Casey Anthony trial


Ariadne
#331
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Of course she's a celebrity, you can't stop talking about her.



Maybe not everybody, but look at the ratings of court tv, 'the bachelor/bachelorette', maury povich, etc etc etc.
There seems to be a huge number of people who want to be on these reality shows, and a bigger number of people who want to watch them.

Sorry to disappoint, but I have no ability to turn some trashy, talentless, murderous, angry high school drop out into a celebrity. I'm sure there is no shortage of people like Casey Anthony that would be happy to star in a porn flick for $1million. Would more people want to watch Ms Anthony, with her skin picking problem, than a real porn star? I doubt it ... but that's not my thing, so what do I know.
 
EagleSmack
#332
Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

I think she expects to waltz out of prison holding her head up high as a victim of the justice system. I think the extra days on her sentence are to assimilate her out of the jail without her being like Alex, in Clockwork Orange, who could not survive in the world that he so eagerly exploited and indulged in prior to imprisonment.

That's because when Alex wanted to punch someone he got violently ill.
 
Ariadne
#333
In this case, too many people want to punch Ms Anthony.
 
Ocean Breeze
#334
Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

In this case, too many people want to punch Ms Anthony.

.........yep.........they want THEIR kind of "justice". Not the civilized kind.

***********

If the jury is feeling sick over their verdict, they knew that something is wrong with their decision. Why didn't they put more time into the task and ensure that they were confident in their decision?

They suspected her of the murder. But were hamstrung..........because the EVIDENCE did NOT add up to premeditated Homicide / let alone the death penalty. More time would NOT have provided more evidence. Why take more time and waste money when they came up with the only REASONABLE verdict they could.

Does not matter what the gut , instinct , feelings seem to indicate. Those are NOT FACTS. And we are very fortunate to have a legal system.... that still follows the rules of the LAW.

Wonder how much the lynch mob would like if the rule of the law , and the system was thrown out , in favor of mob tar and feathering , lynching. Burning at the stake. , and other atrocious methods. Given their behavior , that is what they seem to prefer. UNTIL of course THEY are the ones on trial for some crime. That is when they suddenly become very legal and RIGHTS minded.

the stench of hypocracy in this mob reaction is over powering.

For those that want her blood, hide and body parts as revenge........is that what you would want should you have a legal problem???
 
Ariadne
#335
I have to disagree that the jury took the time they needed to arrive at a verdict that they could live with. We've heard that the jury was sick over the verdict, and that the foreperson was uncomfortable with putting his signature on the verdict sheet.
 
Ocean Breeze
#336
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I don't believe everyone is that shallow.

It seems that in a celeb oriented culture .........where the media goes nuts over anything dramatic & sensational.......and this behavior ir reinforced ....the majority is that shallow.

look at the crap on TV. It starts with toddlers and Tiars and goes downhill from there. You think these parents are not part of the celeb culture?? There are line ups of kids (and parents) wanting to get their 5seconds of fame . ( some even get some fortune)

Shallow is only part of it. Shameless is another.

Ask any person that has been "interviewed" following a natural disaster for example. Their moment on the Telie is what they will talk about for their remaining lives. The natural event almost becomes secondary. In many ways this is almost "human nature"

Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

I have to disagree that the jury took the time they needed to arrive at a verdict that they could live with. We've heard that the jury was sick over the verdict, and that the foreperson was uncomfortable with putting his signature on the verdict sheet.

Making the RIGHT . LAWFUL decision is not always a happy one. Would they have been happier declaring her guilty without the evidence to support it??? Is THAT right??

The EMOTIONS have gotten control of far too many now........and those emotions are preventing folks from being logical / objective as the law requires.


Woud you have felt better if they took a much longer time and came up with the same verdict?? Would it have made any significant difference??

Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

She is a celebrity; that's the American dream, to be on television.

It doesn't matter if you're on tv because you're being tried for murder, or if you are in a **** competition to get married, as long as you're on tv.


Spot on, Ten Penny.

 
Ariadne
#337
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

Making the RIGHT . LAWFUL decision is not always a happy one. Would they have been happier declaring her guilty without the evidence to support it??? Is THAT right??

