Export thread

Just curious.

For the purposes of the poll, assume "guilty" means "guilty of some form of murder" as opposed to manslaughter, child endangerment, or any of the other charges being deliberated.

And if you have no clue what this is about, don't bother looking it up, it's really not worth your time.

How can we say when we didn't get to see the evidence presented at trial.

Guess I made this thread too late. They're reading the verdict at 2:15pm.

I just read the wikipedia article and it sounded... weird.

I find the news coverage guilty and sentence it to being whipped with potted cacti until they are unable to speak.

GasBandit said:

I find the news coverage guilty and sentence it to being whipped with potted cacti until they are unable to speak.

Click to expand...

Too good for them.

Unless this trial endings means that Nancy Grace will have to now and forever shut the fuck up about...well, pretty much everything, I have no opinion to share.

pinecone up the bum?

I intended this as a response to DA but it goes for Nancy Grace too

Not right now, I'm working.

Not guilty on all counts except for lying to the police about everything. What the fuck? She just got away with murder.

I am so angry right now. I thought the jury might downgrade it to 2nd degree instead of first, should have known they'd be dumb and let her off.

what was the evidence against her? I havent really heard about it.

They'd damned well better have additional evidence that was unreleased and they damned well better release this information. This is bullshit. A shit-ton of actual by-God physical evidence as well as circumstantial (yet damning) evidence apparently wasn't enough.
Added at: 13:27

makare said:

what was the evidence against her? I havent really heard about it.

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Caylee_Anthony

Maybe the prosecutors didn't prove to the jury she did it. It doesn't mean she didn't, it means they just failed to prove it.

Her car had an odor in it... that was all they had on her.

I don't think I could make a choice unless I heard the testimony and saw the evidence as well as the defense. I just can't do it.

I think what irritated me (and yet was pretty understandable at the same time) was the way her family was perjuring themselves left and right at the end of the defense. At least the prosecution managed to nail Cindi on it.

They should have pressed lesser charges. Or had lesser charges to fall back on. It is kind of what happened with the OJ trial. They swung for 1st degree with special circumstances (death) OR acquittal. Then the DA could not prove its case in a convincing way.

sixpackshaker said:

Her car had an odor in it... that was all they had on her.

Click to expand...

The abandoned car, which had traces of the girls hair in a state of decomposition (through new testing procedures), the mother who had lied constantly about where her daughter was until her mother contacted the police. The searches for chloroform and killing on her computer. The three defense attorneys who quit the cases for various reasons.

This whole thing was a clusterfuck. She gets away with murder, a father loses his baby and she gets to go get on with her party ways - which is the reason she killed the kid in the first place.

The jury had the option to downgrade to 2nd degree, and Manslaughter was also on the docket. So the options were there.
Added at: 12:44
Oh god I want to punch the defense team in the face right now.

Hrm. Remind me to hire pretty women to do all my murdering for me. They're apparently legal teflon.

Dei said:

The jury had the option to downgrade to 2nd degree, and Manslaughter was also on the docket. So the options were there.
Added at: 12:44
Oh god I want to punch the defense team in the face right now.

Click to expand...

What did they do?

I didn't think they'd convict her. The jury merely needed a reasonable doubt, and quite frankly the evidence presented does not conclusively prove that Casey did it. So yeah, she got away with murder.

The prosecution didn't have a strong case, but they couldn't drop it (too much publicity) and they couldn't drag the investigation on forever.

Chances are good they tried to get her to plea bargain on smaller charges, and she held her ground.

They are just doing a formal media address. It's really nothing shocking, I'm just still annoyed about the whole trial. (Plus Jose Baez has this smug look on his face that makes him look like an asshole)

makare said:

What did they do?

Click to expand...

They did their job. They planted the seeds of reasonable doubt in the jury, and let them blossom.

Dei said:

They are just doing a formal media address. It's really nothing shocking, I'm just still annoyed about the whole trial. (Plus Jose Baez has this smug look on his face that makes him look like an asshole)

Click to expand...

I do hate smugness.

Well, the thing is that a person must be prove guilty without resonable doubt.

I don't think the prosecution did their job convincing the jury. They provide a lot of circumstantial evidence (from what we read on the news), but what they should REALLY hammer on the jury is

Why didn't she report her child missing for 31 days. I mean, REALLY focus on it. There is something fishy already there IMO.
This is not a run away teenager (even then you still report it) this is a 2 year old.

She NEVER reported her child missing. Her mom did. Until that time she told people Caylee was at camp, at the nanny's (even though the named nanny doesn't know the family), etc. Once the police were involved, Casey tried to establish an alibi by saying she was at work. When they tried to go to her work they found out she'd been fired from there YEARS ago. In the trial she said that Caylee drowned in the swimming pool and they all panicked. Okay, I could understand that. Then why was the body found in a plastic bag, tied up with duct tape over the mouth? If she drowned in the pool and died, why the need for the duct tape over the mouth? Or the chloroform?

