PDA

View Full Version : OMG ... not guilty ?


Pages : [1] 2

TDmvp
07-05-2011, 11:23 AM
.... Insane

bronco militia
07-05-2011, 11:25 AM
wtf

Beantown Bronco
07-05-2011, 11:28 AM
I would've lost a lot of money betting on this case.

Smiling Assassin27
07-05-2011, 11:31 AM
prosecution was pretty horrid, folks. this shouldn't be shocking in the least, IMO.

cutthemdown
07-05-2011, 11:32 AM
Even OJ Simpson is like WTF?

gunns
07-05-2011, 11:33 AM
A lot of lawyers have said this case would end up that way mainly because there was no absolute evidence. Perfect crime? I don't know, but I can't believe the not guilty's on the child abuse or even manslaughter. I would have given that to her, if for nothing else, because this mother did not know where her child was for 31 days. And why did she lie. Inexcusable.

I know the prosecution had the burden of proof, but the crap the defense said I would have to question. I have a feeling she won't have an easy time on the outside.

DHallblows
07-05-2011, 11:34 AM
Apparently everyone thought she was guilty...so I'm pretty surprised?

But as someone in their mid 20's...I wouldn't have even known this trial existed, more-less known the sentencing was going on right now, if I didn't have someone in their 50's (mi madre) actually caring about it ???

That One Guy
07-05-2011, 11:40 AM
The part that I don't understand is how they can basically let her skate when clearly she did SOMETHING in the case. She hid her dead child in her trunk and the most they can get her on is lying to the police?

Sometimes our legal system seems terribly broken. There wasn't absolute proof she killed the kid with duct tape but there was ZERO evidence she died in the swimming pool. Sad, sad day.

Beantown Bronco
07-05-2011, 11:40 AM
Apparently everyone thought she was guilty...so I'm pretty surprised?


Call me crazy, but I can't think of any instances where innocent people lie to police in a murder investigation.

TDmvp
07-05-2011, 11:40 AM
Apparently everyone thought she was guilty...so I'm pretty surprised?

But as someone in their mid 20's...I wouldn't have even known this trial existed, more-less known the sentencing was going on right now, if I didn't have someone in their 50's (mi madre) actually caring about it ???

Proving the old adage that most people in their 20's aint wrapped real tight. :spit:

jhns
07-05-2011, 11:43 AM
I'd hit it.

DHallblows
07-05-2011, 11:51 AM
Proving the old adage that most people in their 20's aint wrapped real tight. :spit:

:wiggle: I'm just sayin

broncocalijohn
07-05-2011, 11:57 AM
prosecution was pretty horrid, folks. this shouldn't be shocking in the least, IMO.

No, there was plenty of evidence to know she did it. You have to wonder what juries look for in a case. If it looks 99% guilty but 1% is tough to explain, then they go with not guilty. Chloroform, on the internet looking for ways to kill someone, dead smell in the car, found body, not reported for 30 days and it was because the Mom called 911, partying while her child was "missing", lied about kidnapping, etc. Yeah, those are all points to show Not guilty.
If you want to find the dumbest 12 people in your community, host a high profile murder case and have a jury selection.

Willynowei
07-05-2011, 11:59 AM
no proof, the only reason anyone cares about this case is because she's a decent looking slut and her kid is cute.

No verdict can bring the kid back.

Archer81
07-05-2011, 12:03 PM
No, there was plenty of evidence to know she did it. You have to wonder what juries look for in a case. If it looks 99% guilty but 1% is tough to explain, then they go with not guilty. Chloroform, on the internet looking for ways to kill someone, dead smell in the car, found body, not reported for 30 days and it was because the Mom called 911, partying while her child was "missing", lied about kidnapping, etc. Yeah, those are all points to show Not guilty.
If you want to find the dumbest 12 people in your community, host a high profile murder case and have a jury selection.


None of these things actually prove Casey did it. It just shows a tremendous lack of scruples in her as a mother. The defense does not have to prove she did not do it. All they have to do is create doubt in the prosecution's case. Thats it.

