family computer.

      Prosecutors claim she used chloroform to knock Caylee Anthony out before duct taping her mouth. They forensically investigated her computer in the home.

      "Is that a Google search?" asked prosecutor.

      "Yes," responded John Bradley, software expert.

      "For?" asked prosecutor.

      "The words 'neck breaking' with space in between, and a visit to Wikipedia inhalation head injury, ruptured spleen, chest trauma, hand-to-hand combat, internal bleeding," Bradley answered.

      All the search results came from the computer three months before little Caylee disappeared. Prosecutors are trying to convince the jury that Casey did homework about ways to kill her daughter.

      Her attorney seemed to concede she was the one doing the searches but she was looking for self-defense.

      "A computer cannot testify what the a person is reading on the page, right?" said defense attorney Jose Baez.

      "Without a security camera watching, that's correct," answered Bradley.

      But it also included Web sites about chloroform.

      Earlier testimony indicated chloroform was found in Casey Anthony's car trunk. "How many times was that site visited?" asked the prosecutor.

      "According to the history, 84 times," Bradley said.
      The idea that she searched all this stuff for self defense is ridiculous. You simply don't use chloroform for self defense. The fact a high amount of chloroform was found in her cars trunk is pretty incriminating evidence in my opinion.

      Originally Posted by MerlynSanchez View Post

      People get convicted on circumstantial evidence all the time.

      They certainly get convicted on far less than was presented in her case.

      I'm in Florida and we've been living and breathing this case since
      Caylee went missing. You have to live under a rock not to be aware of the
      case.

      • She killed her daughter, either accidentally or deliberately.
      • She threw her away like garbage.
      • She partied for over a month before her parents finally caught up with her.
      • She was the last person seen with Caylee.
      I agree that the prosecution may have overcharged her and perhaps did not include lesser charges.

      If the only option was for first degree murder, then it might have been difficult for the jury. If the prosecution didn't allow for a lesser charge of
      second degree murder, etc., then their hands were tied.

      It's disgusting.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4202322].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Merlyn, you are right. The circumstantial evidence was pretty convincing to me. Here's something I don't think the defense explained:



        The idea that she searched all this stuff for self defense is ridiculous. You simply don't use chloroform for self defense. The fact a high amount of chloroform was found in her cars trunk is pretty incriminating evidence in my opinion.
        Well, you CAN'T really tell what the person was reading even WITH a security camera, unless you have one aligned on her face, another on the screen, and aligned with some fancy software. It would be VERY difficult. But 3 months in advance? MULTIPLE searches? That sounds odd on EITHER side.

        As for the chloroform, I guess she COULD say that caylee was in great pan from some mishap or something and that she was trying to put her out of her misery. Still, do we have any proof SHE did it?

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4204263].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Joshua Hawk
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Merlyn, you are right. The circumstantial evidence was pretty convincing to me. Here's something I don't think the defense explained:



        The idea that she searched all this stuff for self defense is ridiculous. You simply don't use chloroform for self defense. The fact a high amount of chloroform was found in her cars trunk is pretty incriminating evidence in my opinion.
        Her mother testified that she, not Casey, did the internet searches, with one of the reasons being that she was worried her dog was poisoned or something like that. This adds some doubt to the mix.

        Bleach and other items that might end up in garbage can release chloroform. Decomposing bodies also release chloroform. Remember, the defense said that the baby accidentally drowned in a swimming pool. Technically speaking, a baby can die by accident and then have their body placed in a trunk.

        That might not be the most likely scenario, but the legal system isn't based on handing out punishments just going by what most likely occurred.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4205074].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author waterotter
          Originally Posted by Joshua Hawk View Post

          Her mother testified that she, not Casey, did the internet searches, with one of the reasons being that she was worried her dog was poisoned or something like that. This adds some doubt to the mix.
          The Prosecution was able to prove that Cindy perjured herself. She was at work at the time of those internet searches.

          Just saying, the mother couldn't have done the searches.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4205148].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Joshua Hawk
            Originally Posted by waterotter View Post

            The Prosecution was able to prove that Cindy perjured herself. She was at work at the time of those internet searches.

            Just saying, the mother couldn't have done the searches.
            Legally speaking, that hasn't been proved. There is actually talk now that Cindy might get charged for that.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4205188].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Originally Posted by Joshua Hawk View Post

          Her mother testified that she, not Casey, did the internet searches, with one of the reasons being that she was worried her dog was poisoned or something like that. This adds some doubt to the mix.
          As waterotter said, this was shown to be a lie since the mother was at work at the time. There's no doubt that it wasn't the mother who did the searches.



          That might not be the most likely scenario, but the legal system isn't based on handing out punishments just going by what most likely occurred.
          Happens all the time. Both direct and circumstantial evidence carry equal importance in a criminal case.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4207125].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            As waterotter said, this was shown to be a lie since the mother was at work at the time. There's no doubt that it wasn't the mother who did the searches.
            When I first heard the mother say this in court, I could tell that she was lying to save her daughter. As a matter of fact, at the time the camera aimed on Casey who mouthed "Wow"; even SHE couldn't believe what her mom was saying.

            I couldn't believe all the media who were crowing about what a "huge blow to the prosecution" it was. That wasn't any kind of blow. I think the fact that law enforcement didn't pick up the bones when they were FIRST found and that there wasn't a cause of death given were the REAL "blows" to the prosecution, added to the fact that it COULD have been some sort of accident...something like Casey using chloroform to put Caylee to sleep (maybe in the trunk of the car so she could party with the boyfriend who didn't want Caylee around) and Caylee dying accidentally and Casey trying to cover it up. No one really knows how it happened but I truly believe Casey knows SOMETHING.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4207147].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Joshua Hawk
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            As waterotter said, this was shown to be a lie since the mother was at work at the time. There's no doubt that it wasn't the mother who did the searches.
            Again, this has not been legally proven in a court of law. A human or a piece of paper saying that someone worked on a certain day doesn't automatically make it true. The mother claims she left work early that day.

            Is it most likely that the mother really did do the searches? No, but "most likely" carries much more weight in the court of public opinion than it does in the legal system.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4210308].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author VegasVince
              Personally I find it sad that a beautiful little girl is dead regardless of who did what or who didn't.

              I watched this trial. I personally think someone in that family killed that little girl...but there lies the problem......someone.....and there was no real smoking gun in this case.

              You can't convict on that......because there were far too many players who were as screwed up in the head as Casey Anthony.

              And this case was very weak.....poorly prosecuted....and they couldn't even establish if this little girl was murdered.

              NO DNA......a creepy dude who finds the body....a mother who perjures herself on the stand......a father having an affair and accused of sexually molesting his daughter etc etc. Ah yes..the Jones Family what goes on behind those white picket fences, huh?

              This leaves one fuxxed up family and "reasonable doubt" and that's all she needed.

              Casey Anthony was found not guilty.....it doesn't make her innocent. And Karma is a real bitch.

              But with that said......the verdict itself reflected a very weak, poorly run prosecution......who figured that the mere portrayal of Casey as a slut would be enough to send her to the chair.

              It wasn't. It shouldn't have been. And those who watched the trial.....from start to finish...pretty much concluded a not guilty verdict was coming.

              As for OJ.....I said it from day one and will say it again.....THEY FRAMED A GUILTY MAN. And they got the verdict they deserved....despite the fact OJ was guilty as hell and the evidence in that case was 10 to 1 overwhelming vs the Anthony trial.

              But when you have a racist LAPD officer with past run ins with OJ....who is caught dead to right by FL Bailey perjuring himself under oath.....you deserve what you got Marcia Clark. (Who by the way....was told several times prior to the trial jurors did NOT like her...her eye rolling and her arrogance. )

              Her giant ego didn't stop her from jumping on the case.....and Christopher Darden being brought in as a token "black" person was insulting to that jury.....as well it should have been. And his giant ego allowed him to let OJ put leather gloves over hand wraps which is almost impossible...so the gloves didn't appear to fit.........toss in Henry Lee and the brilliant DNA expert Barry Scheck.....and it still wasn't enough to convince me ---but I had NO PROBLEM WITH THE VERDICT.

              There is little doubt in my mind that you as the prosecution play by the rules....or you lose the friggin' game. It was their own witness that brought them down......same guy who found the bloody glove.

              The LAPD cleaned up their act as a result of that trial.....as well they should have.

              In the end nobody gets away with anything. OJ is going to die in jail for a crime that frankly baffles me in terms of the sentence....but hey...karma is a bitch.

              Casey Anthony has NO love from anyone....male or female. Including her own parents it appears who walked out of the court room rather quickly.

              Trust me.....she's in prison now...and will remain there for the rest of her life.... even if the bars are invisible they will be just as real....and her life will be an endless bus ride.....that never stops......red....when all her chips are on black......and justice is always served in the end. One way...or another.


              peace,


              Vegas Vince
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4210487].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author SerenitySerenity
          i have not followed this story intensely , i get most of my news from youtube
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4292008].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    Granted OJ is major pond scum.

    I saw Mr. Goldman on a show just in the last few years, and he definitely was talking about how they get money from everything OJ does.

    With that said, I find it rather ludicrous that they are being paid. It wasn't like Ron was supporting them - they lost their son - the worst thing I can think of -- but how can you accept money for that? It just seems exploitative. Maybe it is just a way to try to hurt OJ back and I am sure it does...
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4202151].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author jeffrey73
      You are right. For some reason I was thinking about the family of Nicole Brown Simpson.

      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      With that said, I find it rather ludicrous that they are being paid. It wasn't like Ron was supporting them - they lost their son - the worst thing I can think of -- but how can you accept money for that? It just seems exploitative. Maybe it is just a way to try to hurt OJ back and I am sure it does...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4202216].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Nightengale
        Some people are comparing Casey's acquittal to O.J.'s, but I don't think it's the same thing.

        There was circumstantial AND forensic evidence in O.J.'s case. His case turned from a case of murder to racial discrimination. Thousands of people felt that if he were convicted, it would be because he's black. I think it was a case of the defense muddying the waters and reverse discrimination. ("If you convict me, it's because I'm black. Prove you're not prejudiced by acquitting me.") Reverse discrimination incenses me because the very people crying "Prejudice!" are using prejudice to get their way. Grrrr!

        As for the defense muddying the waters, I can't really blame them. Their job is to create reasonable doubt by whatever legal means possible.

        His case was a travesty of justice because 1) it became a case of racial discrimination and not the case of murder that it was and 2) there was clear-cut forensic evidence that he was guilty. (I will forever despise that jury for their stupidity.)

        While I firmly believe Casey Anthony is guilty, I don't think her case is the same as O.J.'s. There was NO EVIDENCE, and certainly no proof beyond a reasonable doubt. No DNA, no fingerprints, no witnesses, etc. They could never even define the cause of death. They could only speculate. So the jury couldn't convict her of murder. (But I still think she should have been convicted of child abuse or neglect.)

        I don't know enough about the investigation to say whether there was any bungling there. Could they have handled it differently so that the prosecution could have presented a stronger case? I dunno. The only thing I can see is that the police didn't follow up when Caylee's body was first found in August. That IS a travesty and I think the police should be held accountable for that. It could have made all the difference in the world.

        But then, maybe not.

        (Could citizens possibly bring a lawsuit against the police department for that? It seems to me that if they failed to follow up on the report of a body found out in the woods, they were derelict in their duties to protect and ensure the safety of the public. Their failure to follow up could also be construed as obstruction of justice since the body was later found to be a murder victim and the accused was acquitted due to lack of evidence -- evidence that might very well have been forthcoming if they'd responded in a timely manner. I know a woman who was attacked by her estranged husband who successfully sued the local police department for failing to respond in a timely manner to her call for help. The woman was partially and permanently paralyzed after the attack.)

        In any case, I think Casey and her family know more than they are telling. I believe Casey is completely responsible for her daughter's death and that she caused it (either solely or in concert with someone else), deliberately or accidentally. I don't believe we'll ever know what really happened to Caylee.

        All that this verdict has done is send a message to Casey that you can get away with murder, that you can lie to police and everybody else and it's OK. Yes, I know she was convicted of lying to police, but since she got away with murder, that's incidental.

        Forgiveness and mercy are virtues, but I'm not feeling very forgiving right now. I hope she pays the price for killing her daughter, either in this life or the next. Killing your own child is despicable.

        Michelle
        Signature
        "You can't market here. This is a marketing discussion forum!"
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4202390].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by Nightengale View Post

          Some people are comparing Casey's acquittal to O.J.'s, but I don't think it's the same thing.

          There was circumstantial AND forensic evidence in O.J.'s case. His case turned from a case of murder to racial discrimination. Thousands of people felt that if he were convicted, it would be because he's black. I think it was a case of the defense muddying the waters and reverse discrimination. ("If you convict me, it's because I'm black. Prove you're not prejudiced by acquitting me.") Reverse discrimination incenses me because the very people crying "Prejudice!" are using prejudice to get their way. Grrrr!

          As for the defense muddying the waters, I can't really blame them. Their job is to create reasonable doubt by whatever legal means possible.

          His case was a travesty of justice because 1) it became a case of racial discrimination and not the case of murder that it was and 2) there was clear-cut forensic evidence that he was guilty. (I will forever despise that jury for their stupidity.)

          While I firmly believe Casey Anthony is guilty, I don't think her case is the same as O.J.'s. There was NO EVIDENCE, and certainly no proof beyond a reasonable doubt. No DNA, no fingerprints, no witnesses, etc. They could never even define the cause of death. They could only speculate. So the jury couldn't convict her of murder. (But I still think she should have been convicted of child abuse or neglect.)

          I don't know enough about the investigation to say whether there was any bungling there. Could they have handled it differently so that the prosecution could have presented a stronger case? I dunno. The only thing I can see is that the police didn't follow up when Caylee's body was first found in August. That IS a travesty and I think the police should be held accountable for that. It could have made all the difference in the world.

          But then, maybe not.

          (Could citizens possibly bring a lawsuit against the police department for that? It seems to me that if they failed to follow up on the report of a body found out in the woods, they were derelict in their duties to protect and ensure the safety of the public. Their failure to follow up could also be construed as obstruction of justice since the body was later found to be a murder victim and the accused was acquitted due to lack of evidence -- evidence that might very well have been forthcoming if they'd responded in a timely manner. I know a woman who was attacked by her estranged husband who successfully sued the local police department for failing to respond in a timely manner to her call for help. The woman was partially and permanently paralyzed after the attack.)

          In any case, I think Casey and her family know more than they are telling. I believe Casey is completely responsible for her daughter's death and that she caused it (either solely or in concert with someone else), deliberately or accidentally. I don't believe we'll ever know what really happened to Caylee.

          All that this verdict has done is send a message to Casey that you can get away with murder, that you can lie to police and everybody else and it's OK. Yes, I know she was convicted of lying to police, but since she got away with murder, that's incidental.

          Forgiveness and mercy are virtues, but I'm not feeling very forgiving right now. I hope she pays the price for killing her daughter, either in this life or the next. Killing your own child is despicable.

          Michelle
          Yeah, citizens COULD try to sue the government, etc... There IS criminal negligence.

          Frankly, the WORST part is that they didn't find any good an meaningful evidence to convict casey. Finding OJs blood in the brown home really doesn't mean anything. Finding his blood, with nicoles doesn't mean much. But if they found a clear fingerprint of his in a mixture of his and nicoles blood, and had GOOD records to show it, it would be DAMNING! It would be effectively saying that HE was there AFTER she was killed, etc... His blood at the scene? MEANINGLESS! THEIR blood at the scene? MAYBE it was planted. It is VERY hard to plant a 3d fingerprint though!

          Likewise, with casey? Caylee being dead proves nothing. The duct tape proves nothing. Caylee being in her trunk proves nothing. Her fingerprints on caylee may prove nothing. Her fingerprints on the TAPE are another story entirely.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4204320].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by Nightengale View Post

          Some people are comparing Casey's acquittal to O.J.'s, but I don't think it's the same thing.