At what point does damning circumstantial evidence become actual evidence? At what point does the extremely anomalous behavior of the partying mother start to look like it confirms what she wrote in her diary about the ends justifying the means and now she's happy again?

Circumstantial is actual evidence. It all depends on what persuades the jury.

When I was on the jury for a simple charge, I ended up being the extra - and sent out of the deliberations once the final statements were made. I stayed and chatted with the prosecution during deliberation, and found out a lot more evidence that they couldn't (or wouldn't) present at the trial that would certainly have changed my perception.

Controlling the information the jury receives is of the utmost importance to both the prosecution and defense, and I'm quite certain that they view the trial very differently than we do.

Regardless, "reasonable doubt" is every bit as hard to define as it seems.

As an aside, in my case I was very torn prior to seeing the additional evidence, and apparently so was the rest of the jury, who forced a mistrial by declaring that they could not reach agreement. The information I found from the prosecution actually put me on the side of the defendant, so chances are good the prosecution chose not to share it, rather than being unable to share it. It also showed the importance of having a good defendant, who should have known all the same evidence, and used it to its fullest.

Dave said:

She NEVER reported her child missing. Her mom did. Until that time she told people Caylee was at camp, at the nanny's (even though the named nanny doesn't know the family), etc. Once the police were involved, Casey tried to establish an alibi by saying she was at work. When they tried to go to her work they found out she'd been fired from there YEARS ago. In the trial she said that Caylee drowned in the swimming pool and they all panicked. Okay, I could understand that. Then why was the body found in a plastic bag, tied up with duct tape over the mouth? If she drowned in the pool and died, why the need for the duct tape over the mouth? Or the chloroform?

At what point does damning circumstantial evidence become actual evidence? At what point does the extremely anomalous behavior of the partying mother start to look like it confirms what she wrote in her diary about the ends justifying the means and now she's happy again?

Click to expand...

that is what the prosecution should hammer on.

I highly doubt a juror would actually think this woman is actually 100% innocent, but I was proven wrong

Chibibar said:

that is what the prosecution should hammer on.

I highly doubt a juror would actually think this woman is actually 100% innocent, but I was proven wrong

Click to expand...

The jurors don't think she's 100% innocent. But they don't think she's 100% guilty of first degree murder either. Even 1% reasonable doubt is enough to free someone.

All reasonable doubt takes is like 98-99 percent certainty. They just have to be certain that no other conclusion could be drawn by those facts.

I also want to add that my personal belief is that jurors are morons. Take the 12 smartest people in the world, slap them on a jury and suddenly they are thoroughly stupid.

I fail to see how their doubt can be reasonable.

In testifying that the little girl drowned and that she panicked and tried to cover it up she is basically admitting that she knew her daughter was dead, knew where the body was and was still acting like a hose-bag and not grieving. So here we have someone admitting that the girl is dead and that it was an accidental drowning. So why the fucking duct tape on the body?!? Why would you need to tape the mouth shut of a dead body? And what need for chloroform?

Reasonable doubt my ass.

Maybe she was just trying to hide the body?

Oh man, I didn't know everyone here was on the jury and saw the trial.

Let's look up Chloroform and see how it is made, and what other uses that is has...
Added at: 21:04

Charlie Don't Surf said:

Oh man, I didn't know everyone here was on the jury and saw the trial.

Click to expand...

But one could not escape the coverage of the trail, unless they don't watch the news.

The coverage of a trial is not at all the same as seeing the actual trial. That is why more weight is given to a lower court judges ruling during an appeal, because that judge actually got to see it. In appeals the justices even get to read full transcripts so that says something about how important it is to actually witness the evidence and the testimony.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

Oh man, I didn't know everyone here was on the jury and saw the trial.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure - is it more fun to participate in the peanut gallery, or to mock it?

The world may never know, but thank you for your contribution - it has been noted and filed.

The news coverage of the trial is only going to cover the most salacious parts.

edit: There's nothing wrong with making up your opinion on guilt (which doesn't matter) based on the news coverage.

But to condemn the trial as shitty and wrong and the verdict as incorrect without knowing half of the relevant facts and arguments is just dumb to me.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

Oh man, I didn't know everyone here was on the jury and saw the trial.

Click to expand...

What's the purpose of this post other than to troll? You're not posting your opinion on the trial, or the thread, you're trolling.
Go away.

This is obviously a case of jury not receiving enough of the evidence there was available. I feel sorry for the jurors when they find out about the rest of the evidence that was there. I feel for how much they're going to hurt over this.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

The news coverage of the trial is only going to cover the most salacious parts.

Click to expand...

Not in this case. This case was televised. EVERYTHING got to be seen.

I hope the cameras were running on Nancy Grace's face when the verdict was read.

Dave said:

Not in this case. This case was televised. EVERYTHING got to be seen.

Click to expand...

Dave, it is really not the same as being there.

Dave said:

Not in this case. This case was televised. EVERYTHING got to be seen.

Click to expand...