:Broncos:

Willynowei
07-05-2011, 12:03 PM
No, there was plenty of evidence to know she did it. You have to wonder what juries look for in a case. If it looks 99% guilty but 1% is tough to explain, then they go with not guilty. Chloroform, on the internet looking for ways to kill someone, dead smell in the car, found body, not reported for 30 days and it was because the Mom called 911, partying while her child was "missing", lied about kidnapping, etc. Yeah, those are all points to show Not guilty.
If you want to find the dumbest 12 people in your community, host a high profile murder case and have a jury selection.


First, you don't have to show not guilty, you have to show that there is not enough evidence that you are guilty.

Second, where did you get the highlighted part from? Just evidence that she researched knocking someone out with chloroform?

Beantown Bronco
07-05-2011, 12:05 PM
No verdict can bring the kid back.

Well, hell....not guilty for everyone in a murder or manslaughter case then please.

broncocalijohn
07-05-2011, 12:06 PM
None of these things actually prove Casey did it. It just shows a tremendous lack of scruples in her as a mother. The defense does not have to prove she did not do it. All they have to do is create doubt in the prosecution's case. Thats it.

:Broncos:

You add up those things and try to come up with a NOT GUILTY. As a jury member, you cannot just pass the thought of someone showing proof of wanting to kill someone and then your daughter is dead and you don't report it. Defense making up stories of how the kid died and not proving it is just a slick trick defensive attornies use to sucker the dumb.....12 of them.

Beantown Bronco
07-05-2011, 12:08 PM
Cut the s**t, Dad! Why lawyers? Why the law?

Because the law, my boy, puts us into everything. It's the ultimate backstage pass.
It's the new priesthood, baby. Did you know there are more students
in law school than lawyers walking the Earth?

We're coming out....guns blazing!

The two of you....all of us.......acquittal after acquittal after acquittal......until the stench of it reaches so high and far into Heaven...it chokes the whole effing lot of them!

TheElusiveKyleOrton
07-05-2011, 12:09 PM
Shadow of a doubt. Terrible prosecution.

Folks have been saying this **** for weeks.

Archer81
07-05-2011, 12:10 PM
You add up those things and try to come up with a NOT GUILTY. As a jury member, you cannot just pass the thought of someone showing proof of wanting to kill someone and then your daughter is dead and you don't report it. Defense making up stories of how the kid died and not proving it is just a slick trick defensive attornies use to sucker the dumb.....12 of them.


Its all circumstantial. Can you possibly convict someone on a death penalty case who MAY be innocent on purely circumstantial evidence?

The prosecution failed to create a coherent story to how the girl died. The defense exploited cracks in the prosecutions case and created reasonable doubt. Only God knows what Casey did, as far as the law is concerned, she is innocent.

:Broncos:

StugotsIII
07-05-2011, 12:11 PM
Would anyone care about her or this case if she wasn't attractive?

Archer81
07-05-2011, 12:12 PM
Would anyone care about her or this case if she wasn't attractive?


Susan Smith is not pretty. People cared about that one.


:Broncos:

Willynowei
07-05-2011, 12:12 PM
Well, hell....not guilty for everyone in a murder or manslaughter case then please.

You sound like you need a tampon.

Beantown Bronco
07-05-2011, 12:12 PM
Its all circumstantial. Can you possibly convict someone on a death penalty case who MAY be innocent on purely circumstantial evidence?

There were two other charges on the table the jury could've gone with if their concern was the death penalty.

Crushaholic
07-05-2011, 12:13 PM
The girl was two years old. That brings out an emotion of "Someone needs to pay for her death!" However, there was no real evidence linking Casey to her daughter's death...NONE...

Beantown Bronco
07-05-2011, 12:13 PM
You sound like you need a tampon.

great comeback.....way to stay on point.

bronco militia
07-05-2011, 12:18 PM
The girl was two years old. That brings out an emotion of "Someone needs to pay for her death!" However, there was no real evidence linking Casey to her daughter's death...NONE...

lying to the cops about everyting and the evidence of a dead body in her car?

none?

Willynowei
07-05-2011, 12:18 PM
great comeback.....way to stay on point.

I saved both of us some time from an argument that would've gone in circles about a whole lot of nothing.

What i stated was a fact - a guilty verdict won't bring the kid back. There's nothing else to it.

StugotsIII
07-05-2011, 12:19 PM
Susan Smith is not pretty. People cared about that one.