          There was circumstantial AND forensic evidence in O.J.'s case. His case turned from a case of murder to racial discrimination. Thousands of people felt that if he were convicted, it would be because he's black. I think it was a case of the defense muddying the waters and reverse discrimination. ("If you convict me, it's because I'm black. Prove you're not prejudiced by acquitting me.") Reverse discrimination incenses me because the very people crying "Prejudice!" are using prejudice to get their way. Grrrr!

          As for the defense muddying the waters, I can't really blame them. Their job is to create reasonable doubt by whatever legal means possible.

          His case was a travesty of justice because 1) it became a case of racial discrimination and not the case of murder that it was and 2) there was clear-cut forensic evidence that he was guilty. (I will forever despise that jury for their stupidity.)

          While I firmly believe Casey Anthony is guilty, I don't think her case is the same as O.J.'s. There was NO EVIDENCE, and certainly no proof beyond a reasonable doubt. No DNA, no fingerprints, no witnesses, etc. They could never even define the cause of death. They could only speculate. So the jury couldn't convict her of murder. (But I still think she should have been convicted of child abuse or neglect.)

          I don't know enough about the investigation to say whether there was any bungling there. Could they have handled it differently so that the prosecution could have presented a stronger case? I dunno. The only thing I can see is that the police didn't follow up when Caylee's body was first found in August. That IS a travesty and I think the police should be held accountable for that. It could have made all the difference in the world.

          But then, maybe not.

          (Could citizens possibly bring a lawsuit against the police department for that? It seems to me that if they failed to follow up on the report of a body found out in the woods, they were derelict in their duties to protect and ensure the safety of the public. Their failure to follow up could also be construed as obstruction of justice since the body was later found to be a murder victim and the accused was acquitted due to lack of evidence -- evidence that might very well have been forthcoming if they'd responded in a timely manner. I know a woman who was attacked by her estranged husband who successfully sued the local police department for failing to respond in a timely manner to her call for help. The woman was partially and permanently paralyzed after the attack.)

          In any case, I think Casey and her family know more than they are telling. I believe Casey is completely responsible for her daughter's death and that she caused it (either solely or in concert with someone else), deliberately or accidentally. I don't believe we'll ever know what really happened to Caylee.

          All that this verdict has done is send a message to Casey that you can get away with murder, that you can lie to police and everybody else and it's OK. Yes, I know she was convicted of lying to police, but since she got away with murder, that's incidental.

          Forgiveness and mercy are virtues, but I'm not feeling very forgiving right now. I hope she pays the price for killing her daughter, either in this life or the next. Killing your own child is despicable.

          Michelle
          You said...

          Some people are comparing Casey's acquittal to O.J.'s, but I don't think it's the same thing.

          There was circumstantial AND forensic evidence in O.J.'s case.

          His case turned from a case of murder to racial discrimination. Thousands of people felt that if he were convicted, it would be because he's black.

          I think it was a case of the defense muddying the waters and reverse discrimination. ("If you convict me, it's because I'm black. Prove you're not prejudiced by acquitting me.")

          Reverse discrimination incenses me because the very people crying "Prejudice!" are using prejudice to get their way. Grrrr!

          I say...

          The main similarity to OJ's case was the shocking verdict as most people were caught off guard and expected a guilty verdict.

          A female 'talking head" lawyer on the Nancy Grace show yesterday screamed ...

          ..."we've been OJ'd!"


          You said...

          There was circumstantial and forensic evidence in O.J.'s case.

          I say...

          There was circumstantial evidence in the OJ case but...

          As far as there being "forensic evidence" in the OJ case, the state's physical evidence was made into mincemeat by attorney Barry Sheck.

          He proved over and over again how all crucial pieces of forensic evidence had been tampered with by someone and to quote him...

          ..."somebody played with this evidence and there's is no doubt about it"

          IMHO...

          The reason OJ was found "not guilty" was that there were way too many problems with the physical/forensic evidence in that case.

          Because of these problems...

          The defense implored the jury to not convict and the jury listened to the defense.

          IMHO...

          That took a lot of courage by that jury to come to that verdict.

          They were sequestered but they also had conjugal visits with the spouses who undoubtedly told them how most everyone expected a guilty verdict.

          If they had convicted OJ, they would still be on the lecture circuit 17 years after the case commanding at least $2,500-$5,000 per speech.

          They could have eventually quit their jobs - way ahead of schedule.

          6 or 7 of them teamed up to write a book about the trial.

          If they had convicted OJ, their book would have sold in the millions instead of the measly 100K or so copies that did sell.

          All The Best!!

          TL
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4204444].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    I hear she could be out by Thursday or Friday.


    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4204328].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author evengigs
    Really weird ..
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4204509].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author derekwong28
    The idea that anybody could make lots of money out of a heinous crime is disgusting, be it the perpetrator, the prosecutors, the defense lawyers, the judge, the jury, or police officers who investigated the case.
    Signature

    Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4204574].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Nightengale
      I saw a news story this morning that a book deal is already being shopped around. According to the story, the advance was already at $3 million and climbing.

      Unfortunately, people will buy it and Casey will go on the talk show circuit to hawk her book. Even if the publisher rushes it, it will be at least a year before the book comes out, public furor will have died down and Casey and the publisher will make a mint.

      Michelle
      Signature
      "You can't market here. This is a marketing discussion forum!"
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4204820].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author waterotter
        Vivid has made Casey a porn offer.

        Casey was served with papers last evening for a defamation lawsuit by the woman with the same name as Casey's supposed Nanny.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4205070].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by derekwong28 View Post

      The idea that anybody could make lots of money out of a heinous crime is disgusting, be it the perpetrator, the prosecutors, the defense lawyers, the judge, the jury, or police officers who investigated the case.
      In most if not all states, a person found guilty can not profit from their crime but if you're found not guilty.

      I heard she received some pretty good lawyers for free.

      I wonder why??

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4204981].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by derekwong28 View Post

      The idea that anybody could make lots of money out of a heinous crime is disgusting, be it the perpetrator, the prosecutors, the defense lawyers, the judge, the jury, or police officers who investigated the case.
      What's even sicker is that if Casey writes a book - a lot of the people screaming that she is guilty as sin will be pouring money at her to read the book instead of letting it rot on the shelf the same way her kid rotted in the swamp. Everyone wants justice - but they will still be stupid enough to make her rich.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4205023].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    Looks like she stole OJs thunder!

    If she didn't kill that child, she was at least involved in hiding the child.

    How many people have ever fallen into a swimming pool & drowned, then came out of the pool with tape on their mouth.

    Accidents happen, but a sane parent would never hide a hurt child. Even If the child wasn't breathing when she came out of the pool, a normal person would call 911 ASAP to get help.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4205120].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Joshua Hawk
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      How many people have ever fallen into a swimming pool & drowned, then came out of the pool with tape on their mouth.
      No fingerprints or DNA was found on the tape. It was found partially attached to the mostly decomposed body. An expert testified that there was no way that it had been attached to skin.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4205173].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
    Casey Anthony will join forces with O.J. Simpson and they will spend their lives searching for the murderers of their loved ones.

    Jose Baez, Casey Anthony's attorney, will be the most sought after attorney in Florida.

    Nancy Grace will pray for another dead or missing white girl so that she can continue on with her morbid brand of entertainment.
    Signature

    :)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4205320].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by mojojuju View Post

      Casey Anthony will join forces with O.J. Simpson and they will spend their lives searching for the murderers of their loved ones.

      Jose Baez, Casey Anthony's attorney, will be the most sought after attorney in Florida.

      Nancy Grace will pray for another dead or missing white girl so that she can continue on with her morbid brand of entertainment.

      Regarding Casey & OJ joining forces, that's going to be a little bit hard since OJ is in jail.

      His famous words of... (something like)

      nobody gets out of here until I get my stuff...

      ... is what I believe constitutes kidnapping if I remember correctly.

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4205588].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        Regarding Casey & OJ joining forces, that's going to be a little bit hard since OJ is in jail.
        Yeah, that. They can collaborate over the phone I guess.
        Signature

        :)

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4206439].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    An interesting point:

    Yesterday a lady called into Nancy Grace or one of those lawyer shows - she asked why Casey Anthony was in court in street clothes with no handcuffs, etc.

    The answer was that it is a law that prisoners are not to appear in court in prison clothes or shackles due to it makes them look guilty to the jury.

    Yet in reading about OJ going to jail for his latest fiasco it reports and shows him in prison clothes and shackles.

    What's the diff?
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4206169].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      An interesting point:

      Yesterday a lady called into Nancy Grace or one of those lawyer shows - she asked why Casey Anthony was in court in street clothes with no handcuffs, etc.

      The answer was that it is a law that prisoners are not to appear in court in prison clothes or shackles due to it makes them look guilty to the jury.

      Yet in reading about OJ going to jail for his latest fiasco it reports and shows him in prison clothes and shackles.

      What's the diff?
      Perhaps there are different state laws.


      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4206212].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author scubasteve-cr
    Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

    But she was found guilty of giving false statements to law enforcement officials.

    I think she is to serve 4 years max.
    You Lie to cops = go to jail
    Cops lie to you = nothing
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4206246].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by scubasteve-cr View Post

      You Lie to cops = go to jail
      Cops lie to you = nothing
      Yeh, but cops can not obstruct justice themselves.

      If they get caught, they can go to jail also.

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4206363].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author BloggingPro
    I love how the media is lambasting Casey Anthony on the assumption that she is going to profit from her story with book and film deals, while completely ignoring the fact that they themselves made millions of dollars in advertising revenue by covering the case, trial and verdict.

    Headline news received higher ratings last month than anytime in its history and in the process profited immensely off a little girl's murder and the drama surrounding it. Yet this same news network (and others) that was so quick to launch into a full media assault mode. One that has not seen since the last election period and then they want to point fingers and criticize.

    The biggest question is if the media didn't cover this trial, would nearly half the country feel the way they do, or much less even know about the case? It has been reported that more than 200 women murder their children every year. That's almost one murder a day. Where is the coverage on THOSE stories?

    Sensationalized reporting at its finest. Tomorrow another congressman (or woman) will get caught with their pants down and the media whirlwind will move on to that... without a care in the world as to why they exploited the murder of a two year old girl on national television to increase viewer-ship for their cable news channel.
    Signature
    You're going to fail. If you're afraid of failure then you do not belong in the Internet Marketing Business. Period.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4206505].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
    The REAL Zenaida Gonzalez' attorney is looking to keep Casey Anthony from profiting from this whole case:

    Casey Anthony subpoenaed in Zenaida Gonzalez case

    So if she gets millions, Zenaida Gonzalez will hopefully get the lion's share of it.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4207910].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author BloggingPro
      Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards View Post

      The REAL Zenaida Gonzalez' attorney is looking to keep Casey Anthony from profiting from this whole case:

      Casey Anthony subpoenaed in Zenaida Gonzalez case

      So if she gets millions, Zenaida Gonzalez will hopefully get the lion's share of it.

      Then all the money that HLN and other news outlets generated from their coverage should also be forfeited. Millions of people are absolutely "disgusted" by the outcome of the case, but what is even more disgusting is the fact that these news outlets exploited a two year old girl's murder and all the drama surrounding it in the name of "justice."

      Puh-leeze.
      Signature
      You're going to fail. If you're afraid of failure then you do not belong in the Internet Marketing Business. Period.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4207944].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
        Originally Posted by BloggingPro View Post

        Then all the money that HLN and other news outlets generated from their coverage should also be forfeited. Millions of people are absolutely "disgusted" by the outcome of the case, but what is even more disgusting is the fact that these news outlets exploited a two year old girl's murder and all the drama surrounding it in the name of "justice."

        Puh-leeze.
        True, and I agree with you, but this poor lady lost her job and her housing (she has young children, too) due to the outright lies that Casey told about a fake person with her name. That is real defamation that can be proven in court. Networks profiting from the story didn't exactly defame anyone so I don't think they'll be forced to forfeit their money. However, if Casey Anthony has to answer for at least ONE of her unethical and illegal actions, then a small measure of justice might be done.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4207985].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author BloggingPro
          Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards View Post

          True, and I agree with you, but this poor lady lost her job and her housing (she has young children, too) due to the outright lies that Casey told about a fake person with her name. That is real defamation that can be proven in court. Networks profiting from the story didn't exactly defame anyone so I don't think they'll be forced to forfeit their money. However, if Casey Anthony has to answer for at least ONE of her unethical and illegal actions, then a small measure of justice might be done.
          I am not familiar with the woman mentioned in the lawsuit, but yes she probably has grounds for a lawsuit regarding defamation. However, whether defamed or not my biggest problem with the whole ordeal is the media and their obvious double standard. It's maddening. They should not allow camera's in court rooms. Period.
          Signature
          You're going to fail. If you're afraid of failure then you do not belong in the Internet Marketing Business. Period.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4208048].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    The issue is not 'freedom of the press' or people in media/news/law enforcement trying to make a living. It's tragic, but it's the news.

    The issue is a criminal who 'beat the system' (or not) making a profit from their crime.

    In this case there was clear 'obstruction of justice' on top of whatever else and this to me seems like it would/should be a much more serious charge than 'lying to the police' -

    As for the 'Nanny' that wasn't, I applaud her and hope she takes Casey to the cleaners. Clearly slander.

    Sure, the media had a hay day with condemning Casey - She is someone so reprehensible -- I mean not even just the crime itself but being such a real yuk with all the habitual lies - and as yet I have seen not one tittle of remorse for anything, not even her daughter's death, what this has done to her family, or all the people that cared.

    There will be some form of justice, there always is - even if our court system misses it and even after Casey Anthony is long forgotten.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4208176].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author BloggingPro
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      The issue is not 'freedom of the press' or people in media/news/law enforcement trying to make a living. It's tragic, but it's the news.
      Hardly news. If it was NEWS then all 200+ cases would be getting the attention. Furthermore, it has been well documented that the major news outlets gave the trial attention only after they had seen the kind of ratings HLN was getting.

      Ratings = Revenue. They profited from this girl's death, no two ways about it.

      Additionally my comments were about how I feel the media has a double standard of criticizing her on the assumption she will profit from her story, when they have been doing it the whole time. This is in light of the "news" after her verdict was revealed. Many in the country wouldn't have an opinion either way if it wasn't for the media, thus I feel it should be dully discussed in this thread.

      Finally, if there was not enough evidence to prove she was guilty than our justice system did not fail.
      Signature
      You're going to fail. If you're afraid of failure then you do not belong in the Internet Marketing Business. Period.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4208272].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      The issue is not 'freedom of the press' or people in media/news/law enforcement trying to make a living. It's tragic, but it's the news.

      The issue is a criminal who 'beat the system' (or not) making a profit from their crime.

      In this case there was clear 'obstruction of justice' on top of whatever else and this to me seems like it would/should be a much more serious charge than 'lying to the police' -

      As for the 'Nanny' that wasn't, I applaud her and hope she takes Casey to the cleaners. Clearly slander.

      Sure, the media had a hay day with condemning Casey - She is someone so reprehensible -- I mean not even just the crime itself but being such a real yuk with all the habitual lies - and as yet I have seen not one tittle of remorse for anything, not even her daughter's death, what this has done to her family, or all the people that cared.

      There will be some form of justice, there always is - even if our court system misses it and even after Casey Anthony is long forgotten.
      Keep in mind Pat we all only saw what the media wanted us to see and nothing more.
      The media decided she was a vile evil human being right from the beginning and weather she was or not, they wouldn't show anything that would prove otherwise.
      It's much more sensational to show her as the uncaring mother with no remorse then to show any moments where she might of shown remorse and looked like less of a monster then what they made her out to be.
      I know her actions after her daughter went missing weren't how a mother should act.
      I'm not saying she was a good human. I'm just saying all the information we have is just what the media wants us to know and what will boost their ratings.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4209045].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        we all only saw what the media wanted us to see and nothing more.
        So true. The court of public opinion gets swayed easily by the media as we only see the "good stuff". It's fun and titillating to discuss guilt and innocence - to a point. When we start arguing that we know better than a jury that sat 6-8 hrs a day for a month hearing every sentence and seeing every reaction - we're wrong.