Charlie defending murderers/rapists/child abusers? Nothing new Dave. Now had she decried gays or women? Yeah he'd have been all over that.

I'm saying, for myself, this question is impossible to answer, since I'll never know everything the jury knows.

Dave said:

Not in this case. This case was televised. EVERYTHING got to be seen.

Click to expand...

It was? that is what happen when I don't watch regular TV. Ah well.

It would be interesting to see the whole case from beginning to end and form a verdict.
There HAS to be something going on that the rest of the world miss.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

I'm saying, for myself, this question is impossible to answer, since I'll never know everything the jury knows.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I was saying but I was able to say it without being antagonizing.

Jiarn said:

Charlie defending murderers/rapists/child abusers? Nothing new Dave. Now had she decried gays or women? Yeah he'd have been all over that.

Click to expand...

Hey, I support this verdict since it is backing up pro-choice abortion rights, all the way up into the 10th trimester

Thank you for being funny in this thread Charlie you're always so appropriate.

Jiarn, I know you disapprove of Charlie, but let it go. He's done nothing wrong. Everyone has opinions and the right to share them.

What we do know is:

The prosecution was unable to show how she died, when she died, or where she died.

They found the body, and they have theories on the three things above, but unlike your evening crime dramas they cannot conclusively determine the manner of death.

It's because of this that despite all the other evidence, the defense's theory is plausible - ie, gives reasonable doubt. Even though the prosecution's theory may fit the evidence better, the evidence does not preclude the possibility of the defense's theory.

Dave said:

Jiarn, I know you disapprove of Charlie, but let it go. He's done nothing wrong. Everyone has opinions and the right to share them.

Click to expand...

So he can attack our opinions but we can't argue his? Come again?

But see that's where you and I differ, Stieny. If the defense is telling the truth, then the evidence makes no sense and their case falls apart. The whole drowning thing - which Casey adheres to - would mean that the duct tape and tying up would be unnecessary.
Added at: 15:23

Jiarn said:

So he can attack our opinions but we can't argue his? Come again?

Click to expand...

I didn't read his as attacking. He was stating that we weren't there and can't know.

I think you know better than that, but fine, yet again I'll let it be.

Folks,
Just step back and think about this for a minute - if you hadn't seen all the drumbeating on HLN and ABC, being told about it after the fact would probably make absolutely no emotional impact on you. The reason everybody's so worked up is because this is the latest reality TV drama. It's practically indistinguishable from the furor around the last episode of "Lost."

Also, my bad taste flippant reply aside, I was defending the trial/justice system, not her specifically. She got a trial, and a jury of her peers found her innocent.

Another small thing, a reason I'm a little flippant about this is that it's another example of everyone going apeshit over one white baby dying. People need to get mad about all the people dying in Mexico in drug wars that can be avoided if our government wasn't trying its damnedest to jail so many brown people and demonizing all the drugs that aren't accepted in white america. [/derail]

what the hell charlie... what the hell

So Casey admit her daughter died in accidental drowning? (I haven't really been keeping up with this) does this mean she is guilty of involuntary manslaughter?

Charlie Don't Surf said:

People need to get mad about...

Click to expand...

Ah yes, the concept that in a perfect world everyone would agree on the One Thing we should all focus on, and we should forget everything else because on some arbitrary scale the One Thing is worse than the little things we all seem to get caught up in.

Put your money where your mouth is.

Chibibar said:

So Casey admit her daughter died in accidental drowning? (I haven't really been keeping up with this) does this mean she is guilty of involuntary manslaughter?

Click to expand...

Depends on how the accident happened.

stienman said:

Put your money where your mouth is.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what this means. I care more about ending the war on drugs than this verdict.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

I have no idea what this means. I care more about ending the war on drugs than this verdict.

Click to expand...

the point is what the hell does that have to do with this thread?

Chibibar said:

So Casey admit her daughter died in accidental drowning? (I haven't really been keeping up with this) does this mean she is guilty of involuntary manslaughter?

Click to expand...

It's complicated. She admits that her father found her daughter drowned. She doesn't admit to leaving daughter in a situation where she could have drowned. The defense suggests that someone left the pool ladder in place, and the gate open, but not that it was necessarily Casey. She admits that she helped her father hide the body.

It is possible that this trial has left her open to being charged with such a charge, but it would be as difficult to prosecute as this case was. Further, double jeopardy may make it impossible for them to try - this case does have a manslaughter charge that was acquitted. I would be very surprised if the prosecution attempted to try her again.

stienman said:

It's complicated. She admits that her father found her daughter drowned. She doesn't admit to leaving daughter in a situation where she could have drowned. The defense suggests that someone left the pool ladder in place, and the gate open, but not that it was necessarily Casey. She admits that she helped her father hide the body.

It is possible that this trial has left her open to being charged with such a charge, but it would be as difficult to prosecute as this case was. Further, double jeopardy may make it impossible for them to try - this case does have a manslaughter charge that was acquitted. I would be very surprised if the prosecution attempted to try her again.