:Broncos:




Never heard of her.

Beantown Bronco
07-05-2011, 12:20 PM
I saved both of us some time from an argument that would've gone in circles about a whole lot of nothing.

If we're looking at doing away with that kind of argument, TJ may as well shut the site down.

What i stated was a fact - a guilty verdict won't bring the kid back. There's nothing else to it.

And what I stated is just as much a fact - if that's your concern, then we should just stop trying murder/manslaughter cases.

Willynowei
07-05-2011, 12:24 PM
If we're looking at doing away with that kind of argument, TJ may as well shut the site down.



And what I stated is just as much a fact - if that's your concern, then we should just stop trying murder/manslaughter cases.

1.) not every argument is circular.

2.) no. people get convicted for retributive and deterrent purposes, among others.

LetsGoBroncos
07-05-2011, 12:41 PM
Incompetence in this country is at an all time high

alkemical
07-05-2011, 12:43 PM
Incompetence in this country is at an all time high

:puff:

Beantown Bronco
07-05-2011, 12:47 PM
1.) not every argument is circular.

2.) no. people get convicted for retributive and deterrent purposes, among others.

1) In all my time here, I have yet to see an argument where someone when presented with an opposing viewpoint actually changed their opinion on the spot. And please don't confuse that with people changing their opinions over time due to outside factors (player/team performance, etc.).

2) I understand that. But neither of those were represented in your statement above.

Garcia Bronco
07-05-2011, 12:48 PM
Would anyone care about her or this case if she wasn't attractive?

She ain't attractive...

Jesterhole
07-05-2011, 12:48 PM
There is no depth to the stupidity a room full of people will stoop to if it means they get to go home quicker.

bronco militia
07-05-2011, 12:49 PM
are they sure they don't want to do a recount? We are talking about Florida.

Blueflame
07-05-2011, 12:50 PM
Never heard of her.

Seriously...you've never heard of Susan Smith? ???

She's serving time for rolling her car into a lake with her two small sons strapped into seat belts in the back seat. She claimed to have been carjacked by a black man but it was determined that her new boyfriend preferred to be childless, so she got rid of the kids.

alkemical
07-05-2011, 12:51 PM
crazy women ...

Garcia Bronco
07-05-2011, 12:52 PM
Seriously...you've never heard of Susan Smith? ???

She's serving time for rolling her car into a lake with her two small sons strapped into seat belts in the back seat. She claimed to have been carjacked by a black man but it was determined that her new boyfriend preferred to be childless, so she got rid of the kids.

I remember that bitch...on TV crying and about black men taking her children.

gunns
07-05-2011, 12:52 PM
None of these things actually prove Casey did it. It just shows a tremendous lack of scruples in her as a mother. The defense does not have to prove she did not do it. All they have to do is create doubt in the prosecution's case. Thats it.

:Broncos:

They got a bunch of citizens together, before the trial started, and presented the evidence they felt was going to be presented and by a majority they found her not guilty. The smartest thing, probably the only smart thing, the defense did was not put her on the stand.

As a mother, I know the bitch is guilty as hell. She didn't know where her child was for 31 days. And lied about it. That did it for me. IMO she'll pay one day and I believe the rest of her life is going to be a living hell. Good.

Tombstone RJ
07-05-2011, 12:53 PM
Wow... I thought there might be a hung jury but I guess the jury just did not have enough proof to find her guilty of killing her baby. Which begs the question, what really happened then?

Garcia Bronco
07-05-2011, 12:54 PM
IMO she'll pay one day and I believe the rest of her life is going to be a living hell. Good.

this

Bronco Yoda
07-05-2011, 12:54 PM
http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://www.zuguide.com/image/Thriller-The-Devils-Advocate.3.jpg&sa=X&ei=22sTTvWHBKTViALQqq3iDQ&ved=0CAQQ8wc4igE&usg=AFQjCNE3ixUs5nqxFw2LspP2biuIAMTzrg
"My work is done here"

Willynowei
07-05-2011, 12:55 PM
She ain't attractive...