        Sal mentioned the Goldman family (OJ trial) earlier and I think that is such a crazy part of our system. I'll never understand how someone can be found legally not guilty and then be judged guilty when money is at stake.

        I think that civil outcome was sad because the result is an entire family (the Goldmans) who have made bitter hatred their life's cause and follow that pied piper to this day. The damage done to OJ is probably far less than what they've done to themselves.

        kay
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
        ***
        One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
        what it is instead of what you think it should be.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4209330].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          So true. The court of public opinion gets swayed easily by the media as we only see the "good stuff". It's fun and titillating to discuss guilt and innocence - to a point. When we start arguing that we know better than a jury that sat 6-8 hrs a day for a month hearing every sentence and seeing every reaction - we're wrong.

          Sal mentioned the Goldman family (OJ trial) earlier and I think that is such a crazy part of our system. I'll never understand how someone can be found legally not guilty and then be judged guilty when money is at stake.

          I think that civil outcome was sad because the result is an entire family (the Goldmans) who have made bitter hatred their life's cause and follow that pied piper to this day. The damage done to OJ is probably far less than what they've done to themselves.

          kay
          Interesting points - regarding criminal & civil trials.

          The state can take away your freedom & money but a civil trial can take your money but not your freedom.

          Of course the burden of proof in a civil trial is not as high as in a state trial.

          In the state case it must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and in the civil trial the burden of proof is a preponderance of evidence.

          Basically if you believe there is more evidence to prove a person guilty than innocent rather than guilty - then you vote guilty.

          I call it frontier justice.

          I wish someone would help me understand why we have civil trials in the first place.

          I think there is a good reason for them.

          All The Best!!

          TL
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4209377].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
            There was a lot of interest in this case and I can't blame it all on the media. Take a look at these folks waiting in line and actually fighting over seats to watch the trial:


            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4209435].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

              There was a lot of interest in this case and I can't blame it all on the media. Take a look at these folks waiting in line and actually fighting over seats to watch the trial:

              YouTube - ‪Fight outside Casey Anthony courthouse‬‏

              YouTube - ‪Casey Anthony Trial | Fighting For Seats‬‏
              UNREAL! That is a DISGRACE to the US, etc.... Those people broke several laws. They should have just had the police drive up and... Assualt and battery, disturbing the peace, etc... Sorry ladies, but you're going to have to spend the night in jail, and maybe you'll be arraigned tomorrow! AND, such behaviour is NO tolerated in the courtroom, so they should say that any such outbursts automatically disqualify them, and they may be brought up on charges. This is like going 95 in a 65 mile zone along side a cops car!

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4211705].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post


            I wish someone would help me understand why we have civil trials in the first place.

            I think there is a good reason for them.

            All The Best!!

            TL
            The Zenaida Gonzales case is one of those very GOOD times where a civil trial is necessary. When the child was missing, Casey told her mom as well as many other people that the nanny, Zenaida Gonzales, had Caylee. She told her brother that Zenaida Gonzales took Caylee from her by force and she couldn't find the child. That story got out to the police, the media, and others.

            When Zenaida Gonzales was found, she was pretty much mobbed in the street and called a kidnapper. She lost her job and she lost the home she had for herself and her children. She was put out onto the street, even though she had never even heard of Casey Anthony and certainly never met her child.

            All because Casey was an exquisite liar. What Casey did to Zenaida Gonzales was not illegal based on criminal law. But it was wrong and Casey should NOT get away scott-free with doing that to an innocent woman.

            Zenaida Gonzalez Tells WFTV "My World Has Been Turned Upside-Down"


            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4209440].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Yeah, and think about what she said about her own father. I mean, I know that incest and child abuse happens, but I certainly don't believe her story about him either. Poor guy. He almost committed suicide.

              Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards View Post

              The Zenaida Gonzales case is one of those very GOOD times where a civil trial is necessary. When the child was missing, Casey told her mom as well as many other people that the nanny, Zenaida Gonzales, had Caylee. She told her brother that Zenaida Gonzales took Caylee from her by force and she couldn't find the child. That story got out to the police, the media, and others.

              When Zenaida Gonzales was found, she was pretty much mobbed in the street and called a kidnapper. She lost her job and she lost the home she had for herself and her children. She was put out onto the street, even though she had never even heard of Casey Anthony and certainly never met her child.

              All because Casey was an exquisite liar. What Casey did to Zenaida Gonzales was not illegal based on criminal law. But it was wrong and Casey should NOT get away scott-free with doing that to an innocent woman.

              Zenaida Gonzalez Tells WFTV "My World Has Been Turned Upside-Down"


              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4209494].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
              Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards View Post

              The Zenaida Gonzales case is one of those very GOOD times where a civil trial is necessary. When the child was missing, Casey told her mom as well as many other people that the nanny, Zenaida Gonzales, had Caylee. She told her brother that Zenaida Gonzales took Caylee from her by force and she couldn't find the child. That story got out to the police, the media, and others.

              When Zenaida Gonzales was found, she was pretty much mobbed in the street and called a kidnapper. She lost her job and she lost the home she had for herself and her children. She was put out onto the street, even though she had never even heard of Casey Anthony and certainly never met her child.

              All because Casey was an exquisite liar. What Casey did to Zenaida Gonzales was not illegal based on criminal law. But it was wrong and Casey should NOT get away scott-free with doing that to an innocent woman.

              Zenaida Gonzalez Tells WFTV "My World Has Been Turned Upside-Down"


              Yes, I can dig why a civil trial would be an option in this situation mentioned above but...

              Actually, I'm talking about why have a civil trial to try someone after the state trial for basically the same charges like in the OJ trial situation?

              Thanks!

              TL
              Signature

              "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4209914].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                Yes, I can dig why a civil trial would be an option in this situation mentioned above but...

                Actually, I'm talking about why have a civil trial to try someone after the state trial for basically the same charges like in the OJ trial situation?

                Thanks!

                TL
                That was done because OJ was acquitted when it was pretty evident that he did it. In a civil suit, there does not have to be proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" the way it does in a criminal trial. There only has to be "preponderance of evidence", decribed by the Free Dictionary as:

                A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true.
                That means that proving the "wrongful death" against OJ was a whole lot simpler than getting him convicted of criminal charges in the deaths and just like the Casey Anthony case if Zenaida Gonzales and her attorney prevail, winning the civil suit hits the person in one of the most painful places: their pocketbook. That's better than having them walk away completely scott-free.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4210017].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    "Finally, if there was not enough evidence to prove she was guilty than our justice system did not fail."

    Over 300 pieces but that wasn't enough?
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4208532].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author BloggingPro
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      "Finally, if there was not enough evidence to prove she was guilty than our justice system did not fail."

      Over 300 pieces but that wasn't enough?
      Obviously not...
      Signature
      You're going to fail. If you're afraid of failure then you do not belong in the Internet Marketing Business. Period.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4208556].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by BloggingPro View Post

        Obviously not...
        Of course,the opposite of your thought is the justice system DID fail.
        Which a lot of people agree with.


        But you do have people that follow your line of thought too.The only person that really knows the truth was just convicted of 4 counts of lying to the police.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4208759].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author BloggingPro
          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          Of course,the opposite of your thought is the justice system DID fail.
          Which a lot of people agree with.


          But you do have people that follow your line of thought too.The only person that really knows the truth was just convicted of 4 counts of lying to the police.
          And that is fine if people believe the justice system failed. I personally don't agree with that. To each his own. I'm not here to argue with anyone. I'm not even here to defend her. I don't know her. And your right the only person who knows what happened is her.
          Signature
          You're going to fail. If you're afraid of failure then you do not belong in the Internet Marketing Business. Period.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4208775].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      "Finally, if there was not enough evidence to prove she was guilty than our justice system did not fail."

      Over 300 pieces but that wasn't enough?
      Evidence does not necessarily equal proof. I could produce 300 pieces of evidence to support my belief that Jesus lives in my car for example.
      Signature

      :)

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4209312].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by mojojuju View Post

        Evidence does not necessarily equal proof. I could produce 300 pieces of evidence to support my belief that Jesus lives in my car for example.
        Please read:
        -noun
        1.
        that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
        2.
        something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
        3.
        Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
        ================================================== =======

        No offense, but if you think you could provide 300 pieces of REAL evidence to your theory,then you don't understand the meaning of the word.

        Of course,this thread is filled with armchair lawyers and as I said earlier,the only person that knows the truth is a convicted liar,and to me personally,that speaks volumes.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4211515].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          Please read:
          –noun
          1.
          that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
          2.
          something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
          3.
          Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
          ================================================== =======

          No offense, but if you think you could provide 300 pieces of REAL evidence to your theory,then you don't understand the meaning of the word.

          Of course,this thread is filled with armchair lawyers and as I said earlier,the only person that knows the truth is a convicted liar,and to me personally,that speaks volumes.
          You DO realize that it is saying that evidence is NOT proof! The LAW says evidence is NOT proof! It is ILLEGAL for a court to declare you gilty just because someone claims you confessed! THAT is evidence though! OJ could not be considered guilty because of the blood, etc... at the scene. NOPE! Evidene is NOT proof! Evidence is something that SUGGESTS something happened and can paint a pattern that can be USD as proof. EVERY case gets evidence! SOME even get evidence that suggests a guilty party. But it may take a LOT of evidence to prove the case to the law's satisfaction.

          In that definition, there is a gramatical error in the first one. It doesn't even make sense! The first and the last part contradict. It SHOULD have said ground for belief OR proof! It is NOT proof, THAT is made clear by the first part that says "TENDS to prove". It is merely a ground for proof. The example on the second is a good one "His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.". A flushed look does NOT prove a fever! It merely SUGGESTS one. the tird says "data presented IN proof". THAT suggests that the evidence merely SUGGESTS a fact and must be taken as a whole. The court RARELY says HERE'S the one piece of evidence, the prosecution rests!

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4211793].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          Please read:
          –noun
          1.
          that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
          2.
          something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
          3.
          Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
          Again, and despite your definition of evidence (which seems to have come from dictionary.com), evidence does not necessarily equal proof in a court of law. If it did, we'd be in trouble.

          For example, in a murder trial, two witnesses may provide conflicting accounts of an event that happened.

          Witness 1: I saw the accused walking up the front porch steps of the victim's home in New York City at 5 pm the day the victim died.

          Witness 2: I saw the accused eating pizza at a Chuck E. Cheese's in Seattle at 5 pm the day the victim died.

          Here we have two witness testimonies as evidence. We'll assume that the victim died at 5:15 pm. If evidence necessarily equals proof, then the accused was in both New York City and in Seattle at the same time. He both murdered the victim and did not murder the victim.

          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          No offense, but if you think you could provide 300 pieces of REAL evidence to your theory,then you don't understand the meaning of the word.
          No, it would mean that I'm crazy and that I really must believe that Jesus lives in my car.

          I can produce evidence though, that Jesus lives in my car. For instance, I found a napkin on the passenger's side floorboard with a note written in ketchup which reads "Jesus was here. I love you, man". Another time, I found a long hair in the back seat (Jesus is believed to have long hair).

          I didn't say I could produce proof, and the fact that you don't seem to make a distinction between evidence and proof indicates to me that you don't understand the meaning of the word evidence.

          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          Of course,this thread is filled with armchair lawyers
          Of course it is. The internet is filled with armchair lawyers right now.

          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          and as I said earlier,the only person that knows the truth is a convicted liar,and to me personally,that speaks volumes.
          Maybe so.
          Signature

          :)

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4211954].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    Blogger Pro - what you say may be true. I do see we are sensationalist and I really don't like that.

    However, the issue I have is obviously different from yours. My issue is that you don't commit a crime, obstruct justice and then make book (money) on it.

    The media is the media - that's BUSINESS. Right or Wrong, Bad or Good. That is the way it is. Now in business there is nothing criminal about going after ratings - the same as finding a good 'niche', finding out how much money you can make from it and going for it.

    Even though it is the tragic death of a child they are reporting on, AND they didn't make such a big deal about 199 others, it is however, a long way from someone committing the crime and then making a profit from it IN ADDITION TO GETTING AWAY WITH IT.

    THAT IS MY POINT.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4208598].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author BloggingPro
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      However, the issue I have is obviously different from yours. My issue is that you don't commit a crime, obstruct justice and then make book (money) on it.

      The media is the media - that's BUSINESS. Right or Wrong, Bad or Good. That is the way it is. Now in business there is nothing criminal about going after ratings - the same as finding a good 'niche', finding out how much money you can make from it and going for it.

      Even though it is the tragic death of a child they are reporting on, AND they didn't make such a big deal about 199 others, it is however, a long way from someone committing the crime and then making a profit from it IN ADDITION TO GETTING AWAY WITH IT.
      My biggest problems with these "getting away with it" statements are that the people who are saying this did not see her murder her child. The evidence was apparently inconclusive which led to the decision made yesterday.

      I contend that many people feel "she got away with it" because of the sensationalized media, who exploited a the death of a two year old girl in a way that no other case like it has before.

      I've been reading all day that our justice system has failed. It did not fail. The prosecution failed. The system works in blacks and whites. There are no grays. If this person really did get away with murder, it is not the jury's fault--that blame should rest solely on the prosecution for not providing solid enough evidence.

      In my opinion, unless you actually saw this woman murder her child then you have no right to say "she got away with it."

      If she profits from her story, well then she can be lumped into the same category as the media moguls who exploited the death of her daughter to increase ratings and advertising revenue in what is generally considered a slow news period for most organizations.
      Signature
      You're going to fail. If you're afraid of failure then you do not belong in the Internet Marketing Business. Period.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4208766].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    The police were TOLD where the body might be, apparently NEVER investigated the source, and WAITED! THAT endangered the case! Some have presented a theory that the GRANDFATHER may have killed her! Did the justice system fail? YEP! If the police went earlier, they might have gotten a conviction of the MURDERER! If they waited, they may STILL have had a chance. They BLEW IT!

    The jury made the RIGHT decision. under the law.

    BTW a talk show host today stated that FOX news showed a split screen of Casey when the jury was present and absent. he was happy and cracking jokes when they were absent, and sad and somber when they were present.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4208943].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    Remember the saying (which I don't believe mostly) that 'there is no truth only perception' - hearing her taped phone conversations from jail with her parents, her talking to the cops, etc., is what I based my opinion on and things that she actually did and said. Without the media I wouldn't have been privy to that - so thank the media.

    True they didn't show her in her better days - nobody is all good or all bad -

    ... however nothing about this even showed a hint of a real person with real feelings - (until they said 'not guilty' I saw a real tear and not just posturing) - (although I did see pictures of her smiling and holding Kaylee in better days)

    You can all blame the media if you want to - but it doesn't justify anything she did or said in this case.

    I understand begrudgingly that our system of justice didn't fail. I understand that it is because we believe in the premise that it is better to let a criminal go free than to imprison (or execute) an innocent person because of lack of evidence.

    I am entitled to my opinion just as you are and I still think she is super guilty - maybe not of murder as I have said several times - most definitely she is guilty of something - especially but not only of lying and obstructing justice by those lies - serious lies with serious consequences -- which actually created the environment where there was no evidence - how slick is that? Nobody can blame the media for that or our justice system either.

    'how can you tell when she is lying? (when her lips move)'.

    I hate liars probably more than anything.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4209268].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
    Yeah, her father and her brother were both accused of sexual abuse. There was zero evidence of this; the judge actually told both the defense and the prosecution that they could not mention it in their closing arguments because there was absolutely not one shred of evidence to support it. However, there will always be some folks who believe it, even though Casey was proven to be a liar. She pretty much ruined her family's lives with her lying.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4209513].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author RyanJohnson
    Someone said it in a past post of this thread but what's the difference in this case and the other 200 cases a year where adults murder children? I think the difference is that most other cases are clear cut and many even admit to it... whereas this one was all on truth/lies/speculation.... so they had to blow it up because nobody knew. She said she didn't do it and the media said she did.