Click to expand...

Ah so double jeopardy applies then. So a charge can't be place on her since she is found innocent of manslaughter.

If you have Casey Anthony for a mother… you will die.

they could get her civily for wrongful death

Charlie Don't Surf said:

I have no idea what this means. I care more about ending the war on drugs than this verdict.

Click to expand...

What it means is that if you truly subscribe to the "One Thing All Humanity Should Focus On To the Exclusion Of All other things" fallacy then you wouldn't be yapping away here, you'd be saving the world from the One Thing you so dearly worry about.

I'm encouraging you to go take care of the thing that matters so much to you. Don't bother with those of us who are obviously unable to see the truth that is so clear to you - it's not like you can pull us out of this self-centeredness we are wallowing in.

Follow your dream, fight your cause, and live as a better person.

Meanwhile, we'll be down here in the muck making silly arguments about matters irrelevant to the human condition. Feel free to pity or laugh at us, but don't let us deter you from your divine path.

What the media should learn (but won't) from the Casey Anthony trial.

I didn't know ABC paid Casey Anthony $200,000 for exclusive interviews er, make that "video and picture rights."

Adammon said:

If you have Casey Anthony for a mother… you will die.

Click to expand...

I shouldn't have laughed, but I did.

makare said:

the point is what the hell does that have to do with this thread?

Click to expand...

I was just explaining partially why I was so flippant towards it. I feel guilty about the abortion joke since it's in pretty poor taste (albeit kinda funny). I don't honestly support killing children.
Added at: 15:49

stienman said:

What it means is that if you truly subscribe to the "One Thing All Humanity Should Focus On To the Exclusion Of All other things" fallacy then you wouldn't be yapping away here, you'd be saving the world from the One Thing you so dearly worry about.

Click to expand...

If one person reads my post and thinks "you know what, the war on drugs is pretty fucked up! Maybe I should look into it a little!" then it will help. But whatever, I'm dropping it here.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

If one person reads my post and thinks "you know what, the war on drugs is pretty fucked up! Maybe I should look into it a little!" then it will help. But whatever, I'm dropping it here.

Click to expand...

I understand that. But everything we talk about here is not as important as the war on drugs. You might as well pop into every thread and note that it's stupid to chat about lame things because, hey, there are people dying and the world is ignoring it.

My point is that as human beings we are capable of thinking about more than one thing. Just because the war on drugs may be a bigger issue doesn't mean we should ignore everything else until it's solved. It would be like saying that you should only brush your teeth - because even though flossing helps and it would be good to do both things, brushing is better, and so we should forget about flossing until we no longer have need to brush.

Why can't we discuss the murder of a child in Florida in one thread, and the mass murders of innocent people caught up in the drug trade wars in Mexico in another thread? Why is it important to demean people who are caught up in a story that has been media whipped for years?

Dave said we can't argue his opinion steinman so we should drop it.

No, don't warbblllglgllglglge when he posts.

Anyway. Casey is a nitwit, and I believe she murdered her daughter in cold blood. However, I know I am a victim of media sensationalization, so if I were asked to decide her fate, knowing what little I know, I would not be able to push the button that starts the lethal injections.

stienman said:

Anyway. Casey is a nitwit, and I believe she murdered her daughter in cold blood. However, I know I am a victim of media sensationalization, so if I were asked to decide her fate, knowing what little I know, I would not be able to push the button that starts the lethal injections.

Click to expand...

I think that is part of the strategy really. Can a juror feel comfortable enough to issue a death sentence (in this case Casey would have died if she was guilty) So that is also a factor.

stienman said:

Anyway. Casey is a nitwit, and I believe she murdered her daughter in cold blood. However, I know I am a victim of media sensationalization, so if I were asked to decide her fate, knowing what little I know, I would not be able to push the button that starts the lethal injections.

Click to expand...

That's ok. I'm sure someone could fill in for you.

GasBandit said:

That's ok. I'm sure someone could fill in for you.

Click to expand...

Whew! That's a relief. Here I was sitting by the phone, anxiously awaiting the call to come and make the decision the jury couldn't.

The fact is, she's still going for the false statements to police and perjury, which are felonious in their own right.

And people associated with hurting children tend to not do so well in prison...

Officer_Charon said:

The fact is, she's still going for the false statements to police and perjury, which are felonious in their own right.

And people associated with hurting children tend to not do so well in prison...

Click to expand...

She can only get up to four years (one year for each of four counts) and unless she's given all four years, she may be sentenced to time served, though it would surprised me if she was sentenced to less than the full amount. I don't know how much of the last 3 years she actually spent in prison, and how much of the ankle monitoring would count towards the sentence. We'll find out tomorrow, I suppose.

Officer_Charon said:

And people associated with hurting children tend to not do so well in prison...

Click to expand...

These sort of statements really make me sick to my stomach.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

These sort of statements really make me sick to my stomach.

Click to expand...

Well, prison probably isn't fun for anyone really. I suppose the best way to avoid having to deal with these sorts of things is to avoid committing felonies.