You wouldn't touch her, I'm sure.

http://tynerose.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/casey-anthony-party-life-2.jpg%3Fw%3D523%26h%3D394

http://caseyanthonynews.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/partydress1.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_KKuG0mhN6fQ/SNEjEgZXleI/AAAAAAAAAaE/7mIzJw9LaJI/s400/Casey2.jpg

If she was ugly, the daughter wouldn't be as cute, and no one would care.

gunns
07-05-2011, 01:00 PM
Wow... I thought there might be a hung jury but I guess the jury just did not have enough proof to find her guilty of killing her baby. Which begs the question, what really happened then?

I don't think it was not guilty, but not enough legal proof.

Hercules Rockefeller
07-05-2011, 01:02 PM
Shadow of a doubt

When did that become the burden of proof?

Hercules Rockefeller
07-05-2011, 01:03 PM
Second, where did you get the highlighted part from? Just evidence that she researched knocking someone out with chloroform?

Believe there were searches for "neck breaking" also.

Blueflame
07-05-2011, 01:06 PM
I remember that b****...on TV crying and about black men taking her children.

Yeah and she also tried to justify her actions by claiming to have been sexually abused by her stepfather or something... but her jury did its job and found her guilty. I can't understand how any mother could do something like she did.

broncocalijohn
07-05-2011, 01:07 PM
Wow... I thought there might be a hung jury but I guess the jury just did not have enough proof to find her guilty of killing her baby. Which begs the question, what really happened then?

It doesnt beg the question. The cops and detectives did their job and they found the person responsible for the death of Caylee. Just like the OJ trial, case is closed and the guilty gets away with it.

Tombstone RJ
07-05-2011, 01:13 PM
It doesnt beg the question. The cops and detectives did their job and they found the person responsible for the death of Caylee. Just like the OJ trial, case is closed and the guilty gets away with it.

So a civil lawsuit is coming?

Garcia Bronco
07-05-2011, 01:15 PM
So a civil lawsuit is coming?

For civil suit to work with the intended consequences...the defendent must have somehting to take.

Garcia Bronco
07-05-2011, 01:16 PM
You wouldn't touch her, I'm sure.

.

I wouldn't run across the room to introduce myself.

Bronco Yoda
07-05-2011, 01:16 PM
Not only did she get away with murder...... she's going to be rich!

You wait and see.

There will be book deals, interviews, maybe even a movie.

bronclvr
07-05-2011, 01:17 PM
http://i605.photobucket.com/albums/tt140/stkjock/Net%20Pics/8c5c19fe.jpg

Willynowei
07-05-2011, 01:17 PM
I wouldn't run across the room to introduce myself.

You might be lazy, swimming in p***Y or both, I wouldn't throw her out of bed if she was just some random (non babykilling) chick i met at a party, thats for sure.

Bronco Yoda
07-05-2011, 01:28 PM
I would have given that to her, if for nothing else, because this mother did not know where her child was for 31 days. And why did she lie. Inexcusable.

According to Jeff Probst and the state of Florida it doesn't count until day 39.

SouthStndJunkie
07-05-2011, 01:33 PM
I may have to tune in tonight to watch Nancy Grace's head explode.

bronco militia
07-05-2011, 01:34 PM
I may have to tune in tonight to watch Nancy Grace's head explode.

this is the only thing good about todays verdict....

Bronco Yoda
07-05-2011, 01:37 PM
Another thought here...

You have to know that her parents are ****ting bricks right now. And probably a little freaked out.

A. They know their girl is a cold blooded killer.

or

B. The things she said about them are true and who knows what she'll say or do now.

Garcia Bronco
07-05-2011, 01:39 PM
You might be lazy, swimming in p***Y or both, I wouldn't throw her out of bed if she was just some random (non babykilling) chick i met at a party, thats for sure.

I've had enough to last a lifetime. So....

I no longer make those decisions based on appearance. I look for the connection anymore.

Either way....I don't find her attractive.

Kaylore
07-05-2011, 01:39 PM
http://i605.photobucket.com/albums/tt140/stkjock/Net%20Pics/8c5c19fe.jpg

Oh that's funny and then infuriating all at once. Especially with her making duckface.

cutthemdown
07-05-2011, 01:41 PM
She should become a spokesperson for planned parenthood.