    I agree with the alternate Juror that spoke out... the WHOLE family knows more than they are letting on.... Crazy stuff that is over now. sucks... but that's how it is. now we may never know the EXACT truth..... but again, that's the way it is. On the other hand, she could confess tomorrow and it wouldn't matter. Did she do it? I don't know. Does it matter? not anymore.... as bad as that sounds...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4209558].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    The premise is that because the court says you are not guilty does not mean you are innocent. Just that they can't prove you are guilty.

    Maybe somebody can explain it better than I can but that is the idea I got -

    Not murder but 'wrongful death' I think is what they called it in OJ's case.

    So in a case like that where there was tangible forensic evidence (other than the bodies), and even though thought to be 'contaminated' or 'tampered with', and so much circumstantial evidence, apparently the civil court recognized it and they won, hands down. Something like $30 million was awarded

    Again, not sure if I am exactly right about criminal vs. civil court/law.

    No doubt in this place somebody will correct me if I am wrong (or even if I am not LOL).
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4210009].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      The premise is that because the court says you are not guilty does not mean you are innocent. Just that they can't prove you are guilty.

      Maybe somebody can explain it better than I can but that is the idea I got -

      Not murder but 'wrongful death' I think is what they called it in OJ's case.

      So in a case like that where there was tangible evidence (other than the bodies), and even though it had been thought to be 'contaminated' or 'tampered with' apparently the civil court recognized it and they won, hands down.

      Again, that is just the idea I got - not sure if I am exactly right.
      In civil court the evidence did not have to convince the jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" the way it has to in criminal court. There simply had to be a "preponderance of evidence" to convince the jury in any civil case and that's why civil cases are often easier to win.

      Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4210023].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    I just hope that Zenaida gets a good whopping bit of cash from all of this. She went through hell over something that she had no way of even knowing about. If I were her I would sue my ex-employer for wrongful firing - and the old landlord. They had no business firing her for something she was never convicted of. Under the circumstances, they should be begging her forgiveness right now.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4210132].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    CNN and Nancy Grace wouldn't make any money off of stuff like this if no one watched.

    And no one would make millions from a book deal if no one bought the books.

    I don't have a clue about innocence or guilt, as I refuse to watch this crap.
    Signature
    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4210188].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Steve,
    Yes of course I understand evidence is not proof. That is not what my post was trying to convey.
    But at the same time, circumstancial evidence has been enough in many cases for conviction. Is that making better sense? Its early and I may not be thinking clear enough to make sense at the moment :-)
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4211857].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Steve,
      Yes of course I understand evidence is not proof. That is not what my post was trying to convey.
      But at the same time, circumstancial evidence has been enough in many cases for conviction. Is that making better sense? Its early and I may not be thinking clear enough to make sense at the moment :-)
      Circumstancial evidence is WORSE. I mean some mother that has a toddler in a beauty pagent may have said caylee looked beautiful. Maybe she was with caylee that day. Maybe she gave caylee something to eat! MOTIVE, opportunity, I forget the last requirement, but I'm sure it was met. So could you convict her? You would have to have more than that.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4212662].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        That was done because OJ was acquitted when it was pretty evident that he did it.
        But that was the court of public opinion. In that case you could argue guilt or innocence based on the facts you chose to believe.

        Can you imagine a place where juries listened to Judge Jeanette and Nancy Grace and make their decisions based on "public" opinion? I wouldn't want to live there.

        I agree civil actions are necessary - just don't agree they should be used to circumvent a jury's decision. Talking heads love to point out that "not guilty" and "innocent" are not the same - but so what? If you are not guilty under the law, it's stupid to me to be able to get a guilty verdict in another court and I think it's a flaw in the system.

        On the other hand - I hope the woman Casey named in her lies gets a great judgment...but I'm not sure she can collect anything. That's a different aspect of this case - not a re-trying of the case as happened with OJ.
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
        ***
        One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
        what it is instead of what you think it should be.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4212709].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by mojojuju View Post

        Again, and despite your definition of evidence (which seems to have come from dictionary.com), evidence does not necessarily equal proof in a court of law. If it did, we'd be in trouble.

        For example, in a murder trial, two witnesses may provide conflicting accounts of an event that happened.

        Witness 1: I saw the accused walking up the front porch steps of the victim's home in New York City at 5 pm the day the victim died.

        Witness 2: I saw the accused eating pizza at a Chuck E. Cheese's in Seattle at 5 pm the day the victim died.

        Here we have two witness testimonies as evidence. We'll assume that the victim died at 5:15 pm. If evidence necessarily equals proof, then the accused was in both New York City and in Seattle at the same time. He both murdered the victim and did not murder the victim.



        No, it would mean that I'm crazy and that I really must believe that Jesus lives in my car.

        I can produce evidence though, that Jesus lives in my car. For instance, I found a napkin on the passenger's side floorboard with a note written in ketchup which reads "Jesus was here. I love you, man". Another time, I found a long hair in the back seat (Jesus is believed to have long hair).

        I didn't say I could produce proof, and the fact that you don't seem to make a distinction between evidence and proof indicates to me that you don't understand the meaning of the word evidence.



        Of course it is. The internet is filled with armchair lawyers right now.



        Maybe so.
        mojojuju,yes my definition came from dictionary dot com. Does that make it invalid?

        As far as evidence not equalling proof,you are repeating what I said earlier, I agree that evidence does not equal proof.

        You also said:
        "I didn't say I could produce proof, and the fact that you don't seem to make a distinction between evidence and proof indicates to me that you don't understand the meaning of the word evidence."

        See above, I very clearly said evidence and proof are not the same.

        The one thing I could be wrong on is where I said:
        "Originally Posted by KimW
        and as I said earlier,the only person that knows the truth is a convicted liar,and to me personally,that speaks volumes."

        You said: Maybe so. And you are right,Because there may be more people that know for sure.I stand corrected.




        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        Circumstancial evidence is WORSE. I mean some mother that has a toddler in a beauty pagent may have said caylee looked beautiful. Maybe she was with caylee that day. Maybe she gave caylee something to eat! MOTIVE, opportunity, I forget the last requirement, but I'm sure it was met. So could you convict her? You would have to have more than that.

        Steve
        Steve, I believe what you are looking for is motive, opportunity and means.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4212925].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          mojojuju,yes my definition came from dictionary dot com. Does that make it invalid?

          As far as evidence not equalling proof,you are repeating what I said earlier, I agree that evidence does not equal proof.

          You also said:
          "I didn't say I could produce proof, and the fact that you don't seem to make a distinction between evidence and proof indicates to me that you don't understand the meaning of the word evidence."

          See above, I very clearly said evidence and proof are not the same.

          The one thing I could be wrong on is where I said:
          "Originally Posted by KimW
          and as I said earlier,the only person that knows the truth is a convicted liar,and to me personally,that speaks volumes."

          You said: Maybe so. And you are right,Because there may be more people that know for sure.I stand corrected.






          Steve, I believe what you are looking for is motive, opportunity and means.
          YEP, that's right! Motive? To get rid of a challenger! Opportunity? Could feed her! Means? POISON! HEY, that was EVEN in Sleeping Beauty! A pretty old tale!

          BTW Casey will be freed next wednesday. It is said that they will protect her as she is NO LONGER WELCOME in that town!

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4213075].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
            Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            BTW Casey will be freed next wednesday. It is said that they will protect her as she is NO LONGER WELCOME in that town!
            Well I was wondering about that when I read in another forum where somebody had suggested that some instance of mob justice might take place. She's probably not welcome anywhere within the broadcasting area of the Nancy Grace show.

            edit: I guess not everybody hates Casey Anthony.

            Signature

            :)

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4213162].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by mojojuju View Post

              Well I was wondering about that when I read in another forum where somebody had suggested that some instance of mob justice might take place. She's probably not welcome anywhere within the broadcasting area of the Nancy Grace show.

              edit: I guess not everybody hates Casey Anthony.

              I guess it takes all kinds. Casey is what some would call, and I have heard her called this, poor white trash! It is effectively the white version of the N word. She has NOTHING going for her. She had a cute daughter that seemed like maybe she might break away from that, but we KNOW how THAT ended up. She sounds crazy, and isn't that attractive, so WHY would ANYONE want to marry her!? Casey seems like the EPITOME of all *I* try to avoid!

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4213603].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author BloggingPro
              Originally Posted by mojojuju View Post

              I know its probably just how the screen cap makes him look, but this guy looks creepy! lol... they would be a perfect fit if she is as crazy as they make her sound.
              Signature
              You're going to fail. If you're afraid of failure then you do not belong in the Internet Marketing Business. Period.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4213747].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Frankly, since there was no determination on cause of death in the first place, to me it's a bit of a wonder the trial even took place. Usually you have a body and a coronor's statement of cause of death: murder, poison, stab wounds, etc before you have a murder trial. To me it's just totally unbelievable that they even had a murder trial without first establishing that there was, in fact, a murder. Go figure.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4213057].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Frankly, since there was no determination on cause of death in the first place, to me it's a bit of a wonder the trial even took place. Usually you have a body and a coronor's statement of cause of death: murder, poison, stab wounds, etc before you have a murder trial. To me it's just totally unbelievable that they even had a murder trial without first establishing that there was, in fact, a murder. Go figure.
      Sal I do remember the corninor (SP) saying it had to be murder because of how the body was found. She admitted she didn't know how the child died though.
      I understand her logic, sorta. But I think it could still be an accidental death with the mother freaking out and doing the wrong thing. I'm not defending Casey, just that I don't think finding a body like that automatically makes it murder.
      Again people I'm not defending anyone, just pointing out the flaw in her logic.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4213576].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Frankly, since there was no determination on cause of death in the first place, to me it's a bit of a wonder the trial even took place. Usually you have a body and a coronor's statement of cause of death: murder, poison, stab wounds, etc before you have a murder trial. To me it's just totally unbelievable that they even had a murder trial without first establishing that there was, in fact, a murder. Go figure.
      I actually suspect that this is what was the biggest issue; however, there HAVE been cases where a person was found guilty of murder when a body was never even recovered.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4214098].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MerlynSanchez
      I don't know why people are so hung up on this. (no offense, Sal)

      People get convicted without a body (granted it's not easy or common but it happens) let alone without a definitive cause of death.

      The medical examiner ruled Caylee's death a homicide, not a natural death.

      Scott Peterson was convicted of his wife's murder although decomposition was too far advanced to determine cause of death.

      I guess if he had claimed she accidentally drowned in the pool, he would have been acquitted.




      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Frankly, since there was no determination on cause of death in the first place, to me it's a bit of a wonder the trial even took place. Usually you have a body and a coronor's statement of cause of death: murder, poison, stab wounds, etc before you have a murder trial. To me it's just totally unbelievable that they even had a murder trial without first establishing that there was, in fact, a murder. Go figure.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4215583].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Joshua Hawk
        Originally Posted by MerlynSanchez View Post

        The medical examiner ruled Caylee's death a homicide, not a natural death.
        Yes, but when asked on the stand why she ruled it a homicide, she gave non-medical reasons such as Casey not reporting it and the body being found in the woods. This is completely different than in the OJ trial where the examiner had plenty of medical information about knife wounds to the bodies.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4215808].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MerlynSanchez
          OJ? I didn't mention OJ.




          Originally Posted by Joshua Hawk View Post

          Yes, but when asked on the stand why she ruled it a homicide, she gave non-medical reasons such as Casey not reporting it and the body being found in the woods. This is completely different than in the OJ trial where the examiner had plenty of medical information about knife wounds to the bodies.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4215863].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Joshua Hawk
            Originally Posted by MerlynSanchez View Post

            OJ? I didn't mention OJ.
            ??? I didn't say you did.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4216055].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Yeah, common sense reasons. There doesn't have to be a smoking gun. See Scott Peterson among many others.

          Originally Posted by Joshua Hawk View Post

          Yes, but when asked on the stand why she ruled it a homicide, she gave non-medical reasons such as Casey not reporting it and the body being found in the woods.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4217184].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Joshua Hawk
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            Yeah, common sense reasons. There doesn't have to be a smoking gun. See Scott Peterson among many others.
            It takes more than "common sense" to do an autopsy. The comment I replied to could have been interpreted as that the medical examiner found evidence to intentional damage on the body. I was just pointing out how that wasn't the case.

            No, there doesn't have to be a smoking gun to be found guilty. You also don't even have to really be guilty to be found guilty. Thankfully though, the system is set up to typically demand enough proof so that the amount of innocents who go to jail is kept at a minimum.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4217259].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Sure it takes more, but common sense and deductive reasoning usually has a place in any medical examiners decision to conclude whether a death is accidental death or a homicide. This was the chief medical examiner for Orange and Osceola counties. This was a sworn testimony by this examiner that there was evidence to intentional damage on the body. By the way, you left out the part about the duct tape over the mouth, which I would think would be a medical issue regarding a death.

              Originally Posted by Joshua Hawk View Post

              It takes more than "common sense" to do an autopsy. The comment I replied to could have been interpreted as that the medical examiner found evidence to intentional damage on the body.
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4217555].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Joshua Hawk
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                Sure it takes more, but common sense and deductive reasoning usually has a place in any medical examiners decision to conclude whether a death is accidental death or a homicide. This was the chief medical examiner for Orange and Osceola counties. This was a sworn testimony by this examiner that there was evidence to intentional damage on the body. By the way, you left out the part about the duct tape over the mouth, which I would think would be a medical issue regarding a death.
                There was duct tape attached to hair and the speculation was that it likely had been around the mouth. There wasn't any testimony saying "I am 100% medically sure that this tape was around the mouth." There was testimony from the other doctor though, basically saying that he was 100% sure that it had not been touching skin, one of the reasons being that there was no DNA on it.

                There was nothing in the autopsy or testimony about medical proof of intentional damage to the body. The remains were mostly a skeleton. The official cause of death in the autopsy was listed as "death by undetermined means."
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4217727].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  Not true. That isn't what doctor Spitz said.

                  Originally Posted by Joshua Hawk View Post

                  There was testimony from the other doctor though, basically saying that he was 100% sure that it had not been touching skin...
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4218378].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Joshua Hawk
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    Not true. That isn't what doctor Spitz said.
                    He may not have used a phrase like "100% sure" but he did say the tape had to have gotten there after the skin decomposed, and he said that skin would have stuck to the sticky tape, which would have provided DNA.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4219198].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author BloggingPro
    Was reading an article earlier today that didn't make much sense, but regardless had a question.

    Now that she has been acquitted can Casey bring a lawsuit against the likes of Nancy Grace for defamation, since they for nearly 3 years claimed she was guilty and made some pretty bold statements on a national platform? Just curious if thats even possible.
    Signature
    You're going to fail. If you're afraid of failure then you do not belong in the Internet Marketing Business. Period.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4213336].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
      Originally Posted by BloggingPro View Post

      Now that she has been acquitted can Casey bring a lawsuit against the likes of Nancy Grace for defamation, since they for nearly 3 years claimed she was guilty and made some pretty bold statements on a national platform? Just curious if thats even possible.
      I think Nancy Grace is the biggest scumbag on TV right now, but I think that Nasty DisGrace's speech is protected by the 1st amendment because on her show, she's essentially just saying her opinion. Also, Casey Anthony is a public figure, which I understand makes a difference in cases of defamation or libel.

      Rather than sue Nancy Grace for defamation of character or whatever, Casey Anthony should be getting prepared to defend her self in the impending defamation lawsuit coming from Zenaida Gonzales.
      Signature

      :)

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4213491].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author BloggingPro
        Originally Posted by mojojuju View Post

        I think Nancy Grace is the biggest scumbag on TV right now, but I think that Nasty DisGrace's speech is protected by the 1st amendment because on her show, she's essentially just saying her opinion. Also, Casey Anthony is a public figure, which I understand makes a difference in cases of defamation or libel.
        No doubt this woman is a scumbag. Focusing on this case in the name of "justice" all while collecting a fat paycheck from increases in advertising revenue from her covering the trial.

        And then on top of that she takes things a step further to claim that Casey shouldn't be allowed to profit from her story--which is exactly what Grace (and others) are doing.

        I don't really care if this woman was guilty or not. The courts decide that. I don't. I feel that the court rooms should not allow television camera's present. Furthermore I feel the media should have to clearly LABEL their programs and NEWS or OPINION.