The EMOTIONS have gotten control of far too many now........and those emotions are preventing folks from being logical / objective as the law requires.


Woud you have felt better if they took a much longer time and came up with the same verdict?? Would it have made any significant difference??

If the jury is returning a verdict, but they are feeling sick about their decision, then it suggests to me that they are not comfortable with their decision. I think they should have continued to deliberate until such time that they could deliver a verdict that they felt comfortable with.

I think the strangest thing I've heard from a juror is that the case was circumstatial so the prosecution didn't present a case. They were very definitely waiting to see a video of the murder.
 
Ocean Breeze
#338
Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

If the jury is returning a verdict, but they are feeling sick about their decision, then it suggests to me that they are not comfortable with their decision. I think they should have continued to deliberate until such time that they could deliver a verdict that they felt comfortable with.

I think the strangest thing I've heard from a juror is that the case was circumstatial so the prosecution didn't present a case. They were very definitely waiting to see a video of the murder.

Well. If there had been a video of the murder, their job would have been done for them. In this U-Tube world..... some unrealistic ideas seem to be coming forth.

the FACT remains. No one KNOWS for a FACT what really happened to Caylee. All we have is a lot of suppositin and hot emotion. and neither is part of a proper legal system.

It WAS circumstantial. The prosecution presented what it had and it was not enough. So that juror is technically correct.
 
EagleSmack
+1
#339
Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

I have to disagree that the jury took the time they needed to arrive at a verdict that they could live with. We've heard that the jury was sick over the verdict, and that the foreperson was uncomfortable with putting his signature on the verdict sheet.

There was plenty of evidence to convict her. They got snookered by the Defense. They didn't see Scott Peterson killing his wife and they fished Laci from San Francisco Bay. How do you think her remains looked?
 
TenPenny
+2
#340
Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

Sorry to disappoint, but I have no ability to turn some trashy, talentless, murderous, angry high school drop out into a celebrity.

That's where you're wrong. You keep talking about her, discussing her, etc.

You, and millions like you, make her a celebrity.
If you, and millions like you, paid her no attention, she would not be a celebrity.

You are doing what CourtTV wants you to do - become part of the star-maker machinery. Ratings, Viewers, Celebrity. That's how it works.

If nobody pays attention, there is no celebrity.
 
Ariadne
#341
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

Well. If there had been a video of the murder, their job would have been done for them. In this U-Tube world..... some unrealistic ideas seem to be coming forth.

the FACT remains. No one KNOWS for a FACT what really happened to Caylee. All we have is a lot of suppositin and hot emotion. and neither is part of a proper legal system.

It WAS circumstantial. The prosecution presented what it had and it was not enough. So that juror is technically correct.

I think you're making an assumption that everyone arrived at the opinion that Casey murdered her daughter because someone told them that's what to believe. I've actually followed a number of murder cases - out of curiosity - and I don't need anyone else to help me form an opinion. I follow the facts and, in this particular case, I thought it was quite logical to conclude that Casey murdered her daughter. I don't use supposition and hot emotion to form opinions. What the juror wanted was to know how and when the child died and barring that, she was willing to exclude all else. The circumstantial evidence provides an answer to the question of how and when, but apparently circumstantial evidence was not good enough for the juror.
 
annabattler
#342
Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

I think you're making an assumption that everyone arrived at the opinion that Casey murdered her daughter because someone told them that's what to believe. I've actually followed a number of murder cases - out of curiosity - and I don't need anyone else to help me form an opinion. I follow the facts and, in this particular case, I thought it was quite logical to conclude that Casey murdered her daughter. I don't use supposition and hot emotion to form opinions. What the juror wanted was to know how and when the child died and barring that, she was willing to exclude all else. The circumstantial evidence provides an answer to the question of how and when, but apparently circumstantial evidence was not good enough for the juror.