Beantown Bronco
07-05-2011, 01:41 PM
Wow... I thought there might be a hung jury but I guess the jury just did not have enough proof to find her guilty of killing her baby. Which begs the question, what really happened then?

Not so much "what really happened", but "what on Earth does the jury really think happened?"

BroncoInferno
07-05-2011, 01:46 PM
Not so much "what really happened", but "what on Earth does the jury really think happened?"

What they "think" really happened is irrelevant. The prosecution has to prove their version of events, which they failed to do.

My personal theory all along is that Anthony accidently killed her daughter by giving her something to knock her out while she went out partying. Then, she paniced and tried to cover it up. That's just my theory of course. There's no evidence to prove it, just like the prosecution failed to provide any real evidence that Caylee was murdered. Their whole case was basically to show what a cold-blooded slut she is. While true, it falls short of proving murder.

Beantown Bronco
07-05-2011, 01:47 PM
What they "think" really happened is irrelevant. The prosecution has to prove their version of events, which they failed to do.

I understand criminal law. It doesn't change my post one bit. I personally really want to know what they think happened.

cutthemdown
07-05-2011, 01:48 PM
Was Caylees body to decomposed for a toxicology report inferno? I thought they could easily take a liver tissue sample, or kidney? and see what drugs a person was on? truthfully i didn't follow trial, i knew about, but thought it was a slam dunk she did it. I didn't know the case was weak.

cutthemdown
07-05-2011, 01:49 PM
I understand criminal law. It doesn't change my post one bit. I personally really want to know what they think happened.

the story was she drowned in the pool, they panicked and tried to cover it up? or am i wrong, i thought that was her story.

BroncoInferno
07-05-2011, 01:51 PM
I understand criminal law. It doesn't change my post one bit. I personally really want to know what they think happened.

It will be interesting to see. Some of them very well may think she committed murder, but didn't think sufficient evidence was there.

NUB
07-05-2011, 01:51 PM
Just wasn't enough hard evidence. Not surprised by this. She totally killed that kid, though.

LetsGoBroncos
07-05-2011, 01:53 PM
It doesnt beg the question. The cops and detectives did their job and they found the person responsible for the death of Caylee. Just like the OJ trial, case is closed and the guilty gets away with it.

Bingo. I NEVER want to see an innocent person put away, but at the same time you can't take the "reasonable doubt" aspect too far. You have to have some common sense. You could almost always say, "there was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt" unless there is a video of someone committing the crime.

Ridiculous

BroncosSR
07-05-2011, 01:53 PM
What they "think" really happened is irrelevant. The prosecution has to prove their version of events, which they failed to do.

My personal theory all along is that Anthony accidently killed her daughter by giving her something to knock her out while she went out partying. Then, she paniced and tried to cover it up. That's just my theory of course. There's no evidence to prove it, just like the prosecution failed to provide any real evidence that Caylee was murdered. Their whole case was basically to show what a cold-blooded slut she is. While true, it falls short of proving murder.

I'm pretty sure not reporting your kid lost after 31 days is pretty god damn good proof and she should have been convicted of child neglect, at a minimum.

LetsGoBroncos
07-05-2011, 01:55 PM
this is the only thing good about todays verdict....

What channel is she on now? On Directv?

BroncoInferno
07-05-2011, 01:58 PM
I'm pretty sure not reporting your kid lost after 31 days is pretty god damn good proof and she should have been convicted of child neglect, at a minimum.

It's certainly a compelling piece of evidence, but not something an entire case can hinge on. It doesn't rule out the theory that she accidently caused the death, paniced and tried to cover it up, which doesn't equal 1st degree murder. I don't buy the pool story either, but you have to have something physical that can contradict the defenses version of the story. Unfortunately, they didn't have enough.

Bronco Yoda
07-05-2011, 02:08 PM
Zanny the Nanny did it! That was my favorite lie she threw out there.

She couldn't think up a better BS fictitious name than that?

Bronco Yoda
07-05-2011, 02:13 PM
It's certainly a compelling piece of evidence, but not something an entire case can hinge on. It doesn't rule out the theory that she accidently caused the death, paniced and tried to cover it up, which doesn't equal 1st degree murder. I don't buy the pool story either, but you have to have something physical that can contradict the defenses version of the story. Unfortunately, they didn't have enough.