        Opinion doesn't belong on a 24 hours NEWS channel and we can thank Rupert Murdoch for the sensationalized media we deal with today. I feel very strongly that half of this country wouldn't feel the way they do about this outcome if they weren't told how to feel by the likes of Grace and the media.

        Oh well, someone earlier said, the media is a business. Well so is profiting from you story. Doesn't make it right in either situation.
        Signature
        You're going to fail. If you're afraid of failure then you do not belong in the Internet Marketing Business. Period.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4213720].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Steven Miranda
    What makes no sense is why her mouth would be duct-taped if it were a so called accident as the defense made it out to be? The defendant and parents were even taped in the jail surprised anyone would suggest she died in a swimming pool accident. The whole thing is a twisted set of lies and it is easy to see what really happened but luckily for Casey, the justice system does not work this way.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4213636].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Joshua Hawk
      Originally Posted by Steven Miranda View Post

      What makes no sense is why her mouth would be duct-taped if it were a so called accident as the defense made it out to be?
      No DNA was on the piece of tape and a doctor said it had never been attached to skin. However, if someone was trying to cover up an accidental death and make it look like a murder by someone else, then placing tape would make sense in that context.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4214605].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        This has not been legally proven in a court of law. Just because a doctor says there was no dna and it wasn't ever attached to skin doesn't necessarily make it true.

        Originally Posted by Joshua Hawk View Post

        No DNA was on the piece of tape and a doctor said it had never been attached to skin.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4214818].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Joshua Hawk
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          This has not been legally proven in a court of law. Just because a doctor says there was no dna and it wasn't ever attached to skin doesn't necessarily make it true.
          You are correct. However in this case, both the prosecution and defense were in agreement that no DNA was on the tape. The mother says she knows for sure that she did the searches. The prosecution didn't produce anyone saying that they know for sure that tape was covering the mouth.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4214962].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            I don't see a point in rehashing the "evidence" or "lack thereof" - the verdict is in and this part of the case is over.

            Casey showed up today with hair down - looking like she was ready to go "home" - her face changed drastically when the judge said she must serve 6 more days before that happens. Her three years is time served.

            She may get sued by the person whose name she used - the man from Texas who organized a major search based on Casey's lies about the "nanny" may sue her for the $100k+ his group spent. Other than tie her time up a bit - what's the point of the lawsuits as she doesn't have money to award.

            I'd just like to see her disappear from the news.
            Signature
            Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
            ***
            One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
            what it is instead of what you think it should be.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4215453].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Patrician
              Originally Posted by Kay King View Post


              She may get sued by the person whose name she used - the man from Texas who organized a major search based on Casey's lies about the "nanny" may sue her for the $100k+ his group spent. Other than tie her time up a bit - what's the point of the lawsuits as she doesn't have money to award.

              They can attach any money she ever makes for the rest of her life - at least in a civil suit. Essentially making her life very difficult as any 'extra' money beyond living expenses would be fair game -

              ... now there is justice.
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4215500].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by Joshua Hawk View Post

            You are correct. However in this case, both the prosecution and defense were in agreement that no DNA was on the tape. The mother says she knows for sure that she did the searches. The prosecution didn't produce anyone saying that they know for sure that tape was covering the mouth.
            NOBODY cares if the tape was on the skin, or has dna ANYWAY! Considering how bad manufacturing of food is, etc...I would be SHOCKED if there were NO DNA on the tape from the STORE!

            NOPE, NOBODY cares about ANY of that! It means NOTHING!

            What they care about is whether this tape can tie two pieces of the puzzle together, and DNA FOUND AND TESTED could maybe do that! SO, at this point, if they say there was NO DNA on the tape, it is near immaterial if they were wrong, because it has probably already been worked on plenty. Without the DNA and/or the tie, and a proper chain of custody, it is pretty much worthless.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4215570].message }}
  • I thought the internet searches would have lead to a conviction. Apparently I was wrong.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4214267].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    ... the calm before the storm.

    Can't wait to see the fireworks when they announce whatever slap on the wrist they will pronounce for her sentence for being a liar.

    Personally praying the judge will see the logic in adding an obstruction of justice charge.

    Here is another inconsistency in the law though:

    I have heard there is no law where you can be arrested for not reporting a crime (or an 'accidental' death).

    However if you are given a subpoena you can be arrested for not showing up and telling what you know under oath and the threat of perjury. (but could cop the 5th)

    Obviously my knowledge of law consists of television, especially old Perry Mason episodes. (and I can't believe how many spellings I have either done wrong or had to look up to even discuss it) LOL.

    As to an earlier comment somewhere that I can't find - someone is saying that the source that says Cindy Anthony was at work on the days of the internet searches could be wrong: I believe I saw somewhere that Cindy worked for a bank at the time.

    Having worked in banking (offices) for 15 years I can tell you there are 'swipe badge' mechanisms an employee must pass through - sometimes 2 or 3 by the time you get to your desk - these are essentially mechanical time clocks and permanent records - If she was an hourly worker or in a branch office, she may even have had an actual time clock to punch in.

    (and this is not to mention the computer she used at work having an absolute 'footprint' of when she is logged in and out)

    So I would say that is irrefutable evidence and she is clearly another liar like her daughter. Rather yukky like her too. I guess 'the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree'.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4214470].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
    Considering all of the crap she's going to have to deal with in order to live a sub-normal life, I think she'd be better off staying in prison for life.
    Signature

    :)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4215507].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MerlynSanchez
      Never underestimate the public.

      She's already received several marriage proposals.

      She'll be on a reality show or two, maybe a porno, pen a best seller about
      her experiences and rake in the fame and fortune.

      I'm sure she'll enjoy it more than prison.


      Originally Posted by mojojuju View Post

      Considering all of the crap she's going to have to deal with in order to live a sub-normal life, I think she'd be better off staying in prison for life.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4215631].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Frankly, if were a publisher, I wouldn't pay her a DIME for the story. If I wanted to write the story, I would ADVERTISE that the book was researched from public info, etc..., and that NO money was going to her, etc... It would probably increase the sales of the book, and its validity. She is a PROVEN liar. Her family is full of liars. Nobody likes them.

    BTW I heard today that the lawyers said she should not be jaiiled for lying because it constitutes double jeopardy! CRAZY!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4215600].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
    I forgot about all of those perks. I need to get myself acquitted of murder, then I can get a best selling book deal and be in a porno.
    Signature

    :)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4215639].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MerlynSanchez
      I don't know if you could write a best seller but I'm pretty sure that you could be in a porno without having to be acquitted of murder first


      Originally Posted by mojojuju View Post

      I forgot about all of those perks. I need to get myself acquitted of murder, then I can get a best selling book deal and be in a porno.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4215727].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
        Originally Posted by MerlynSanchez View Post

        I don't know if you could write a best seller but I'm pretty sure that you could be in a porno without having to be acquitted of murder first
        I'm not the type of guy that regularly gets approached by porn producers.
        Signature

        :)

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4216047].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4215812].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      Saw a guy on the news holding up a sign "casey will you marry me" and I though "man, you must be such a loser".

      The idea of her writing a book is hilarious - how could you believe anything she says? I promise I won't ghostwrite it:p
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
      what it is instead of what you think it should be.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4215857].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
    I rarely watch Nancy Grace but it's pretty common knowledge that her show is opinion, not news...or at least I thought so. I've known for a long time that the Nancy Grace show is a commentary, not a "real" news program. I don't watch her often, so I could be wrong but doesn't she even take calls from listeners who also give their opinions? That's all THAT is: opinion.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4216350].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author VegasVince
      Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards View Post

      I rarely watch Nancy Grace but it's pretty common knowledge that her show is opinion, not news...or at least I thought so. I've known for a long time that the Nancy Grace show is a commentary, not a "real" news program. I don't watch her often, so I could be wrong but doesn't she even take calls from listeners who also give their opinions? That's all THAT is: opinion.


      An opinion that expresses her contention that the Duke Lacrosse Team savagely raped several strippers........goes beyond an opinion. It's pretty slimy even by show biz standards.


      Vegas Vince
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4216374].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
        Originally Posted by VegasVince View Post

        An opinion that expresses her contention that the Duke Lacrosse Team savagely raped several strippers........goes beyond an opinion. It's pretty slimy even by show biz standards.


        Vegas Vince
        Like I said, I don't really watch the show. But that does seem pretty slimy to me as well. My point was just that the show is known to be an opinion and commentary show, not a "real" news show.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4216445].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author VegasVince
        Back when I wrote a blog that actually meant something I remember this post. It happened in my town. To this man.

        And while we can bitch and whine about Casey and OJ et al......here's a case of the worst kind of injustice...and this is now the second time this has happened in my backwards ass county in Florida.

        This should be required reading for the simple fact injustice comes in all forms.....in this case....Southern Justice. Thank YOU Project Innocence for the great work you do. Amazing how quick we love to convict on DNA evidence...and how slow we are to use it to EXONERATE THE INNOCENT...AND THIS CASE WENT FAR BEYOND DNA.

        It was a glorified frame up from day one....and made me literally sick to my stomach after hearing all the details. A word to the wise.....there remains a very small number of people in prisons that are innocent...very small indeed. But even one is to many. Had this been Texas.....George W would have had a needle in this mans arm long ago...that's not political...it's based on cases.

        Welcome to sunny Florida.



        VEGAS VINCE....Southern Justice Shame.


        Perhaps the greatest injustice of all.... is the incarceration of an innocent human being.....locked away for the crimes and sins of another...who "got away."

        The State Of Florida....and the "good ol' boys" associated with the James Bain frame up....should be prosecuted and imprisoned themselves for crimes against humanity.

        This was a "lynch mob" PROSECUTION FROM THE JUMP STREET....led by crooked, lazy, law enforcement stooges...... who literally hand picked a random suspect based on skin color ..and made it stick...cuz they were too damn lazy to look for the real perpetrator.

        How sad. How shameful. And your tax dollars flipped the bill for it.

        Vegas Vince applauds the efforts of the Innocence Project...and
        can only hope that Polk County Florida's current, head law enforcement officer Grady Judd is as equally disturbed...and outraged....over one of the worst miscarriages of justice in the history of Polk County, Florida.

        What's really frightening is the fact that had this been a murder case.....an innocent man would have most likely been executed by the very same state of Florida who took 35 years to figure out they had the "wrong guy."

        I found it ironic that after 35 years of wrongful incarceration...the acting judge couldn't even offer up an apology to this man. What a sham. What a shame.

        I find strength.... in the strength of Mr. James Bain.

        I find peace....in the fact he is at peace with himself.

        I have said many times in the past few days...live life one day at a time.

        Cuz it can end tomorrow......and not always the way you might expect.

        Don't believe me? Ask James Bain......a victim of a corrupt system.....but living proof that you can never imprison the soul of one who refuses to give up his faith.




        James Bain...who could have walked out a bitter man like I would have....but who chose to relish in the simple things in life...a home cooked meal with his family.

        File this one under I for injustice.....and perhaps....inspiration.


        xxx Vegas Vince
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4216500].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TheKeys
    I still think the jury made the right decent. Base on the evidence they had not the "hear-say" evidence they made the best decision they could. Lets face it.. there was no fingerprints.. the cops neglected a lot of the scene... just a lot of mess ups on both sides.
    Signature

    Help fund a trip to California
    Please donate to help fund my trip to California.
    Please share or tweet this
    http://goo.gl/VidCzJ

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4216600].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4217343].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    If caylee had been taken by someone, and ended up getting away and falling into the swamp, it could explain a delayed reporting AND caylee being in the woods, with NO homicide! Of course, 30 days is a STRETCH, and casey didn't state a real culprit.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4217348].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      If caylee had been taken by someone, and ended up getting away and falling into the swamp, it could explain a delayed reporting AND caylee being in the woods, with NO homicide! Of course, 30 days is a STRETCH, and casey didn't state a real culprit.

      Steve
      I suspect it is this sort of thing the jury was thinking. And that's fine; our judicial system is set up to protect our citizens. What I, personally, would be wondering is WHY was Casey lying so much? What was the motivation behind all the lying and goose chases, even to her own mother? What was behind all of that if her dad did, indeed, help her cover up the accident?

      Personally, I think it was an accident, but it was the type of accident you DON'T report; something like she chloroformed the child and put her to sleep in the trunk or something. But that could just be me. We don't know what really happened and Casey is apparently not giving enough information so that it can be figured out.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4217375].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author msmir75
        Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards View Post

        I suspect it is this sort of thing the jury was thinking. And that's fine; our judicial system is set up to protect our citizens. What I, personally, would be wondering is WHY was Casey lying so much? What was the motivation behind all the lying and goose chases, even to her own mother? What was behind all of that if her dad did, indeed, help her cover up the accident?

        Personally, I think it was an accident, but it was the type of accident you DON'T report; something like she chloroformed the child and put her to sleep in the trunk or something. But that could just be me. We don't know what really happened and Casey is apparently not giving enough information so that it can be figured out.
        Well she is a pathological liar, we know that and when you look into her eyes you see that stone cold sociopath look in there. It is creepy. Now yes, it is absolutely impossible to say how Caylee died. Perhaps it WAS an accident due to being chloroformed too much... but what would explain the duct tape? That is what makes you wonder about it. It is a real mystery that is for sure. So obviously say if it was an accident with overdosing on chloroform, of course she would still lie her way through the whole thing. Disgusting. Again, she is a pathological liar and pathological liars just cannot help themselves.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4217404].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by msmir75 View Post

          Well she is a pathological liar, we know that and when you look into her eyes you see that stone cold sociopath look in there. It is creepy. Now yes, it is absolutely impossible to say how Caylee died. Perhaps it WAS an accident due to being chloroformed too much... but what would explain the duct tape? That is what makes you wonder about it. It is a real mystery that is for sure. So obviously say if it was an accident with overdosing on chloroform, of course she would still lie her way through the whole thing. Disgusting. Again, she is a pathological liar and pathological liars just cannot help themselves.
          chloroform is a POISON! There IS a reason why people got rid of it so quickly. But people should realize that it isn't something to be used so freely. EVEN when you see it used in movies, they often use it until the person stops struggling, and then pull it away. Again, there is a reason. Crooks wouldn't use it AT ALL, except that it can be used QUICKLY is close quarters wih someone that is struggling.

          If they used cloroform, it was to quickly put her out of her misery, or kill her. The CLAIM that casey prepared for this for months is silly. There IS a conspiracy to remove all decent sleep aids from OTC drugs, so THEY are worthless, but she COULD have gone to a doctor, and gotten such drugs. It would be simpler, safer, and FAR easier to explain. HECK, they could have given caylee a huge overdose, and killed her THAT way and avoided this. That IS one reason given for that conspiracy. Too many used the pills for suicide.

          As for the duct tape? If it wasn't on skin, how do we know it was even a restraint?

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4219515].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Nightengale
        Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards View Post

        Personally, I think it was an accident, but it was the type of accident you DON'T report; something like she chloroformed the child and put her to sleep in the trunk or something.
        This is what I'm thinking too. But then, I'm the type of person who thinks that if you cause a child's death through this kind of accident, then you're just as guilty as if you'd deliberately murdered her.

        I'm just sick over the fact that she got away with it. But I think the verdict was correct. There's just no proof and certainly no proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So the jury HAD to acquit.

        And I'm not entirely sure she acted alone. It's possible someone else contributed to Caylee's death. There's just no way to know.

        But a "not guilty" verdict doesn't mean she's innocent. Apparently, a couple of the jurors came forward and said they were sick over the not guilty verdict but couldn't do anything differently. That made me feel a bit better about them.

        I think Casey and her family know a lot more than they're telling. And we'll never know the whole story.

        I'm a firm believer in our justice system and no fan of vigilante justice. But this is one case where I'd LOVE to see Casey get a good dose of vigilante justice (including torture before death), as much as I disagree with it.
        Signature
        "You can't market here. This is a marketing discussion forum!"
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4217443].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards View Post

        I suspect it is this sort of thing the jury was thinking. And that's fine; our judicial system is set up to protect our citizens. What I, personally, would be wondering is WHY was Casey lying so much? What was the motivation behind all the lying and goose chases, even to her own mother? What was behind all of that if her dad did, indeed, help her cover up the accident?

