Casey Anthony trial


Ocean Breeze
#241
Seems that an important question is : How long is the media going to keep going over this ad nauseum and only adding to her celeb. status.

this is gone beyond rediculous. It is not and has not been NEWS for some time now. I guess the constant rehashing is mllking the ratings until something else comes along that can be sensationalized to the same degree.

the media is the third justice system in the US. Guilty until proven innocent is what it goes by.

One can rather safely conclude that the words "fair trial " are just words.
 
Ariadne
#242
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

Seems that an important question is : How long is the media going to keep going over this ad nauseum and only adding to her celeb. status.

this is gone beyond rediculous. It is not and has not been NEWS for some time now. I guess the constant rehashing is mllking the ratings until something else comes along that can be sensationalized to the same degree.

the media is the third justice system in the US. Guilty until proven innocent is what it goes by.

One can rather safely conclude that the words "fair trial " are just words.

Isn't it over? She'll be released tomorrow, although the media is saying it's the 17th. She'll be hidden away by her lawyers until the can sell her story to some sucker.

I guess there's still the deposition on July 19 regarding her false allegations against the Zanny woman. The prosecution will submit the bill for investigating someone that wasn't missing from June - Dec at the end of July.
 
Ocean Breeze
#243
Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

No 25 year old has skin like that unless they don't know how to use soap and water. She doesn't look after herself, and there's no doubt she didn't look after her daughter. It looks like she's the kind of person that sits and picks at herself for hours.

She's a festering disease inside and out.

Well, you obviously have NOT seen any skin conditions on people of all ages. Just ask your local dermatologist. It is simply WRONG to make assumptions on some photos. Sorry, but one cannot lose objectivity here as then one is simply part of the wolf pack vigilante lynch mob . We HAVE to guard our CIVILITY as it does not take much to lose it and go completely neanderthal.
 
TenPenny
+2
#244
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

Well, you obviously have NOT seen any skin conditions on people of all ages. Just ask your local dermatologist. It is simply WRONG to make assumptions on some photos. Sorry, but one cannot lose objectivity here as then one is simply part of the wolf pack vigilante lynch mob . We HAVE to guard our CIVILITY as it does not take much to lose it and go completely neanderthal.

But, bad skin is proof of her being a murderer! It's a fact!
 
Ariadne
#245
Anthony does not have a skin condition ... if she did, her face would look the same. What she has is uncleanliness and neglect when it comes to personal hygiene.

Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

But, bad skin is proof of her being a murderer! It's a fact!

What it demonstrates is that she doesn't look after herself, and it reinforces the fact that she didn't look after her daughter.
 
TenPenny
#246
Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

Anthony does not have a skin condition ... if she did, her face would look the same. What she has is uncleanliness and neglect when it comes to personal hygiene.



What it demonstrates is that she doesn't look after herself, and it reinforces the fact that she didn't look after her daughter.

No, it shows that she doesn't look after herself.

It says nothing about her care for her daughter. And it has nothing to do with whether she murdered the kid or not.

I have a car. Does that mean I don't like horses?
Oh, look, my neighbor has a television. He must hate going to the movies. Or maybe, he must be deaf.
 
Ocean Breeze
#247
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

But, bad skin is proof of her being a murderer! It's a fact!

 
Ariadne
#248
Okay ... let's look at what a hit she'd be in a porn flick ... no amount of plastic surgery or airbrushing could make that film turn a profit.

The fact that she murdered her daughter is actually sufficient to demonstrate that she didn't look after her daughter.
 
Kreskin
#249
Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

Okay ... let's look at what a hit she'd be in a porn flick ... no amount of plastic surgery or airbrushing could make that film turn a profit.

The fact that she murdered her daughter is actually sufficient to demonstrate that she didn't look after her daughter.

Some even call murder, child abuse. But that's a tough one to get past 12 jurors, especially those who announce they can't pass judgement on anyone.
 
TenPenny
#250
Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

Okay ... let's look at what a hit she'd be in a porn flick ... no amount of plastic surgery or airbrushing could make that film turn a profit.