Hmm I don't know her defense might get pretty low sentences on perjury because as is she isn't a murderer by law. She is just the mother of a daughter who was murdered. She is a sympathetic perpetrator. I don't know if she has a record but if I were her defense I would be talking about her lack of record and how distraught anyone would be in a situation like that.

Jiarn below says she has a record so I would leave that out then lol

Officer_Charon said:

The fact is, she's still going for the false statements to police and perjury, which are felonious in their own right.

Click to expand...

She's been to prison 4 times, twice she was bailed out at $500,000 each. So I doubt she'll stay there long.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

These sort of statements really make me sick to my stomach.

Click to expand...

Good.

Jiarn, pop a midol.

Let's assume that she ACTUALLY is only guilty of that felony fucking-with-the-police charge. IN FACT, there are people in the world that are only guilty of things sentenced to 2-10 years or whatever.

In what world is the systematic rape, abuse, and dehumanization associated with our prison system an acceptable punishment for that crime? I agree that she should go to prison for that, as should everyone convicted! But they don't deserve the house of horrors that is the American prison system.

I don't even think murderers deserve that, but whatever I'm just a hippy like that.

Goddamn yes you are a hippy. Criminy.

Be fair. Every last man, woman and child on earth deserves the house of horrors.

makare said:

Jiarn, pop a midol.

Click to expand...

And you are?

Jiarn said:

And you are?

Click to expand...

Sick of your whining.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

the house of horrors that is the American prison system.

Click to expand...

Read http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/3040/rape-in-us-prisons and then give me research that shows that US prisons are as horrible as "they" say they are. The link above suggests rape happens, but not to the degree many seem to suggest, but doesn't speak towards any other forms of torture that are going on.

And I'm asking you this honestly - I really don't know. Movies and popular media portray prison as disease infested caste castles of systematic torture, but I know a few people who have been to prison, and they just laugh when they see such portrayals or hear others discuss them. Interestingly they won't tell me that it's better or worse - just different, with no further explanation. I'm sure it depends greatly on a variety of factors.

I dunno, so enlighten me.

My brother in law said prison sucked, unsurprisingly, but said it's not like what you see in the movies. Shocking, I know, because if we can't trust Hollywood to get it right who can we trust?

makare said:

Sick of your whining.

Click to expand...

After seeing you cry thread after thread with Mathias you'd figure you'd learn not to throw rocks in your glass house.

I had no idea about any of this until steinman made this thread. So I say: what.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

Another small thing, a reason I'm a little flippant about this is that it's another example of everyone going apeshit over one white baby dying. People need to get mad about all the people dying in Mexico in drug wars that can be avoided if our government wasn't trying its damnedest to jail so many brown people and demonizing all the drugs that aren't accepted in white america. [/derail]

Click to expand...

Babies are killed everyday. So are Mexicans. And lots of other people of varying ages, nationalities, etc.

Why are people pissed about this in particular? Because it seems like fucking up by the court system, and it's been publicized so people will know about it. Courts fuck up daily, but for those with TVs, it's been in their homes, and people care about that.

I've only known one other person in my years on the internet who was so incredibly dense as to what affects people psychologically or emotionally, or had such a hard time wrapping his head around how the world runs (whether that be good, bad, or a mixture of the two).

Go watch another movie; you understand them better and I'm sure they understand you.

Oh geeze guys do we have to ruin Steinmans nice shiny thread?

I didn't follow the case, and honestly I'm not too interested in it. But it seems like it was a case with mostly circumstantial evidence (which doesn't make it bad evidence, it's just not conclusive in and of itself) and way too much media focus on it. If the prosecution didn't convince the jury, it doesn't mean she's innocent - it means they didn't present a strong enough case to convict. And in all honestly, I don't mind that it can be difficult to convict people. There's a reason we have juries instead of leaving it up to lynch mobs. I don't believe that the woman is innocent of wrongdoing, but I can accept that she wasn't convicted of murder.

"Yo Casey, I'm really happy for you, I'mma let you finish but O.J. had one of the best "Not Guilty" verdicts of all time!" - Kanye

I know absolutely nothing about this case except that it has been in the news a lot as of late. Shame I didn't get picked as a juror.

--Patrick

Officer_Charon said:

The fact is, she's still going for the false statements to police and perjury, which are felonious in their own right.

And people associated with hurting children tend to not do so well in prison...

Click to expand...

"Casey Anthony will be back in court Thursday for sentencing on four misdemeanor counts of lying to police. Each count carries a maximum sentence of one year in county jail. The judge has the option of sentencing Anthony consecutively or concurrently. Anthony will receive credit for time served in jail since her 2008 arrest, meaning she could walk free."
SOURCE: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...8.html#s303664&title=Orange_County_Courthouse

not trying to stir the pot, but apparently not, Thursday will show if real shit will be lost by the collective masses.

.... see, false statements to police is a felony here. FloridaLawFail.