        Personally, I think it was an accident, but it was the type of accident you DON'T report; something like she chloroformed the child and put her to sleep in the trunk or something. But that could just be me. We don't know what really happened and Casey is apparently not giving enough information so that it can be figured out.
        I play "devils advocate" a lot, and sometimes SEEM to be defending people like this, but you will notice a pattern in how I think. HERE, it is that the prosecution should try harder, and be made up of better people ****AND**** the punishment should be WORSE! Besides the criminal system should NOT have the purpose of convicting the guilty! It's purpose should be to DISSUADE people from committing a crime AND to PUNISH those that do. When the former has been the purpose, there has often been anarchy. When the latter has not been the purpose, crime tends to keep going up. Imagine if YOU were in her position! OK, maybe YOU would have reported SOONER.

        One idiot caller on a talk show said SHE would call the police in 30 minutes. That is CRAZY! If my mother did that, the police probably would have blocked her number! And MANY times ****SHE**** was late! One of the reasons why I didn't want her free with alzheimers was because she was calling the police, on MY phone, to ask them what the weather was like, and the time, AND she was calling 911 to report that I was dead in some mishap, or locked in a room. It would do more harm than good. I have to tell you, it is SURREAL when a police officer calls you t report that they just received a report that you and your father were reported as being unconscious in a car you would never be in hundreds or thousands of miles away, and they are calling yu because they couldn't find you in the car!

        And OK, maybe you wouldn't lie, like she did, but the prosecution would pull every little misstatement out and try to make you look like a BAD liar! I still remember a time when I don't think I had EVER told a lie, and my mother accused me of taking cookies I hadn't. THAT was bad enough. I once called a lawyer that planned t sue me because a guy owed me money. I WISH I recorded the call, so I could show how his strategy changed in contradictory ways based on the facts of the case. Or the police man that almost shot me, and tried to confuse me and call me a liar. He never had a reason for stopping me.

        I wouldn't like such people to have the ability to get me thrown in jail. I have thought about this stuff for MONTHS, I certainly didn't just determine this in a few minutes, or even DAYS. Too many here just see this ONE example and figure they have the WHILE thing thought out. And THAT is why I often play "devil's advocate".


        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4219462].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tylos
    Ahh.. strange why she did like this; it's so sad.
    Signature
    Tylos a Cleaning Company in Dubai
    Maid Services in Dubai | Office Cleaning Dubai

    keeps you up to date on the latest developments of the forex markets by Forex
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4217570].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author amscott
    As a citizen of Orange County, Florida, I think they need to stop spending my tax dollars on security for any of the Anthonys, including Casey. I think they pushed back her release date to July 17th in order for them to set up her security. It's time for the Orange County Sheriff's Dept to stop spending our tax money on this...let them hire private security!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4219541].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by amscott View Post

      As a citizen of Orange County, Florida, I think they need to stop spending my tax dollars on security for any of the Anthonys, including Casey. I think they pushed back her release date to July 17th in order for them to set up her security. It's time for the Orange County Sheriff's Dept to stop spending our tax money on this...let them hire private security!
      What does your being a citizen of the county have to do with anything? It costs the state and the COUNTRY! I, and probably hundreds of millions of others AGREE with you! If I even pay .0000001 pennies, it is TOO MUCH!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4221928].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

    There is no proof that Casey Anthony killed her daughter. There are just a lot of people who think she did.

    Thank God our court system worked.
    I think you're right.

    There is plenty of proof that she's a terrible, terrible mother but from everything I've heard about the trial, there is no proof that she killed her daughter.

    I think I heard a juror say, that she thinks Casey did it but there was not enough proof to convict without a reasonable doubt.


    If this was a civil case, Casey would be toast, since the burden of proof is a lot lower.


    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4221287].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      "Thank God our court system worked" Huh? Why is it so important to you that someone who the jurors thought was not innocent will be a free person? I think it will be a sad day when she walks free. Even her parents know she did it. However, you are thanking god and are "delighted".
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4221322].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author BloggingPro
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        "Thank God our court system worked" Huh? Why is it so important to you that someone who the jurors thought was guilty will be a free person? I think it will be a sad day when she walks free. Even her parents know she did it. However, you are thanking god and are "delighted".
        I wish people would stop introducing so much emotion and this witch-hunt mentality into the situation.

        The prosecution did not prove their case. Thats its. She is walking FREE because the system did what it was supposed to do. You just can't put someone to death on a hunch, or on circumstantial evidence.

        Did she really do it? I don't know. I didn't watch her with my own two damn eyes kill her daughter. If you did then you have every right to say that she got away with it.

        The media turned this into a circus. It could even be said that she wouldn't have had the lawyers she had if it wasn't for the media paying so much attention.

        Again the system didn't fail here, the prosecution did. Everyone wants to blame everything on the jury and the system. It's the prosecution's fault for not successfully proving their case.
        Signature
        You're going to fail. If you're afraid of failure then you do not belong in the Internet Marketing Business. Period.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4221359].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Stop telling me what to post here.

          You can convict and put someone to death on circumstantial evidence. Obviously you don't know what you are talking about. I am against the death penalty by the way, so I wouldn't be happy even if she was convicted.

          Originally Posted by BloggingPro View Post

          Stop introducing emotion and this witch-hunt mentality into the situation.

          The prosecution did not prove their case. Thats its. She is walking FREE because the system did what it was supposed to do. You just can't put someone to death on a hunch, or on circumstantial evidence.

          Did she really do it? I don't know. I didn't watch her with my own two damn eyes kill her daughter. If you did then you have every right to say that she got away with it.

          The media turned this into a circus. It could even be said that she wouldn't have had the lawyers she had if it wasn't for the media paying so much attention.

          Again the system didn't fail here, the prosecution did. Everyone wants to blame everything on the jury and the system. It's the prosecution's fault for not successfully proving their case.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4221390].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author BloggingPro
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            Stop telling me what to post here.

            You can convict and put someone to death on circumstantial evidence. Obviously you don't know what you are talking about. I am against the death penalty by the way, so I wouldn't be happy even if she was convicted.
            Obviously you can't just put someone to death based on circumstantial evidence. Look I'm not defending this woman, but we can't just go around putting people to death because of public opinion.

            I've said countless times that many wouldn't even know about this trial if it wasn't for the media. Nobody gives a rats ass about the other 200+ alleged mother/child murders in this country, but for whatever reason we are all focused in on this woman.

            Unless you physically witnessed this person murder her child then you have absolutely no right to say that "she got away with murder," or that the "jury made a terrible decision."

            The jury made a decision based on the evidence that was presented to them over the course of six weeks. All of this "justice system has failed" is ridiculous beyond belief.

            The public outrage regarding this trial could end up costing American's yet another civil liberty, and quite frankly we don't have that many left. If your not proven guilty in a court of law then you are free to go. Prosecution failed if she really did it--not the jury.

            Court of public opinion never worked (witch-hunts), which is why we don't use that system today.
            Signature
            You're going to fail. If you're afraid of failure then you do not belong in the Internet Marketing Business. Period.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4221845].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Scott Peterson for one.

              Originally Posted by BloggingPro View Post

              Obviously you can't just put someone to death based on circumstantial evidence.
              Unless you physically witnessed this person murder her child then you have absolutely no right to say that "she got away with murder," or that the "jury made a terrible decision."
              I don't believe I ever used those two phrases. However, if I wanted to say either one of those statements I would have the right to do so.

              Also, characterizing this trial as a "witch-hunt" is odd. Like I said earlier, even the jurors didn't think she was innocent. Here's a quote from one of them:

              "Casey Anthony juror Jennifer Ford said that she and the other jurors cried and were "sick to our stomachs" after voting to acquit Casey Anthony of charges that she killed her 2-year-old daughter Caylee.

              "I did not say she was innocent," said Ford.

              http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_antho...ry?id=14005609

              Yes, perhaps the prosecutors over charged and made some mistakes, although not all agree with this. Perhaps there wasn't enough evidence although many disagree with this. I accept the verdict but I don't feel our legal system worked wonderfully here. In some countries the jury has more options than just "guilty" or "not guilty".
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4221862].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author BloggingPro
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                Scott Peterson for one.
                Oh please. Don't refer to the only other high profile case that fits your argument to prove a point. There are countless other trials where circumstantial evidence was not enough to convict someone of the crime. Just because these trials didn't receive as much media attention (or even any outside of local papers) doesn't mean they didn't happen. A simple Google search can bring this to light for you.

                Bottom line is that the outrage regarding this trial is ridiculous and place that blame solely on the media networks for introducing a level of blood lust usually reserved for presidential elections.
                Signature
                You're going to fail. If you're afraid of failure then you do not belong in the Internet Marketing Business. Period.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4221913].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  Ridiculous! There are also many, many cases where circumstantial evidence does convict.

                  I don't blame the media networks as much as you because they are only after ratings. If people didn't watch this then they would not talk about it much. The public was interested in this because of the incredible behavior of Casey. Surely you can understand that.


                  Originally Posted by BloggingPro View Post

                  Oh please. Don't refer to the only other high profile case that fits your argument to prove a point. There are countless other trials where circumstantial evidence was not enough to convict someone of the crime. Just because these trials didn't receive as much media attention (or even any outside of local papers) doesn't mean they didn't happen. A simple Google search can bring this to light for you.

                  Bottom line is that the outrage regarding this trial is ridiculous and place that blame solely on the media networks for introducing a level of blood lust usually reserved for presidential elections.
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4221969].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author KimW
                  Originally Posted by BloggingPro View Post

                  Oh please. Don't refer to the only other high profile case that fits your argument to prove a point. There are countless other trials where circumstantial evidence was not enough to convict someone of the crime. Just because these trials didn't receive as much media attention (or even any outside of local papers) doesn't mean they didn't happen. A simple Google search can bring this to light for you.

                  Bottom line is that the outrage regarding this trial is ridiculous and place that blame solely on the media networks for introducing a level of blood lust usually reserved for presidential elections.
                  Someone makes a statement.
                  You say its not true.
                  Your are given an example.
                  You cry foul.

                  Something isn't right here.

                  You say google will bring up countless other trials were circumstantial evidence wasn't enough,but it will also bring up plenty where it was.

                  There are some cases where it is,and some where it isn't, it all depends on the evidence.
                  Signature

                  Read A Post.
                  Subscribe to a Newsletter
                  KimWinfrey.Com

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4221998].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author BloggingPro
                    Originally Posted by KimW View Post

                    Someone makes a statement.
                    You say its not true.
                    Your are given an example.
                    You cry foul.

                    Something isn't right here.

                    You say google will bring up countless other trials were circumstantial evidence wasn't enough,but it will also bring up plenty where it was.

                    There are some cases where it is,and some where it isn't, it all depends on the evidence.
                    I'm not crying foul. If anyone on this forum wants open discussion its me. It's fine that you don't want to agree with me. Which makes it equally fine that I don't agree with you.

                    I'm not in here to personally offend anyone, infringe on someone's rights to speak their mind. However, that doesn't mean I'm not going to speak mine. I personally feel very strongly that there is "outrage" because of the media. 200+ cases a year (according to their own stats) and we hear ONE.

                    I joined this conversation to state that if it wasn't for the sensationalized media this would've just been another trial out in Florida.

                    And yes, there have been convictions based on circumstantial evidence and there have also been acquittals. That doesn't mean EVERY case should end up either or, it just means that it can happen and has happened before.

                    You are more than welcome to think that this woman is guilty, however, I personally feel that unless you saw her commit the murder its not your place. Thats my opinion. Doesn't mean I'm crying foul.
                    Signature
                    You're going to fail. If you're afraid of failure then you do not belong in the Internet Marketing Business. Period.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4222107].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author BloggingPro
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                Also, characterizing this trial as a "witch-hunt" is odd. Like I said earlier, even the jurors didn't think she was innocent.
                The media definitely turned this into a witch-hunt. Now even the Juror's are getting heat, which is undeserved. It's a blood lust filled rage that is about to boil over control. Pure hatred is pouring out from all over the country, and that blame can sit solely on the media. Sensationalized at best.

                Also,

                "How can you punish someone if you don't know what they did?" Ford said. "Do I think she's completely innocent? I have no idea... not guilty doesn't mean innocent."
                Signature
                You're going to fail. If you're afraid of failure then you do not belong in the Internet Marketing Business. Period.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4222158].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        "Thank God our court system worked" Huh? Why is it so important to you that someone who the jurors thought was guilty will be a free person? I think it will be a sad day when she walks free. Even her parents know she did it. However, you are thanking god and are "delighted".
        I would NOT be surprised if a juror in almost EVERY case believes the defendant GUILTY! OHIWLTSM!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4221960].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Why can't you say more Steve? This isn't politics or religion.

          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          I would NOT be surprised if a juror in almost EVERY case believes the defendant GUILTY! OHIWLTSM!
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4221986].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            Why can't you say more Steve? This isn't politics or religion.
            Well, I was thinking of some stuff that WOULD sound political. But people can be bribed, etc... and make mistakes. The law tries to make things FAIR! The defense can exclude many jurors that would judge against them. The prosecuton jurors that would judge against them. The jurors are told to NOT have any outside influences. The lawyers are told to NOT tell the jurors certain things. The jurors are INSTRUCTED to FORGET various things they hear. A lot of evidence is excluded. Without breaking ANY of the above rules, they can listen ONLY to the principles in the court room, and other jurors in meetings they are allowed to have. Otherwise, they are told to vote AGAINST what they would otherwise decide.

            YOU may not like it! TL may not like it! I may not like it. People may consider them BLITHERING IDIOTS, but that IS the law. When you hear all the garbage in the media, maybe it IS for the best.

            MANY guilty people are SET FREE! Some INNOCENT people are convicted! But how would you or I do in a world where mere APPEARANCES could convict?

            What do the famous gideon and Miranda have in common?

            BOTH had VERY suspicious circumstancial evidence tying them DIRECTLY to a crime! BOTH managed to get SPECIAL treatment that ALL now get to this day! BOTH were then found INNOCENT! BOTH were so stupid that they committed VERY similar crimes later and were CONVICTED under the new laws!

            BTW for those that don't know, Gideon made it so poor people as defendants in a criminal trial can get a court appointed attorney for free. Miranda created the now famous miranda warnings that must be conveyed in YOUR language, and include the now required statement about "If you can not afford an attorney, the court may appoint an attorney for you".

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4222204].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

        It's important to me because I believe strongly in the rights of the individual and do not want to see them trampled on by popular demand.
        I don't see how popular demand could trample her rights.

        I am delighted that 12 people actually understood that you cannot condemn someone to death simply because it seems like she may have committed a crime, or because that's what the public wants.
        Well, although I am against the death penalty, as I told problogger, it is possible to find someone guilty and sentence them to death on circumstancial evidence. Under the law circumstantial evidence and direct evidence hold equal weight.

        As for your statement abut her parents, it's ridiculous. You're assuming.
        Not assuming. I just read what their lawyer said. Although he backtracked on the statement he initially said when asked if the Anthonys believed Casey was not guilty "they don't think that...they do not believe she is innocent." From their reaction after the decision it seems they were not all that happy themselves when she was found not guilty.

        I don't see how any rational person would want to kill a human being based on the evidence the state presented.

        Yes, I am delighted that our court system actually worked for a change, and thank God that it did.

        I would rather see a hundred guilty go free than one innocent convicted.
        I don't like the death penalty for even the worst killers. Actually, this case is a good example why the death penalty should be done away with, since it is a main reason you didn't want to see her found guilty it appears. It probably was on the minds of the jurors also. From what I understand about the charge is she wouldn't necessarily be sentenced to death though.

        Did Casey Anthony murder her daughter?