The fact that she murdered her daughter is actually sufficient to demonstrate that she didn't look after her daughter.

Yes, and that fact has been proven in a court of law, has it?

You need to let go of this anger you've got, the angry gonna eat you up.
 
Ariadne
#251
There's no anger associated with a faulty justice system in a foreign country ... we're very familiar with that problem. The jury has said that they do not believe she was innocent, but they couldn't figure out how she died. They dismissed the circumstantial evidence and voila ... no ability to convict.

What's actually quite amusing is that the nasty, murdering woman with hygiene problems is a candidate for porn ... what kinda guys are into that?
 
TenPenny
#252
Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

There's no anger associated with a faulty justice system in a foreign country ... we're very familiar with that problem. The jury has said that they do not believe she was innocent, but they couldn't figure out how she died. They dismissed the circumstantial evidence and voila ... no ability to convict.

What's actually quite amusing is that the nasty, murdering woman with hygiene problems is a candidate for porn ... what kinda guys are into that?

Probably many of the same people (not just guys) who condemn her as a murderess.
 
Ariadne
#253
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Probably many of the same people (not just guys) who condemn her as a murderess.

I think she murdered her daughter, but a million $ would not be enough for me to watch her in a porn flick - I'd be scarred for life!
 
Ocean Breeze
#254
Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

Okay ... let's look at what a hit she'd be in a porn flick ... no amount of plastic surgery or airbrushing could make that film turn a profit.

The fact that she murdered her daughter is actually sufficient to demonstrate that she didn't look after her daughter.

You are making the same ASSUMPTIONS that the media made . and drawling the same conclusions.

You don't know for a FACT........that she actively killed the child. There is not enough evidence to prove. No. How it happened, no where it happened, no witnesses to verify the identity of the killer.........IF she was killed. What if it really was neglegent homicide......which is what I suspect it is. She probably could not get a baby sitter so in her glorious decision making .....thought she would put the kid in the trunk of her car........sedate her with the choroform or ?? and when the child was asleep put some duct tape over her mouth to prevent her from screeming should she wake up before Casey returned to the car. this is the only "theory" that makes sense. IF she had premeditated the death...... she would have been more aggressive in her kill tactic. It is plausible that Caylee suffocated ...during her sleep. (overdose of the chloroform ?? over zealous application of the duct tape?? ) IF she had woken up........she might have tried to tear the duct tape from her mouth. There was no evidence of her hands and legs being bound by either duct tape, or rope or??? (as might have been , had it been truly PREMeditated.

Negligent/? ABSOLUTELY...... and essentially that was proven. The big mistake here was made by the prosecution by over reaching the charges and potential penalty. They should have gone for negligent manslaughter, or negligent homide...... with possible life in prison......... and they would have won hands down.

about the juror not wanting to "judge". She is talking about judgement that would lead to the death penalty. She was not talking about her personal feeling . You can't take all these comments literally or at face value.
 
Ariadne
#255
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

You are making the same ASSUMPTIONS that the media made . and drawling the same conclusions.
You don't know for a FACT........that she actively killed the child. There is not enough evidence to prove. No. How it happened, no where it happened, no witnesses to verify the identity of the killer.........IF she was killed. What if it really was neglegent homicide......which is what I suspect it is. She probably could not get a baby sitter so in her glorious decision making .....thought she would put the kid in the trunk of her car........sedate her with the choroform or ?? and when the child was asleep put some duct tape over her mouth to prevent her from screeming should she wake up before Casey returned to the car. this is the only "theory" that makes sense. IF she had premeditated the death...... she would have been more aggressive in her kill tactic. It is plausible that Caylee suffocated ...during her sleep. (overdose of the chloroform ?? over zealous application of the duct tape?? ) IF she had woken up........she might have tried to tear the duct tape from her mouth. There was no evidence of her hands and legs being bound by either duct tape, or rope or??? (as might have been , had it been truly PREMeditated.
Negligent/? ABSOLUTELY...... and essentially that was proven. The big mistake here was made by the prosecution by over reaching the charges and potential penalty. They should have gone for negligent manslaughter, or negligent...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
In my opinion, the jury made the mistake of thinking that it was their job to figure out exactly how Caylee died, and that they needed this information in order to assign punishment. That is based directly on the information provided by one of the jurors. Both of those points were beyond the scope of what the jury was tasked to do. Therefore, it is my belief that the jury was confused, thus arriving at an incorrect verdict. Are you perhaps making the same mistake as the jury and assuming that without direct evidence demonstrating how and when the child died, the murderer should go free?
 