We cannot,as tv watchers,experience what the jury experiences. There was 24/7 coverage of this case....the jurors were sequestered for 31 days...no tv,no radio,no newspapers.We,on the other hand,got to listen to all of the many sidebars(while the jurors were excluded),the legal arguments,the judges decisions in each....plus,the hundreds of "legal experts" giving their legal opinions.Being saturated gave us a much different perspective.
It's like we got to view the whole kaleidoscope while the jurors could only view the small circle in the middle of the kaleidoscope.
This case has been an interesting social phenomonon...hundreds of people have been directly affected,many of their lives disrupted forever...many will make money...and one small child is gone forever.
 
Kreskin
#343
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

There was plenty of evidence to convict her. They got snookered by the Defense. They didn't see Scott Peterson killing his wife and they fished Laci from San Francisco Bay. How do you think her remains looked?

The Peterson jury saw evidence like 'he attended a memorial but seemed to act differently from others who were mourning'. If he acted more like Casey then he'd have a real defense!
 
TenPenny
+1
#344
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

The Peterson jury saw evidence like 'he attended a memorial but seemed to act differently from others who were mourning'. If he acted more like Casey then he'd have a real defense!

Remember that if a loved one ever dies - if you don't act the way the media thinks you should, you're probably guilty of murder.
 
Kreskin
+1
#345
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Remember that if a loved one ever dies - if you don't act the way the media thinks you should, you're probably guilty of murder.

I'd like to see another case in the history of the planet when an innocent mother intentionally mislead investigators in the search for her kidnapped/deceased daughter while she went out and did cartwheels in singles clubs.

Before finding reasonable doubt it first has to pass the laugh test.
 
EagleSmack
#346
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Remember that if a loved one ever dies - if you don't act the way the media thinks you should, you're probably guilty of murder.

A woman once told me that she laughs at inapproriate times and has laughed at wakes while kneeling down before the deceased. Most likely she killed all of them.
 
bluebyrd35
#347
Personally, I fail understand this morbid fascination with any person involved in a horrible human behavioural aberration. Indulging in emotional hysteria by media and strangers is, in my opinion, a form of perverted excitement and has absolutely nothing to do with empathy or real regret for the victim.

Furthermore,such behaviour could provide incentive for other flawed individuals to form their unique and singularly nasty aim, of either for divesting themselves of an unwanted problem person or for gaining their 15 minutes of fame. So, why give anyone over a year of fame at the taxpayers expense, then all kinds of advertisement for months afterwards??

Usually, persons losing children,or another close relative, want above all to be left alone to grieve. So, whether one kills or ends the life of another for selfish reasons or for their 15 minutes, or one has lost a loved one, it serves no purpose to bisect, dissect or analyse the happening ad-nauseum. Such hysteria serves no good purpose, making them even more infamous.

Does the average person have such a dull life, that they need this sort of morbid excitement??
Last edited by bluebyrd35; Jul 13th, 2011 at 11:34 PM..Reason: spelling error.
 
Ariadne
#348
People have different reasons for wanting to understand the criminal justice system in various countries.
 
Kreskin
#349
Now there is talk of possible witness tampering and sounds like it would be alleged toward the defense. If that is true it creates the remote possibility of a mistrial.
 
karrie
#350
I can't think of many cases more deserving of a mistrial.

*fingers crossed*
 
Ariadne
#351
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

Now there is talk of possible witness tampering and sounds like it would be alleged toward the defense. If that is true it creates the remote possibility of a mistrial.

My understanding is that this could relate to a woman, one of the Equasearch volunteers, that claimed she searched the area where the body was found. It seems that records were altered to place her there. She was called by the prosecution for an interview but did not come for the second interview. Others stated that there was no search in the area on the day that she said that she was there. It could also relate to the witness that was called during trial and whose supervisor prevented that testimony. I believe it was someone that worked with the military, and he was some sort of medical expert.