        I don't know and neither do you.
        Right, but we both have our opinions. You said you think she didn't and I think she probably did. We both base our opinions on what we read and saw about the case.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4222736].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          Right, but we both have our opinions. You said you think she didn't and I think she probably did. We both base our opinions on what we read and saw about the case.
          And THAT is why they ty to make things SO difficult. They try to make sure that if there is a reasonable doubt that the defendant is set free.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4222833].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author BloggingPro
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          Well, although I am against the death penalty, as I told problogger, it is possible to find someone guilty and sentence them to death on circumstancial evidence. Under the law circumstantial evidence and direct evidence hold equal weight.
          Never said it wasn't possible, but it is easy to see why that was not applied in this case. Wasn't enough to send someone to death row, simple as that.

          I don't like the death penalty for even the worst killers. Actually, this case is a good example why the death penalty should be done away with, since it is a main reason you didn't want to see her found guilty it appears. It probably was on the minds of the jurors also. From what I understand about the charge is she wouldn't necessarily be sentenced to death though.
          Well if it was on the minds of the Jurors than that is totally the fault of the prosecution for making it known they were going to go for the Death penalty if she was convicted. The prosecution over-reached and they have paid the price--dearly.
          Signature
          You're going to fail. If you're afraid of failure then you do not belong in the Internet Marketing Business. Period.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4223140].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      I think you're right.

      There is plenty of proof that she's a terrible, terrible mother but from everything I've heard about the trial, there is no proof that she killed her daughter.

      I think I heard a juror say, that she thinks Casey did it but there was not enough proof to convict without a reasonable doubt.


      If this was a civil case, Casey would be toast, since the burden of proof is a lot lower.


      TL
      I think part of the problem is the CSI world we live in. MOST murders do not have eyewitnesses and many of them are decided based on circumstantial evidence.

      If I had sat on the jury, I might have realized there wasn't a lot of clear evidence that proved she did it, but I'd be questioning several things:


      WHY did she lie to the police and to her parents? Why lead the police on a wild goose chase if it was a drowning accident or if she didn't do it? Why would one cover up a drowning accident in the pool? No one is going to be in trouble over something like that; HOWEVER, they WOULD be in trouble over a chloroformed kid who had died in a car trunk accidentally.


      George Anthony was a former law enforcement officer. If that kid had drowned in the pool, WHY didn't he start CPR and have Casey call 911?


      WHY did she abandon her car? Cars are a HUGE asset in most families; most folks don't just throw their cars away. Casey abandoned her car in a parking lot where it was later impounded. That's what started the 911 calls about the smell of death in the trunk. Party girls don't abandon their cars.


      I think the prosecution reached too far by making it a capital murder case. If they had begun with it being a manslaughter case, they might have prevailed.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4221392].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    I think Casey may need a bodyguard if and when she comes out in public.

    At the very least, she will get a lot of hostile verbal comments.

    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4221479].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
    I'm not convinced of her innocence or guilt...

    But I swear...if I hear Nancy Grace say "Tot Mom" one more time...I'm going to need a new TV.

    ~Michael

    p.s. I used the words "say", but it's really more like an irritating whine.
    Signature

    "Ich bin en fuego!"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4222464].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
      Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

      I'm not convinced of her innocence or guilt...
      I'm not convinced either and I don't know how I can be when the mainstream media is my only source of information about her.

      Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

      But I swear...if I hear Nancy Grace say "Tot Mom" one more time...I'm going to need a new TV.
      What does that even mean ("Tot Mom")?
      Signature

      :)

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4222492].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
        Originally Posted by mojojuju View Post

        What does that even mean ("Tot Mom")?
        "Tot" is another word for a young child, and it's just some commentators attempt at coming up with a catchy name for her.

        If she DID do it, then I also have a problem with the use of the word "Mom".

        ~Michael
        Signature

        "Ich bin en fuego!"
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4222509].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

      I'm not convinced of her innocence or guilt...

      But I swear...if I hear Nancy Grace say "Tot Mom" one more time...I'm going to need a new TV.

      ~Michael

      p.s. I used the words "say", but it's really more like an irritating whine.
      I just added that to my list of why I'm glad I ditched standard cable for basic cable.
      Reason 87: No more Nancy Grace
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4222516].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author BloggingPro
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        I just added that to my list of why I'm glad I ditched standard cable for basic cable.
        Reason 87: No more Nancy Grace
        Wait... What are the other 86? lol
        Signature
        You're going to fail. If you're afraid of failure then you do not belong in the Internet Marketing Business. Period.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4222552].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
          Here's exactly what it sounds like to me when I hear Nancy Grace rambling on about "Tot Mom".

          Signature

          :)

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4222574].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by BloggingPro View Post

          Wait... What are the other 86? lol
          Where do I start:rolleyes:
          I know with number 1
          Lower cable bill
          Number 2
          No more putting up with 83 useless channels.
          Numbers 3 thru 85
          see number 2
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4223347].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

            Where do I start:rolleyes:
            I know with number 1
            Lower cable bill
            Number 2
            No more putting up with 83 useless channels.
            Numbers 3 thru 85
            see number 2
            Another benefit to just having basic cable is privacy. That is assuming you don't need a digital receiver to watch basic cable as it is in my area.

            But once you get a digital receiver in your home, it's like having the cable company know everything you watch in your home.

            In 2009, it was reported that Comcast and some other big TV providers were working on "building a 500 terabyte "TV warehouse," which will be able to hold a full year of statistics gathered from digital set-tops in more than 16 million households."

            It makes me a little bit uneasy that Comcast can track what my family watches on TV and store a years worth of that information in a data center somewhere.

            Some may say that it's no different than being tracked by IP address or cookie on the internet. Well, it is different - unless there exists some cable TV equivalent of TOR.



            http://techliberation.com/2009/01/12...ivacy-at-risk/
            Signature

            :)

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4223623].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
              Another benefit to just having basic cable is privacy. That is assuming you don't need a digital receiver to watch basic cable as it is in my area.
              I didn't need a cable box with the standard or basic cable.
              It reached the point with me where 90% of the time the TV was on for background noise.
              With standard cable I was paying $40 more then I pay now.
              Signature

              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
              Getting old ain't for sissy's
              As you are I was, as I am you will be
              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4223666].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author celente
    I say this live on the net, and had mixed feelings.

    Was like the time, OJ's glove did not fit.....that was like a comedy, no wonder they take it off on so many movies and skit shows still these days. lol.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4224120].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author J Bold
    She certainly acted very strangely, and I would not be surprised at all if she was truly guilty of at least covering up the death of her toddler for some strange reason, but I have a couple of opinions about it.

    1. Trying cases in the media doesn't work.

    2. Nancy Grace is a hack.

    3. I don't see how you can convict someone for murder when there is no official cause of death. I guess it may happen (unsure), but there would have to be a large, huge amount of evidence otherwise to overcome this huge hole in a murder case.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4224185].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    It's not over yet.

    She will face the lawsuits from the Nanny that wasn't, the Equisearch guy who paid $100k to search for Kaylee, even investigators are said to be planning on defamation charges.

    She will have to answer questions under oath that she didn't answer in her own trial.

    Maybe if she is caught in a lie she will do some time for perjury.

    Liars always eventually get caught in their own lies - this dimwitted twit certainly is no criminal mastermind.

    As I have said now repeatedly I do not and never did believe she murdered her baby on purpose. But I am more sure than ever that it happened accidentally THROUGH HER NEGLIGENCE -

    They had a lady who works for the agency that bailed her out and she spent 9 days with the family (while Kaylee was supposedly still missing) being interviewed on Dr.Drew tonight - she said Casey had not one iota of concern about Kaylee's whereabouts - and when asked how she was so calm - she stated something to the effect that she wasn't going to get involved in all the negativity since it was a turn off (and that is really my words expressing her words about Casey's words - but that is the idea of what she said).

    This is not the normal behavior of a mother - even if she already knew where the body was - you would think she would at least present some indication that she felt badly and instead she was not concerned in the least.

    You people can go ahead and act like the media is the only one found guilty here. I have never been a fan of Nancy Grace at all - I find her voice grating and that she is bigoted.

    However, when she mentions Kaylee she gets a tear in her voice - EVERY TIME she mentions her - and being a mother of twin toddlers she has some feelings toward children - whereas Casey couldn't care less.

    I just see her maybe in a drug induced hallucination - thinking maybe she was just getting Kaylee high or helping her get to sleep so Casey could keep partying - something completely criminally negligent and child endangering - yet not done with any malice - just plain stupidity.

    ... or maybe again she was just ripped to the nines and Kaylee really drowned on her 'watch' - again not done intentionally, but through negligence.

    I retract my earlier statements that it is my opinion her parents were involved in the cover up - not from the beginning, but maybe at the end.

    The shrinks were incompetent and are always bleeding hearts it seems - there is a time to be supportive and a time to be rational, hello - they not only didn't find mental illness but couldn't even find a personality disorder - (although the compulsive lying etc Could be indicative of having Some of the traits they admit).

    At this point I feel sorry for her even with her gloating and being a media queen as a result of her actions that killed her child in one way or another.

    I hate to admit wishing I could just slap the smirk off her face.

    She will know plenty of misery in her future one way or the other...
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4224872].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Nightengale
    Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

    There is no proof that Casey Anthony killed her daughter. There are just a lot of people who think she did.

    Thank God our court system worked.
    Amen!

    And yes, it's possible for our civil liberties to be trampled because of public opinion. That's why our judicial system is designed the way it is. Our courts and the jury didn't fail. There was NO EVIDENCE OR PROOF of her involvement. Also, I think the prosecution overreached and overcharged her.

    Our court system worked beautifully in this case and I'm thankful for it.

    The most likely scenario is that Caylee's death was a horrible accident (directly caused by Casey) which Casey then tried to cover up by throwing her daughter's body in the woods. And I'm one of those people who thinks that a parent should be charged with murder if their negligence/horrible parenting results in a child's death.

    I'm also pro-death penalty. That's not very PC these days, but I know of some cases where justice could never be served unless the convicted was executed -- which they are not a disturbingly high percentage of the time.

    I believe Casey is 100% guilty, but I also think the verdict is correct.

    Michelle
    Signature
    "You can't market here. This is a marketing discussion forum!"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4225343].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author focused
    This is our criminal justice system at work. And it did what it was supposed to accomplish. Like it or not, justice was served.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4282355].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author valerieSONORA
    Was wondering why there wasn't a casey anthony thread since you can't get away from news about her...but here it is I see.

    I'm amazed at what a liar she is. On her defense she said it was an accident and blamed it on her father. But I saw all those jailhouse videos on Nancy Grace and boy can she lie. She is probably the most talented liar on earth. While she knew her daughter was dead she described the imaginary nanny in great detail. Her height, weight, hair style, hair length, that the imaginary nanny had relatives in New York and North Carolina. She lied about things not even important like the nanny gave her a hair straightener. What would that lie accomplish? I think her brother said she likes for the sake of lying. And to think how many people are in jail now with much less evidence :O
    Signature

    siggy taking a break...

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4283448].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      I agree Valerie. I just don't understand how people think there was "no" evidence. There was plenty of evidence, but apparently not enough for her jury.

      Originally Posted by valerieSONORA View Post

      And to think how many people are in jail now with much less evidence :O
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4283466].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        I agree Valerie. I just don't understand how people think there was "no" evidence. There was plenty of evidence, but apparently not enough for her jury.

        What they didn't have is a coroner's statement of murder as cause of death. I'm not even sure how this got to trial without an official cause of death being murder. That is not the jury's fault -- that is purely burden of the state, and they missed it for whatever reason. You can't convict someone of murder until you have the "murder". Dead body doesn't cut it on that level.
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4286920].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Actually the Chief Medical Examiner for Orange/Osceola Counties, Dr. Jan Garavaglia did conclude that it was a homicide Sal.

          Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

          What they didn't have is a coroner's statement of murder as cause of death. I'm not even sure how this got to trial without an official cause of death being murder. That is not the jury's fault -- that is purely burden of the state, and they missed it for whatever reason. You can't convict someone of murder until you have the "murder". Dead body doesn't cut it on that level.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4286948].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            Actually the Chief Medical Examiner for Orange/Osceola Counties, Dr. Jan Garavaglia did conclude that it was a homicide Sal.
            Tim that was only because of how they found the body.
            I'm not saying that's wrong, just that's why.
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4286970].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author HeySal
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            Actually the Chief Medical Examiner for Orange/Osceola Counties, Dr. Jan Garavaglia did conclude that it was a homicide Sal.
            When did that happen, Tim? Last I heard there was no official conclusion of murder - they even said the duct tape had not been attached to skin. If that conclusion came before the end of the trial, I am very confused that she got off without manslaughter or obstructing justice at the very least. Knowing the kid is dead or missing and not reporting it HAS to be very obviously "obstructing justice" no matter what.

            There is every possibility that she did not commit this murder -- I see zero possibility that she did not know who did.
            Signature

            Sal
            When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
            Beyond the Path

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4286990].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
              Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

              When did that happen, Tim? Last I heard there was no official conclusion of murder - they even said the duct tape had not been attached to skin. If that conclusion came before the end of the trial, I am very confused that she got off without manslaughter or obstructing justice at the very least. Knowing the kid is dead or missing and not reporting it HAS to be very obviously "obstructing justice" no matter what.

              There is every possibility that she did not commit this murder -- I see zero possibility that she did not know who did.
              Sal look at my post above.
              One of the few things I did see on TV was the medical examiner on the witness stand explain how she determined it was a homicide.
              Signature

              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
              Getting old ain't for sissy's
              As you are I was, as I am you will be
              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4287328].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Yes, it happened during the trial. Of course the defense had a paid expert witness to counter the conclusion by the medical examiner.

              Thom, the three reasons for her deciding it was a homicide were "First, Caylee was not reported missing. She said an accidental death, such as drowning, would have been reported. Second, the Caylee's body was hidden, and finally, there was a presence of duct tape on Caylee's face."

              Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

              When did that happen, Tim? Last I heard there was no official conclusion of murder - they even said the duct tape had not been attached to skin. If that conclusion came before the end of the trial, I am very confused that she got off without manslaughter or obstructing justice at the very least. Knowing the kid is dead or missing and not reporting it HAS to be very obviously "obstructing justice" no matter what.

              There is every possibility that she did not commit this murder -- I see zero possibility that she did not know who did.
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4287420].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                Yes, it happened during the trial. Of course the defense had a paid expert witness to counter the conclusion by the medical examiner.

                Thom, the three reasons for her deciding it was a homicide were "First, Caylee was not reported missing. She said an accidental death, such as drowning, would have been reported. Second, the Caylee's body was hidden, and finally, there was a presence of duct tape on Caylee's face."
                Tim I believe she said the duct tape was in the bag near her face, but there was no evidence the tape was used on the body at all.
                Like I said I don't think she was wrong coming to the conclusion that she did.
                All her comments about what should of been done would apply to a sane rational person. I don't think anyone is applying the terms sane or rational to Casey.
                Signature

                Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                Getting old ain't for sissy's
                As you are I was, as I am you will be
                You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4287714].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  Hmm, I don't think anyone disputed that there was evidence of duct tape on her face, or what remained of her face. I know even the defense's expert witness said there was since an important part of his testimony was that Caylee was already dead when the tape was affixed to her face.

                  Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                  Tim I believe she said the duct tape was in the bag near her face, but there was no evidence the tape was used on the body at all.
                  Like I said I don't think she was wrong coming to the conclusion that she did.
                  All her comments about what should of been done would apply to a sane rational person. I don't think anyone is applying the terms sane or rational to Casey.
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4287790].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    Hmm, I don't think anyone disputed that there was evidence of duct tape on her face, or what remained of her face. I know even the defense's expert witness said there was since an important part of his testimony was that Caylee was already dead when the tape was affixed to her face.
                    Tim again it was near her face. The M.E. said right on the stand that with the state the body was in she could not determine or say that it was defiantly on her face.
                    Signature

                    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                    Getting old ain't for sissy's
                    As you are I was, as I am you will be
                    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4287872].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                      Never heard that Thom. All I have ever read was that the defense never disputed that tape was found around the skull. In fact, the defense witness also said he thought the tape was perhaps used to hold the jawbone in place after decomposition. There wasn't any skin left from what I understand so maybe that is where that statement from the ME comes from.