TenPenny
#256
Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

In my opinion, the jury made the mistake of thinking that it was their job to figure out exactly how Caylee died, and that they needed this information in order to assign punishment.

The jury's job was to decide if she was proven guilty without any doubt.
Obviously, the prosecution left doubt.

The jury did what it was supposed to do.
 
Ariadne
#257
Actually, the jury is not supposed to consider punishment ... that is up to the judge. As far as how and when exactly someone died, that is also not the task. They are tasked to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to prove that the child was murdered by the accused, or whether there was reasonable doubt that the accused murdered her child. The jury has stated that they do not believe the accused is innocent ... that means they believed the accused was guilty ... but they were hung up on how the child died even though the child had duct tape on her face. They were also hung up on when the child died even though the exact time of death is not required in order to determine whether it is reasonable to believe that the accused alone had the means and opportunity to murder her child. The jury has also stated that they were skeptical of the testimony of George Anthony, but his testimony was not critical to the evidence of murder. He was only one of many witnesses that smelled decomposition in the vehicle.
 
Kreskin
#258
Chloroform in car and multiple internet searches on killing that includes how to's with chloroform. Dead body smell in her car. Tape from her home wrapped around kids face. She fails to report the kid missing and then misleads investigators for 6 months. Her defense is yet another lie that doesn't pass the laugh test.

What evidence was missing?
 
Ocean Breeze
#259
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

Chloroform in car and multiple internet searches on killing that includes how to's with chloroform. Dead body smell in her car. Tape from her home wrapped around kids face. She fails to report the kid missing and then misleads investigators for 6 months. Her defense is yet another lie that doesn't pass the laugh test.

What evidence was missing?

all of the above are circumstantial. The tape is not PROOF of murder. let alone pre-meditated homicide.

the chloroform , and the duct tape are ASSUMED to be the cause of death. The cause of death is KEY in a homicide case. There was insuffient hard evidence about the CAUSE OF DEATH........let alone WHO was involved. No finger prints , no complete autopsy possible .

The fact she did not report the child "missing" is bad.......but not hard evidence of homicide.

They did prove by default that she is a totally irresponsible, manipulative, lying and self centered person. But none of that adds up to pre-meditated murder.

The REASONABLE DOUBT from the lack of hard evidence is the safety valve ....in the justice system. Otherwise folks could weave all kinds of possibilities and yet not be right.
 
JLM
#260
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

all of the above are circumstantial. The tape is not PROOF of murder. let alone pre-meditated homicide.

the chloroform , and the duct tape are ASSUMED to be the cause of death. The cause of death is KEY in a homicide case. There was insuffient hard evidence about the CAUSE OF DEATH........let alone WHO was involved. No finger prints , no complete autopsy possible .

The fact she did not report the child "missing" is bad.......but not hard evidence of homicide.

They did prove by default that she is a totally irresponsible, manipulative, lying and self centered person. But none of that adds up to pre-meditated murder.

The REASONABLE DOUBT from the lack of hard evidence is the safety valve ....in the justice system. Otherwise folks could weave all kinds of possibilities and yet not be right.

I think that case should be a classic for "trial by water" or "trial by fire".............................

Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

Chloroform in car and multiple internet searches on killing that includes how to's with chloroform. Dead body smell in her car. Tape from her home wrapped around kids face. She fails to report the kid missing and then misleads investigators for 6 months. Her defense is yet another lie that doesn't pass the laugh test.

What evidence was missing?

They need one more law where it's illegal to be a b*tch punishable by 50 years in jail............................
 