It was a circumstantial case from the beginning. It was always going to fall on the jurors level of common sense and threshold for judging such a young person for such a heinous crime with such a shockingly way of the bodies disposal.

Shananahan
07-05-2011, 02:23 PM
Am I the only one who had never heard about any of this before?

Play2win
07-05-2011, 02:31 PM
who's not guilty... and of what ???

bronco militia
07-05-2011, 02:32 PM
Am I the only one who had never heard about any of this before?

http://www.nylonmag.com/modules/magsection/article/uploaded_images/4912_ct_clueless.jpg

Bronco Yoda
07-05-2011, 02:34 PM
Am I the only one who had never heard about any of this before?

seriously?

alkemical
07-05-2011, 02:39 PM
honestly, if i didn't listen to an AM station for traffax & C2C, i would have been clueless too.

Cito Pelon
07-05-2011, 03:07 PM
If the prosecution has no proof for pre-meditated murder, then the jury ruled correctly.

The prosecution should not have brought the charge of pre-meditated murder to court.

In this case, it was obvious the prosecution had no case at all for pre-meditated murder. So the jury ruled correctly.

Juries are not there to rubber-stamp the prosecution's case, they are there to make a just decision.

McDman
07-05-2011, 03:08 PM
I like how she googled "neck breaking", death, and "how to make chloroform" and yet people doubt she did it.

Cito Pelon
07-05-2011, 03:19 PM
It was a circumstantial case from the beginning. It was always going to fall on the jurors level of common sense and threshold for judging such a young person for such a heinous crime with such a shockingly way of the bodies disposal.

See, that's the big deal. The prosecution had no case for pre-meditated murder, the idiots never should have tried to prosecute the case as pre-meditated murder. The jury judged correctly.

myMind
07-05-2011, 03:27 PM
She'll get whats coming to her, as we all do eventually.
If she did it, she will not know true happiness again.
She will be stained.

Rulon Velvet Jones
07-05-2011, 03:32 PM
She'll be dead by the end of the year. If some loony sniffs out her whereabouts, they'll set fire to the place or put a bullet in her.

Rulon Velvet Jones
07-05-2011, 03:36 PM
F the jury. We all know she did that crap. Same as OJ.

vancejohnson82
07-05-2011, 03:45 PM
jury ruled correctly, unfortunately.....defense did a great job

our system works, but it cuts both ways

enjolras
07-05-2011, 03:49 PM
It's shocking how few folks here have even basic knowledge of how our legal system works.

rugbythug
07-05-2011, 03:58 PM
I sat jury on a Murder Trial. I am shocked anyone gets convicted.

Rock Chalk
07-05-2011, 03:58 PM
Am I the only one who had never heard about any of this before?

No, took me a while to find out who the hell the thread was about.

Ratboy
07-05-2011, 04:51 PM
duckface.

Thats what bothered me the most...

Ratboy
07-05-2011, 04:53 PM
She'll be dead by the end of the year. If some loony sniffs out her whereabouts, they'll set fire to the place or put a bullet in her.

You willing to make that bet?

Ratboy
07-05-2011, 04:54 PM
It's shocking how few folks here have even basic knowledge of how our legal system works.

ZOMFG SHE IS GUILTY!!! DEEP DOWN IN MAH HART< I KNOW SHE DID IT.

JUSTISE SYSTEM BASED ON HART!!111!!1

Hercules Rockefeller
07-05-2011, 04:56 PM
I sat jury on a Murder Trial. I am shocked anyone gets convicted.

Why?

Ratboy
07-05-2011, 04:57 PM
Maybe now you suckers can go back to living your daily lives... or find someone else to follow.

cabronco
07-05-2011, 05:15 PM
jury ruled correctly, unfortunately.....defense did a great job

our system works, but it cuts both ways


Actually throughout the trial , the media & practicing attorneys were saying the defense wasnt doing a very good job. It seemed that way to me too, until closing arguments where I thought def. att. Biaz displayed how you could find doubt with pretty much all evidence & testimony and put the cross hairs on Goerge Anthony. I think her Dad did have something to do with it imo. He acted like he was breaking down on the stand, trying like hell to make tears flow, but couldnt.