I doubt there will be a mistrial. I think the state wants to wash its hands of the case and the cost of another trial. I suspect that it will be only a matter of time before Ms Anthony is in trouble with the law again - like OJ. Now that she has gotten away with murder, she will be emboldened in commiting criminal activities. She was so brazen when she passed bad cheques that it's hard to say where she will go wrong next, but she seems well suited to be a conwoman. We know that she will resort to murder to eliminate anyone that is in her way, so hopefully everyone will stay clear of her.
 
spaminator
#352
News Weird
It's a bad time to be named Casey Anthony


QMI Agency
First posted: Thursday, July 14, 2011 9:26:56 EDT AM



Casey Anthony (right) has received hundreds of Facebook friend requests, messages and wall posts. That's 43-year-old Casey Anthony of Darby, Pa., not the 25-year-old Florida woman who was found not guilty of killing her daughter Caylee. (REUTERS/FACEBOOK)

Casey Anthony has received hundreds of Facebook friend requests, messages and wall posts. That's 43-year-old Casey Anthony of Darby, Penn., not the 25-year-old Florida woman who was found not guilty of killing her daughter in a high-profile case.

Ever since last week's acquittal of the now-infamous accused killer, poor Mr. Anthony - an African American man and no relation - has been bombarded.
"[They were] making comments about the verdict, who am I to take a child's life," Anthony told NBC Philadelphia. "And then I'm sitting back like, excuse me? I'm not the Casey Anthony you think."
His phone also lit up because he had his number listed on his profile. He has now stopped answering his phone, though the calls may be directed at one of his two sons who are also named Casey Anthony.
There are 16 listings for "Casey Anthony" in the U.S., according to the website 411.com.

It's a bad time to be named Casey Anthony | Weird | News | Toronto Sun
 
Ariadne
#353
I heard that Leonard Padilla is filing a lawsuit for $200,000: either she will be available to be served with papers and Baez will provide this information - if he continues as her lawyer, or Padila will send his employees to look for her ... said the bounty hunter.

People are already looking for her. Casey Anthony, the murderer, will try to hide and disguise herself. I'm pretty sure she will find more victims because ... after all ... she was able to fool the jury. She has a clear message that she can fool anyone and do anything. She will be back in court before her 30th birthday.

I hope the other Casey Anthony is enjoying the notoriety ... he should cash in with an ABC TV interview ... I hear they're handing out $200,000 to murder suspects, the fee for an innocent bystander should be in the millions.

I hope he's saving all those messages so he can publish a book about how people truly felt about Ms Anthony.
 
Ocean Breeze
#354
She is out of jail and has been taken to an undisclosed location.

......there are lawsuits pending , so her legal woes are far from over.

Would be nice if the media gave this one a rest now.

Does anyone know how she plans on paying her legal fees from the most recent trial.???
 
Kreskin
#355
She will marry a rich guy then kill him.
 
Ariadne
#356
She was declared indigent a long time ago and the state paid for her lawyers, experts and trial. She has also been declared indigent for the purpose of appealing the guilty verdict for lying.
 
Ocean Breeze
+1
#357
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

She will marry a rich guy then kill him.

and the "evidence" will reveal duct tape and a heart shaped sticker. But being "inconclusive" she will be freed to marry again.
 
Ariadne
#358
I'm sure we haven't heard the last of Ms Anthony. I don't believe her lawyer's claims that she's emotionally distraught, and I suspect she's already scheming to milk the murder of her daughter for as much money as she can get - just like she's been doing for the last 3 years. Here's some pics of her release - all smiles once she thinks she out of camera range:

Casey Anthony released from jail under armed guard in the dead of night | Mail Online
 
Kreskin
#359
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

and the "evidence" will reveal duct tape and a heart shaped sticker. But being "inconclusive" she will be freed to marry again.

Yes, she will claim that he accidentally drowned in their hot tub and her dad came over to drop him in the swamp.

It's an ironclad defense. Rinse and repeat.
 
Ocean Breeze
#360
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

Yes, she will claim that he accidentally drowned in their hot tub and her dad came over to drop him in the swamp.

It's an ironclad defense. Rinse and repeat.


LOL.....Of course after waiting at least a month so the decomposition gets a head start .. she could be on to something. Wonder if she has OJ on her "contact" list...
 

Similar Threads

17
Casey Printers signs with BC
by Kreskin | Sep 23rd, 2009
6
Casey Printers returns to the CFL
by CBC News | Sep 8th, 2007
5
Bill Casey gets booted
by gc | Jun 6th, 2007
no new posts