Ariadne
#261
When mommy researches "how to make chloroform", her toddler disappears, there is evidence on the car trunk liner of decomposition & chloroform and the child is found bagged in the blanket and laundry bag from her bedroom, what should we assume ... that the grandmother researched chloroform even though she perjured herself, the grandfather staged an accidental drowning to appear as a murder, and the water meter reader had something to do with where the body was found?
 
Ocean Breeze
#262
How about telling us : WHAT KIND OF JUSTICE SYSTEM would you rather have?? Do you want "reasonable doubt" to be done away with?? Do you want : innocent until proven guilty to be done away with ??

Do you think that she will not be at a huge risk by being free from Jail?? The mob mentality of the american public (media included) is continuing to inflame the situation by belaboring the situation to the point the threats coming at her , her family..... are REAL and warrant attention by the law enforcement folks.

One juror has quit her job, and left the state she was living in. Saying she would never be on a jury again ....and is terrified for HER life.

Now would someone please tell us how THIS AMERICA is so "great"??? If this "america" is not bordering on the barbaric , it has reduced itself to lynch mob justice of the days when witches were burned at the stake.

........NONE OF THIS is behavior of a civilized society. NONE> The people are salivating blood. and have lost all perspective.

This is an example of the fact that the US is one of the most UNSAFE nations on the planet. You all gonna tell us , that this kind of behavior is not a form of in-house terrorism??

Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

When mommy researches "how to make chloroform", her toddler disappears, there is evidence on the car trunk liner of decomposition & chloroform and the child is found bagged in the blanket and laundry bag from her bedroom, what should we assume ... that the grandmother researched chloroform even though she perjured herself, the grandfather staged an accidental drowning to appear as a murder, and the water meter reader had something to do with where the body was found?


We should NOT ASSUME anything. We have to look at the EVIDENCE and PROOF as objectively as possible.

( in this case.......all objectivity has been lost and pitch forks for revenge have moved in.)
 
Ariadne
#263
If I were in a position to have a say, I would want the jury to be educated ... mandatory one day educational workshop for all those selected for jury duty. I would want the jury to understand the nature of circumstantial evidence, and to set aside all the make-believe preconceptions they gained from watching CSI TV. I would want the jury to understand that they are not determining punishment, but determining guilt. I want the jury to understand how to separate opening statements and defence arm-waving from facts ... and most of all, I'm thankful that in Canada no investigative information can be released pre-trial ... and I would like to see that law implemented in Florida ... but that's never going to happen with the Sunshine Laws.

Regarding Casey Anthony, I hope she is shunned in the same way as Karla Homolka. I hope that every time she arrives somewhere, the public announces where she is and makes her life more difficult. I sure hope that no one is going to hand her a cool million to spread more lies.

Personally, I'm not the least bit concerned about what happens to Anthony next ... I rather hope that no one hires her, no educational institution wants her (same as what happened to Joran van der Sloot), every new friend she makes is intent on betrayal and that she has a miserable life.
 
Ocean Breeze
#264
Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

If I were in a position to have a say, I would want the jury to be educated ... mandatory one day educational workshop for all those selected for jury duty. I would want the jury to understand the nature of circumstantial evidence, and to set aside all the make-believe preconceptions they gained from watching CSI TV. I would want the jury to understand that they are not determining punishment, but determining guilt. I want the jury to understand how to separate opening statements and defence arm-waving from facts ... and most of all, I'm thankful that in Canada no investigative information can be released pre-trial ... and I would like to see that law implemented in Florida ... but that's never going to happen with the Sunshine Laws.
Regarding Casey Anthony, I hope she is shunned in the same way as Karla Homolka. I hope that every time she arrives somewhere, the public announces where she is and makes her life more difficult. I sure hope that no one is going to hand her a cool million to spread more lies.
Personally, I'm not the least bit concerned about what happens to Anthony next ... I rather hope that no one hires her, no educational institution wants her (same as what happened to Joran van der Sloot), every new friend she makes is intent on betrayal and that she has a miserable life.

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
oh she is shunned. BIG TIME. She is going to have to change her appearance completely.........just to walk the streets. and the risk on her life will follow her like a shadow. american justice. does not end with the verdict in some cases. This is one of them. If someone kills her.........the nation will rejoice. and THAT is barbarism at its worst.
 