I think it is a misdemeanor here too.

That woman has no future.

But I'm in law school.

Jay said:

That woman has no future.

Click to expand...

Are you kidding? Book deals, interviews, movie rights, etc. She just has to avoid messing it up... oh... yeah, she has no future.

Even I wouldn't take that kind of fame and money. Can you imagine the sheer load of hate mail, grafiti anywhere she lives, destruction of property, picketers at every place she vists etc.

Let me tell you something. I've never seen something cause such incredible wildfire from the media since O.J.

We'll never know 100% if he did it due to how incredibly bad the LAPD screwed up in that case and it involved a middle aged woman. This time it is about a 2 year old helpless little girl who got snuffed out and in this day and age with social media being what it is, this woman will never have peace of mind from people in civilized nations.

I wouldn't be surprised if this woman is assassinated within the next year.

Jay said:

I wouldn't be surprised if this woman is assassinated within the next year.

Click to expand...

Yowch. It only takes one nutter for that to happen, too, and this world is full of them. I wonder if that's even occurred to her?

You know every time one of these cases comes around I wait for the parents to be hurt but it never seems to happen. At least not physically.

Well think--- the people that are outraged by this sort of thing are generally the type who wouldn't hurt somebody for something like that, eh?

doomdragon6 said:

Well think--- the people that are outraged by this sort of thing are generally the type who wouldn't hurt somebody for something like that, eh?

Click to expand...

^keep telling yourself that and stay blind to a world that lost its mind long ago.

so in other news, I got called a monster all day yesterday BECAUSE I DIDN'T CARE about that stupid verdict.

no I am not happy that a small child was murdered, but the verdict has already been decided, go bug someone else with how you hope the jurors and the judge and the all the people involved who were just DOING their JOB burn in hell or get murdered or wish whatever evil voodoo you want on them. I DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT!

I do have to say that I'm happy that yesterday was my remote day from work. I hope no one brings it up today.

I havent heard anyone mention it except on here.

I have a feeling that she will not be returning home for long. But she will have an impossible time melding into the back-ground since her face has been plastered on every TV screen in America.

Ok right after I made that post the camp host came in and asked me what I thought of "the verdict". Im glad you guys talked about it because otherwise I wouldn't have any idea what she was talking about. >.<

All I know is if you let a month go by without reporting your missing child then you are guilty of something.

http://blogs.courant.com/roger_catlin_tv_eye/2011/07/nancy-graces-tot-mom-outrage.html

I found this while looking for the reason Nancy Grace called Ms. Anthony "Tot Mom" all the FUCKING TIME. I still can't find a satisfactory answer. Is it that she was the mother of a Toddler, a mother that was really young?(basically a toddler herself) I just don't get it, because she ALWAYS says it like she was a racist chewing on the N-word.

I have to admit, the only reason that I was pulling for an acquittal was to watch her stroke out. Every time I get exposed to her rantings on HLN, I walk away much more angry than she is.

I found an article, but I didn't post it (I should have)

basically the article was about WHY do we even have this "news" about Casey.

1. She is "good looking"
2. she is white
3. Her kid is good looking.

There are babies dying every year around the world (and in the U.S. too) but you don't hear about that. You don't hear about the average person killing their children on the news.
I think that is why Charlie is antsy

Good ole missing White Woman (Girl) Syndrome.

"A homely child went missing yesterday, and nobody really cared." -The Onion

sixpackshaker said:

Good ole missing White Woman (Girl) Syndrome.

"A homely child went missing yesterday, and nobody really cared." -The Onion

Click to expand...

That is pretty much it
I shop at Walmart (yea, they are evil, but prices are too good for a low government income earner) and I see many kids are missing on the board. It makes me sad, but no news about them.

The vast majority of the missing kids on the Milk Cartons and Wal-Marts missing child boards are with a parent. They are just not with the parent that has legal custody.

I think cases where they think the mother/father murdered the kid gets press in general. This one was just particularly weird because of the delay in reporting.

Okay, it's been a day. Here's my thoughts after reflection.

1. There are still serious questions in my mind, re: Defense Claims versus Physical Evidence. Something nefarious happened and nobody is being brought to justice.
2. I can better understand the jury's response. It is not so much a reflection of Casey's innocence, but is more a condemnation of the case brought forth by the prosecution.
3. I still don't understand how circumstantial evidence must be overlooked when it is logical and irrefutable.
4. Nancy Grace is an idiot and I was way too much like her yesterday for my own comfort.

So upon reflection this does not infuriate me, but still makes me disappointed. Do I think she got away with murder? Absolutely. Do I see why? I guess, although I disagree with the flimsiness of the evidence.

makare said:

You know every time one of these cases comes around I wait for the parents to be hurt but it never seems to happen. At least not physically.

Click to expand...

Maybe it's some kind of crazy inversed Bystander Effect. Only, instead of everybody standing around wondering why nobody is helping, they're wondering why nobody is hurting.

I don't want to hurt her necessarily I want to neuter her so she won't have any more kids.