                      Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                      Tim again it was near her face. The M.E. said right on the stand that with the state the body was in she could not determine or say that it was defiantly on her face.
                      Signature
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4288099].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                        Never heard that Thom. All I have ever read was that the defense never disputed that tape was found around the skull. In fact, the defense witness also said he thought the tape was perhaps used to hold the jawbone in place after decomposition. There wasn't any skin left from what I understand so maybe that is where that statement from the ME comes from.
                        Yep to all you just said
                        It was all about the skin being gone and not being able to absolutely prove it was ever on the body.
                        Now logic to me would dictate it was on the body at one point, because I can't see any other reason for it to be in the bag.
                        The same as logic to me would lend to it being a murder and not accidental death, no matter how sane or insane Casey is.
                        But in court cases logic has to be backed by evidence.
                        (By the way if I was a juror, I would of voted guilty based on my logic)
                        Signature

                        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                        Getting old ain't for sissy's
                        As you are I was, as I am you will be
                        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4288144].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author focused
    What's a lie to one person, may be the truth to another.
    Justice has been served.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4283477].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author focused
    Casey has truly suffered much at the hands of an unfriendly media.
    One hopes that she can get her life back in order.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4284319].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Hamon
    Banned
    Well i didn't watch it yet..
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4284419].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Well,she is out now.
    Edit: OK, I was only 1/2 listening, but I swear I just heard them say on the tv that they are appealing the 4 convictions for lying to the police! Can anyone confirm or discount this?
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4285252].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Well,she is out now.
      Edit: OK, I was only 1/2 listening, but I swear I just heard them say on the tv that they are appealing the 4 convictions for lying to the police! Can anyone confirm or discount this?
      I'm pretty sure I heard the same thing.

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4286010].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author waterotter
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Well,she is out now.
      Edit: OK, I was only 1/2 listening, but I swear I just heard them say on the tv that they are appealing the 4 convictions for lying to the police! Can anyone confirm or discount this?
      That is true Kim.

      There is talk of the state suing to recover their costs as they were led to believe they were searching for a missing child, not a dead body.

      In order to avoid this, they have no choice but to appeal those convictions. I can't see them winning on appeal, but stranger things have happened!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4286542].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Roaddog
    Sneaking out in the dark, ironically, like the cockroach she is...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4286061].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Totally unfair comparison.... for the cockroaches of the world that is.

      Originally Posted by Roaddog View Post

      Sneaking out in the dark, ironically, like the cockroach she is...
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4286919].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I don't see how the lawyer can ethically represent her for this as he opened his defense with the statement she is a liar. :rolleyes:
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4286866].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author waterotter
    Sal, there have been many cases won without a body. Scott Peterson would be one of the more recent cases. He is on death row now.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4287019].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    She is quite an actress alright - they had long long versions of her conversations from jail with her parents the last few days. She repeatedly says stuff like 'I know in my gutt that she is okay and we will find her' -

    I looked at her facial expression and I swear there was no indication she was lying at all - not that I am an expert and TV/video etc was not perfectly clear - but either way - she drowned but she knew she was ok or she is dead otherwise but she knew she was ok.

    I still say there is absolutely no reason why you wouldn't report that there was an accidental drowning. (although I can see a delay if she was ripped and didn't want to be accused of neglect and/or child endangerment)

    It looks like there is a chance she will see obstruction charges if only due to the wasted money searching - not to mention the resources needed by other missing children while she knew Kaylee was dead.

    ... but my main problem with not charging obstruction is the fact that the time delay is a big part of the reason there is no evidence to convict her of anything...

    The private lawsuits by Equisearch and the Nanny that Wasn't would only be tokens - however any way they can get her is ok with me - even if she is innocent of all degrees of murder - and just because of being a liar.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4287541].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Patrician
      Another very subtle 'irony' that nobody appears to notice is from the tapes of her conversations with her parents.

      It was Cindy (the mother) who came in and said 'well today they are saying that Kaylee drowned'

      Without batting an eyelash Casey says things to the effect that - 'oh so that's the story today huh? Typical BS from the media'

      I can't remember if this was when Kaylee was still missing - or if the body had been found - but the point is it was before drowning became her 'alibi'.

      Creative - Pick Your Lies as you go along. Multiple choice answers.



      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      She is quite an actress alright - they had long long versions of her conversations from jail with her parents the last few days. She repeatedly says stuff like 'I know in my gutt that she is okay and we will find her' -

      I looked at her facial expression and I swear there was no indication she was lying at all - not that I am an expert and TV/video etc was not perfectly clear - but either way - she drowned but she knew she was ok or she is dead otherwise but she knew she was ok.

      I still say there is absolutely no reason why you wouldn't report that there was an accidental drowning. (although I can see a delay if she was ripped and didn't want to be accused of neglect and/or child endangerment)

      It looks like there is a chance she will see obstruction charges if only due to the wasted money searching - not to mention the resources needed by other missing children while she knew Kaylee was dead.

      ... but my main problem with not charging obstruction is the fact that the time delay is a big part of the reason there is no evidence to convict her of anything...

      The private lawsuits by Equisearch and the Nanny that Wasn't would only be tokens - however any way they can get her is ok with me - even if she is innocent of all degrees of murder - and just because of being a liar.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4288068].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    "There is every possibility that she did not commit this murder -- I see zero possibility that she did not know who did."

    This is something we disagree on. To me there is every indication that she committed the murder.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4287672].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      "There is every possibility that she did not commit this murder -- I see zero possibility that she did not know who did."

      This is something we disagree on. To me there is every indication that she committed the murder.
      I did not say there were no indications - I said there is a possibility.

      I do believe that we will never know the story. It's a shame - but it happens every day. It just isn't wrung through the media like this one was.

      What I am looking at though is a nation of people ready to lynch someone that the law set free. Will we soon return to witch hunting, too?

      It is absolutely tragic that this little girl is dead. It is absolutely frightening the reaction that is going on. People that look like her have been threatened, people with the same name are being threatened. Come on - I can't...just can't........look at this situation and not see the public as at least as insane as the woman that was on trial.

      I just wonder if someone played vigilante and kills Casey - how they will feel and what public stink will be made if they find out later that someone else killed that child. How will it make the public see themselves if someone that has the same name gets hurt?

      People need to chill out on this one. Yes a kid is dead - lets all go freaking stark raving insane over it just as the media instructed you to. Maybe you can kill the next person suspected of murder and will feel better.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4288728].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

        I did not say there were no indications - I said there is a possibility.
        Yes Sal I know, I was trying to use a play on words to make a point,thats all.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4291704].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author HeySal
          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          Yes Sal I know, I was trying to use a play on words to make a point,thats all.
          "beyond a reasonable doubt" is another really good play on words. We "think" she did it doesn't cut it in court and we better pray that it stays that way. People are losing their ability to think objectively. If they are able to convict this woman because we "think" she did it, not one of us is safe from prosecution - ever - no matter what people think you did. Just because it's a very emotion wrenching case, doesn't mean you can just lynch people. I'd rather see this woman go free than see that happen to this country.

          The fact that "other people have been convicted on less evidence" is not a reason to convict someone else.

          Everyone is going on "what if" and "I think". Why? Because it was a small child and a beautiful child. If this had been an adult that was murdered - or died and got dumped - do you really think the reaction would be the same? It would not. People are thinking with their emotions and that is not a good state of thought.
          Signature

          Sal
          When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
          Beyond the Path

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4291966].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ravireuben2011
    By seeing the pics of her getting out, I could not see any smile on her face, however, I think she was looking very calm and confident. By the looks I don't think she did it!!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4288092].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    I heard someone say since there was no skin on the bones they couldn't say the tape was ever on her mouth -

    Plus if it had been wouldn't there have been her DNA on the tape?

    That might speak to using it to keep the skull together long after the fact. (who in the hell would do this?) the raccoons?

    (of course this is all out of context and may have been refuted, etc.)
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4288124].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author waterotter
    This is eery.....back when Casey was staying at her parents with her bodyguard, she played the song 'The Past' by Sevendust repeatedly, over a period of days. Here are the lyrics......


    Beneath the water that's fallen from my eyes
    Lays a soul I left behind
    The edge of sorrow was reached but now I'm fine
    I filled the hole I had inside

    I'll pray it doesn't scream my name
    So I light a flame and let it breathe
    The air that kills the shame

    I'm up, I'm down
    Like a roller coaster racing through my life
    I've erased the past again

    A risky morning, I feel like I'm alive
    I can't believe I made it through this time
    The edge of sorrow I lived in for some time
    (Lived in for some time)
    Has left the hole I have inside

    The burden is I try my hate
    Was the last thing I ever felt
    Or thought I could escape

    I'm up, I'm down
    Like a roller coaster racing through my life
    I've erased the past again

    I'm up, I'm down
    Like a roller coaster racing through my life
    I've erased the past again

    You let me here then broke me down
    The difference is this time around
    I will not let you see me drown

    I'm up, I'm down
    Like a roller coaster racing through my life
    I've erased the past again

    I'm up, I'm down
    Like a roller coaster racing through my life
    I've erased the past again

    Erased the past again now
    Erased the past again

    Beneath the water
    That's fallen from my eyes
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4288362].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
    Yeah, I heard about that too, Waterotter. One thing that someone pointed out this morning that really gets my ire up about this whole case is that defense attorney Jose Baez is going around saying that we all need to "respect the jury's verdict", saying things like
    "The jury made the right call, period. Anyone who took the time to review the evidence would have made the same decision,"
    source

    If that's the case then WHY IS HE APPEALING THE PORTION OF THE VERDICT HE DOESN'T LIKE? He can't have it both ways. Either he respects the jury's verdict or he doesn't. If he only respects the portion he LIKES, then he is NO DIFFERENT from the rest of the American population. :rolleyes:
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4288431].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards View Post

      Yeah, I heard about that too, Waterotter. One thing that someone pointed out this morning that really gets my ire up about this whole case is that defense attorney Jose Baez is going around saying that we all need to "respect the jury's verdict", saying things like source

      If that's the case then WHY IS HE APPEALING THE PORTION OF THE VERDICT HE DOESN'T LIKE? He can't have it both ways. Either he respects the jury's verdict or he doesn't. If he only respects the portion he LIKES, then he is NO DIFFERENT from the rest of the American population. :rolleyes:
      He is different, he's a lawyer
      He's not saying and doing anything different then any other lawyer would do.
      We would call it job security, I'm not sure what a lawyer would call it, and I'm afraid to ask in fear of getting a bill for asking
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4288458].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MerlynSanchez
      Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards View Post

      Yeah, I heard about that too, Waterotter. One thing that someone pointed out this morning that really gets my ire up about this whole case is that defense attorney Jose Baez is going around saying that we all need to "respect the jury's verdict", saying things like source

      If that's the case then WHY IS HE APPEALING THE PORTION OF THE VERDICT HE DOESN'T LIKE? He can't have it both ways. Either he respects the jury's verdict or he doesn't. If he only respects the portion he LIKES, then he is NO DIFFERENT from the rest of the American population. :rolleyes:
      Agreed.

      I respect the jury's verdict. I'm not going to riot, stalk the jurors, or beat anyone up.

      But that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4288468].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author waterotter
      Hey Angela, I agree. I'm no fan of Baez!

      If I understand correctly, they need to appeal these misdemeanor charges and win. This will serve two purposes.

      1. The law suit the state is considering to recoup the expenses incurred. They cannot file suit if Casey isn't found guilty of lying.

      2. The suit brought forth by the supposed 'nanny'. Again if Casey is found not guilty, this will give Casey the right to plead the 'fifth amendment'.

      Like Kim said above, Baez made a statement to the effect that Casey is a liar in his opening argument.

      The whole thing is crazy.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4288507].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by waterotter View Post

        Hey Angela, I agree. I'm no fan of Baez!

        If I understand correctly, they need to appeal these misdemeanor charges and win. This will serve two purposes.

        1. The law suit the state is considering to recoup the expenses incurred. They cannot file suit if Casey isn't found guilty of lying.

        2. The suit brought forth by the supposed 'nanny'. Again if Casey is found not guilty, this will give Casey the right to plead the 'fifth amendment'.

        Like Kim said above, Baez made a statement to the effect that Casey is a liar in his opening argument.

        The whole thing is crazy.
        I wonder about that one.
        Didn't O.J. lose his civil suit?
        I don't think he was found guilty of anything(though I could be wrong there).
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4288539].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author waterotter
          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          I wonder about that one.
          Didn't O.J. lose his civil suit?
          I don't think he was found guilty of anything(though I could be wrong there).
          I didn't word that right Tom. Baez needs to win the appeal in order for Casey to be able to plead the fifth in the upcoming civil suit.

          OJ was found liable in the civil suit, but I think he has avoided paying any monetary damages to this day.

          I don't know how this will play out with Casey.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4288599].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rob Howard
    While I have no comment about the case in particular, I do agree about the Witch Hunt.

    Did you hear about the black guy named Casey Anthony on facebook?

    He's getting harassed and threatened by nut bags. All because his NAME is Casey Anthony.

    Black Man Harassed On Facebook, Mistaken For Casey Anthony

    Or what about the woman who looked like Casey Anthony getting attacked:

    Oklahoma woman who looks like Casey Anthony attacked by crazed revenge-seeker

    This is what happens when people let emotions, not reason, rule their actions.

    Emotions are fickle, they often lie (or more like they "appear" to show truths that are actually false), and more often than not, lead you into stupid decisions.

    This is why the court system is set up like it is.

    This is why we are a constitutional republic and not a Democracy, like many people think (Democracy is just tyranny of the majority), this is why stupid laws are enacted for the purpose of "safety and security" despite the blatant trampling of basic human rights.

    Witch hunts, whether it be for real witches, dirty communists, whatever, can happen anytime when enough people are whipped into a frenzy. Sadly, it is easy to do because a majority of people let their emotions rule instead of their head.

    Now we have a bunch nutbags who are seeking "justice" and in doing so, innocent people are being targeted and lives ruined - all because "they feel", they have been turned into not much better than wild rabid animals.

    Rob
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4288644].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author valerieSONORA
    Can't help but wonder...if the jury would have come to the same conclusion if she was 39 years old, morbidly obese, and very unattractive from a poor neighboorhood.

    Anyway she should go to hollywood next. No actress can "lie"(act) better than her.
    Signature

    siggy taking a break...

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4289548].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author focused
      Originally Posted by valerieSONORA View Post

      Can't help but wonder...if the jury would have come to the same conclusion if she was 39 years old, morbidly obese, and very unattractive from a poor neighboorhood.

      Anyway she should go to hollywood next. No actress can "lie"(act) better than her.
      CNN Entertainment is speculating on a Casey Anthony Reality Show.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4289809].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Angela V. Edwards
      Originally Posted by valerieSONORA View Post

      Can't help but wonder...if the jury would have come to the same conclusion if she was 39 years old, morbidly obese, and very unattractive from a poor neighboorhood.

      Anyway she should go to hollywood next. No actress can "lie"(act) better than her.
      I said the same, exact, thing to my husband the other day.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4294635].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author valerieSONORA
        Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards View Post

        I said the same, exact, thing to my husband the other day.
        It's sad that looks have a play in verdicts

        I just read Casey Anthony is to receive a MILLION dollars for some tv deal. What's weird is her defense lawyer is now acting as her agent. He's a defense lawyer not a hollywood agent. I think there's something going on with Casey and Jose.

        Casey Anthony 'in Palm Springs to discuss my $1m TV deal,' claims producer | Mail Online
        Signature

        siggy taking a break...

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4296407].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4294841].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author BloggingPro
      LOL this woman cracks me up. Not only did she (and her network) profit from this girl's story in the name of "Justice" but now she attacks the woman for the assumption she will profit from her story. Good ol hypocrisy never seems to sleep! :rolleyes:
      Signature
      You're going to fail. If you're afraid of failure then you do not belong in the Internet Marketing Business. Period.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4295202].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Roaddog
    Yea well, Piers Morgan needs to defend his coverage of Nancy Grace.

    I wouldn't do anything to help legitimize that.... 'journalist', believe me that's not the word I wanted to use.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4294944].message }}

Trending Topics