Ariadne
#265
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

oh she is shunned. BIG TIME. She is going to have to change her appearance completely.........just to walk the streets. and the risk on her life will follow her like a shadow. american justice. does not end with the verdict in some cases. This is one of them. If someone kills her.........the nation will rejoice. and THAT is barbarism at its worst.

Good - she should be shunned! Still, there's not much she can do to change her appearance. She can cut and dye her hair, but she'll own that skinny, angry face until the day she dies. A nose job would be a good idea, but she might end up with one of those horrible nasal voices like so many that have nose jobs. If someone kills her, that person can hire Jose Baez and get away with murder too - that seems to be the justice that is practiced in Florida.
 
Kreskin
#266
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

all of the above are circumstantial. The tape is not PROOF of murder. let alone pre-meditated homicide.

the chloroform , and the duct tape are ASSUMED to be the cause of death. The cause of death is KEY in a homicide case. There was insuffient hard evidence about the CAUSE OF DEATH........let alone WHO was involved. No finger prints , no complete autopsy possible .

The fact she did not report the child "missing" is bad.......but not hard evidence of homicide.

They did prove by default that she is a totally irresponsible, manipulative, lying and self centered person. But none of that adds up to pre-meditated murder.

The REASONABLE DOUBT from the lack of hard evidence is the safety valve ....in the justice system. Otherwise folks could weave all kinds of possibilities and yet not be right.

Most cases are circumstantial. The Scott Peterson trial was decisioned on far less evidence, but it didn't take much thinking to connect the dots. When a mother spends her time trying to send investigators to fictitious kidnappers while her daughter is dead in a swamp decomposing with the same tape wrapped around her skull as that found where her family lives, what is the first clue? Of course your not going to find the precise method of killing on a skeleton unless the skeleton has broken bones or evidence of blunt objects bashing the skull. If it did then you might have a reason to discredit the use of chloroform and asphyxiation with tape.
 
JLM
#267
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

Most cases are circumstantial. The Scott Peterson trial was decisioned on far less evidence, but it didn't take much thinking to connect the dots. When a mother spends her time trying to send investigators to fictitious kidnappers while her daughter is dead in a swamp decomposing with the same tape wrapped around her skull as that found where her family lives, what is the first clue? Of course your not going to find the precise method of killing on a skeleton unless the skeleton has broken bones or evidence of blunt objects bashing the skull. If it did then you might have a reason to discredit the use of chloroform and asphyxiation with tape.

What did Scott in was the bodies turned up at the exact spot Scott claimed he was fishing, pretty damning evidence I'd say!
 
Ariadne
#268
Another recent case is that of Brad Cooper. His wife was found near a drainage ditch, decomposing in the North Carolina summer sun, a few days after she "went for a run". Brad's alibi for the morning was that he bought juice for the children, spoke on his cell phone to his wife on the house phone, he returned home, his wife went for a run and he was at home looking after the children for the remainder of the day ... and his wife never returned home. There were questions about how she died and when she died, even though it was only a few days after she was last seen. Nothing was certain. After an 8 week trial, he was convicted of first degree murder. The theory that had to be believed for the conviction was that he staged the phone call from the house phone to his cell phone, and that she was already lying near the drainage ditch before he bought juice.

If time and manner of death were required for a conviction, Brad Cooper would not be serving a life sentence for his wife's murder.
 
EagleSmack
#269
Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

Anthony does not have a skin condition ... if she did, her face would look the same. What she has is uncleanliness and neglect when it comes to personal hygiene.

.

Man! I was in the field in unsanitary conditions and without showering for weeks! My back NEVER looked like that. That made me gag.
 
Ariadne
#270
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Man! I was in the field in unsanitary conditions and without showering for weeks! My back NEVER looked like that. That made me gag.

It's rather disgusting, especially for someone that was recently offered $1 million to star in a porn film ... but that offer was removed for reasons other than her physical appearance. It looks to me like she gets itchy spots and picks at herself until she bleeds.
 

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