Based on all the evidence I've read about or seen on random news reports, I honestly can't believe the prosecution went straight up with first degree murder. They were asking to lose the trial.

I was wrong on that, there were also manslaughter and child abuse charges too.

Jay said:

All I know is if you let a month go by without reporting your missing child then you are guilty of something.

Click to expand...

Good thing we have laws on the books saying it's illegal to....something.....

Most normal people flip out after 1 minute of not knowing where their kid is, not 1 month.

Agreed.

And the multitude of pictures of her partying and enjoying life WHILE her child was missing is very unsettling. The whole affair stinks.

Anyways, the one thing I'm taking away from the whole Casey Anthony verdict debacle is the fact that Facebook and Twitter are the modern day equivalent of pitchforks and torches.

Dei said:

Most normal people flip out after 1 minute of not knowing where their kid is, not 1 month.

Click to expand...

I freak out not knowing where my nephew is in my OWN home if I don't see him (he is 2 and loves to get into things)
I can imagine I would wonder where the heck is my own children if they are MIA more than 1 minute.

Apparently, the jury thought she was guilty but that the evidence presented did not prove anything...so they had to come up with that verdict.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/0...prosecutors-where-was-the-evidence/?hpt=hp_t1

This strangely makes me feel better about it, even though I hope Casey gets cancer.

If the defense is claiming that Casey and her father covered up an accidental drowning, how did they explain why they put duct tape over the child's nose and mouth?

The most frustrating thing I found about being on a jury was that the jury is not allowed to ask questions. They can have the transcript re-read to them, and they can examine the evidence provided during the course of the trial, but they aren't allowed to participate in it beyond that.

Ah well. Such is life.

Yeah. Having a lawyer for a father quickly dispelled the idea that the American law system is build around justice. I don't mean that as cynically as it sounds, BTW. Just a fact. Also, unless I missed it, I can't believe the following statement has not been made:

If you were on the jury, how would you find in the trial of Casey Anthony?

Click to expand...

Hot.

Dave said:

Apparently, the jury thought she was guilty but that the evidence presented did not prove anything...so they had to come up with that verdict.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/0...prosecutors-where-was-the-evidence/?hpt=hp_t1

This strangely makes me feel better about it, even though I hope Casey gets cancer.

Click to expand...

Now the juror wants money for the story?

So the prosecution totally drop the ball on this one since the lesser degree didn't get assign, Casey is free and clear of the murder charge right? (i.e. can't retrial due to double jeopardy. So if new evidence "appear" that she DID kill her baby, she can't be trial for murder)

but there is still civil court for neglegence?

She's to be released next Wednesday. She got 4 years, but 3 of these were time served. The rest was removed for good behavior.

Can't think.... sheer hatred of the American legal system... pover overwhelming.
Added at: 12:21

http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/07/petition-for-caylees-law-goes-viral/?hpt=hp_t1

By dinnertime, Crowder had hopped on the social-change site Change.org and launched a petition, aimed at President Obama and members of Congress, calling for a federal law that would make it a felony for parents to fail to notify police within 24 hours of a child's disappearance or within an hour of a child's death. Casey Anthony waited 30 days before reporting her daughter, Caylee, missing — one of several bizarre behaviors to which many pointed as evidence of Anthony's guilt.

Click to expand...

Late to the game, but from what I've seen, the jury made the right call legally. Not because Casey Anthony didn't do it. But because the prosecution failed to prove she did. It's not the same thing, and it's being confused in the media and in the public. Most of the physical evidence was questionable, and you can't convict someone for being a bitch.* The prosecution apparently couldn't even really associate the duct tape with where or how they say it was applied, and who hasn't looked up something questionable on the internet? I've got a good feeling she did it, and that the prosecution's theories were probably correct, but the same questions I just asked have to be asked by the jury, too.

On the other hand I agree that this was a disproportionate response to something that sadly happens every day. The hype felt manufactured by the media from the get go. "BE EXCITED BECAUSE WE SAY SO!" I hate when Matt Lauer says things like "the case taking the public by storm" when I don't think it is. He's only saying it is to cause it to happen.

* Anecdotally, my son's best friend's mom probably wouldn't kill her kid, but I could see her partying for a month when he went missing. She's unemployed, but sent him off to her mom's house for the entire summer, filling her facebook page with check-ins at bars and pictures with strange dudes--and not one word about her kid.
Added at: 02:11
Also, I totally expected a Law & Order style courthouse steps shooting.

fade said:

Late to the game, but from what I've seen, the jury made the right call legally. Not because Casey Anthony didn't do it. But because the prosecution failed to prove she did. It's not the same thing, and it's being confused in the media and in the public. Most of the physical evidence was questionable, and you can't convict someone for being a bitch.* The prosecution apparently couldn't even really associate the duct tape with where or how they say it was applied, and who hasn't looked up something questionable on the internet? I've got a good feeling she did it, and that the prosecution's theories were probably correct, but the same questions I just asked have to be asked by the jury, too.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with this. I believe she did it, but there was nothing presented that actually proved (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that she killed her daughter. The whole thing stinks.

Ugh, just saw a new report on T.V. Apparently she disclosed to a friend that she would like to be a mother again. Good grief, if there were a case for sterilization - she would be a prime example.

I kinda have the feeling the media is trying to set her up, for the court house steps shooting. We are getting the day of release and that she will be sent out of a "secret exit." Now the nut jobs will need to wait for the press to release the location of the secret exit.

I have to agree Fade. I think she did it. The problem is that it can't be proven/link that she did do it. Now she is 'scott' free of the murder of her child.

I was never entirely clear on how jeopardy worked. Is it the charge or the crime?

fade said:

I was never entirely clear on how jeopardy worked. Is it the charge or the crime?

Click to expand...

I suppose you could say it's the specific instance of the action. You can't be put on trial more than once for the same act, but that one trial can have multiple charges. I could be wrong on this, as it's more hazy in my mind than other areas. Maybe Makare knows.

GasBandit said:

I suppose you could say it's the specific instance of the action. You can't be put on trial more than once for the same act, but that one trial can have multiple charges. I could be wrong on this, as it's more hazy in my mind than other areas. Maybe Makare knows.

Click to expand...

Didn't Ron Goldman's family take OJ to town after the verdict of the civil case?

yeah but OJ had money. Not going to get much from this chick.

Mathias said:

Didn't Ron Goldman's family take OJ to town after the verdict of the civil case?

Click to expand...

Yeah, and from what I hear the nanny that never met her is bringing a suit as well. But here, I think the distinction is, the criminal trial was "you killed her," whereas the civil suit was "it was your fault he died."

Also, I'm (again not entirely sure because my brain hurts today but) fairly sure there's something about double jeopardy only applying to criminal charges?

Civil court is entirely separate from a criminal charge. The burden of proof for first degree murder, beyond a reasonable doubt, is very hard to overcome (obviously). In civil wrongful death cases it is usual just preponderance of evidence but I think that can depend on the state.

Hilarious. She gets off scott free, gets a million in free bail money over the years, getting even more hundreds of thousands of dollars for doing "exclusives" all the while partying it up while the entire world will forget her face in a matter of months just like every other "Major Trial Criminal" that's come along in the past 5 years.

She made out like a bandit, and with no more child responsibility to boot.

It's been my experience that the best way to find things is with google maps. I'd probably use that.

You taught her well, Shego

I'm simply dumbfounded that the jury failed so hard. I've seen people get thrown in prison because there was 1% proof and 99% reasonable doubt.

It's all about case-to-case. She could have gotten the book thrown at her for "reasonable doubt" happens ALL the time. EX: An innocent man gets thrown in prison. How? Not because there was enough evidence against him (obviously, since he didn't do it) but enough to be "convinced".

Shegokigo said:

I'm simply dumbfounded that the jury failed so hard. I've seen people get thrown in prison because there was 1% proof and 99% reasonable doubt.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing these other people were not hot party girls.

I don't think she is all that good looking. I don't get the pretty girl argument.

Neither was Sarah Palin, but there you go.

It's about the "field" of people to choose from. Ex: Most murderers aren't pretty so Casey Anthony was considered prettier by comparison. Most politicians aren't pretty so Sarah Palin was considered prettier by comparison. etc etc

There are many people's definition of beauty does not go much further than... Thin with big tits.

I thought palin was an actual beauty queen

Tinwhistler said:

1984 Miss Alaska Pageant. She came in 2nd.
http://www.tmz.com/2008/08/29/mccains-vp-miss-alaska-loser/

Click to expand...

...
That's what a beauty queen looked like in 84? That looks like my mom at the beach.

Nobody's at their best when on trial for murder, crying, after being imprisoned for 3 years. But yes, the stereotype of a murderer being big'n'ugly makes "pretty" a subjective measurement.

Ravenpoe said:

...
That's what a beauty queen looked like in 84? That looks like my mom at the beach.

Click to expand...

Pics or it didn't happen.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-07-15-casey-anthony_n.htm?csp=YahooModule_News

I wonder where COULD she go? I mean, people knows what she look like. And the general public is pissed (at least what you see on the news)
What kind of life can she have?

Honestly though guys, lets be serious for a second.

Casey Anthony is a milf... well... not any more

CrimsonSoul said:

Honestly though guys, lets be serious for a second.

Casey Anthony is a milf... well... not any more

Click to expand...

Wow.

Quotemander Prime said:

Wow.

Click to expand...

That's how I roll

I laughed.

Hard.

Well done Crimson. Look on the bright side, if you two hooked up then broke up, you wouldn't have to worry about child support long!

Too soon?

HAH!

Ravenpoe said:

...
That's what a beauty queen looked like in 84? That looks like my mom at the beach.

Click to expand...

Well....it is Alaska.

Have you seen pictures of the 80s? That is what all women looked like then. (At least, the hair)