Broncojef
07-05-2011, 05:20 PM
No cause of death
Family full of lies not seeking justice
No DNA was found on the victim
Prosecution didn't have a case other than she compulsively lied
and acted like a party girl instead of being remosreful.

broncosteven
07-05-2011, 05:29 PM
No cause of death
Family full of lies not seeking justice
No DNA was found on the victim
Prosecution didn't have a case other than she compulsively lied
and acted like a party girl instead of being remosreful.

This sounds like the Drew Peterson case only they still have not found his 3rd wife's body. Had they not exhumed his 2nd wife he would still be walking free.

It is sad what happened to the little girl, either way the little one was not going to get a fair break from life. I have no doubt the mother is guilty of endangering her child. She should save herself (and any future offspring) the trouble by having a hysterectomy.

Old Dude
07-05-2011, 05:50 PM
This case reaffirms rule number one when it comes to armchair courtroom watching.

Most of the press coverage and talking heads (eg Nancy Grace & co) have their own agendas and groupthink processes going on and no matter how intense the coverage, you are only going to get a partial sense of the actual dynamics in the courtroom.

TheReverend
07-05-2011, 06:13 PM
It's times like these that I wish hell were real

Dr. Broncenstein
07-05-2011, 06:24 PM
No cause of death
Family full of lies not seeking justice
No DNA was found on the victim
Prosecution didn't have a case other than she compulsively lied
and acted like a party girl instead of being remosreful.

Well they had a dead toddler with 3 separate strands of duct tape to her face, thrown in a swamp for the animals to eat only after sitting in the trunk of her car to the point of horrendous smell. That, and an unaccounted for month of time where Casey was out partying while the child was "missing." So, there's that. It may not be 1st degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, but Casey's actions resulted in her child ending up dead in the swamp with duct tape to her GD face.

Rulon Velvet Jones
07-05-2011, 06:56 PM
I'd love to read the theories from the assholes that believe she didn't do it only because the legal system was successfully played by her defense. Did OJ not do it only because his legal team got him through the system? Who murdered this little girl? Some stranger of which we have no knowledge?
I could give two ****s about anyone thumping their chest because the US legal system worked the way it was supposed to. I have a 2yr old and wouldn't allow a single minute to pass if she was found liquified in a bag in a swamp. It's disgusting to read people defending this psychopath. The next time someone wants to kill their child, theyll be sure to lie incessantly and muck up the legal system so that tiny shred of reasonable doubt works in their favor. Anyone should be ashamed for defending this piece of garbage and her behavior.

That One Guy
07-05-2011, 07:05 PM
The wife flipped on the Nancy Grace show and it showed in the bottom comments from an alternate juror. The alt. said they didn't believe the kid was ever in the trunk and would've also said not guilty. No idea how they came to that conclusion from what I've read/heard.

barryr
07-05-2011, 07:29 PM
Bascially she got away with murder and her parents and lawyers helped her get away with it. Innocent people do not try to cover up "accidents" and lie to the police, much less even invent a fictitious person as a nanny. It is disgusting to say the least.

houghtam
07-05-2011, 07:37 PM
I'd love to read the theories from the a-holes that believe she didn't do it only because the legal system was successfully played by her defense. Did OJ not do it only because his legal team got him through the system? Who murdered this little girl? Some stranger of which we have no knowledge?
I could give two ****s about anyone thumping their chest because the US legal system worked the way it was supposed to. I have a 2yr old and wouldn't allow a single minute to pass if she was found liquified in a bag in a swamp. It's disgusting to read people defending this psychopath. The next time someone wants to kill their child, theyll be sure to lie incessantly and muck up the legal system so that tiny shred of reasonable doubt works in their favor. Anyone should be ashamed for defending this piece of garbage and her behavior.

Including the defense attorneys?

Boss Man
07-05-2011, 07:44 PM
cant comprehend how she didnt get charged for child abuse atleast

i know people who have gotten charged with much more for way less

Bronco Yoda
07-05-2011, 07:49 PM
Her aunt was just on HLN saying she was guilty. Called the jury stupid and lazy.

Casey's own AUNT.

houghtam
07-05-2011, 07:49 PM
cant comprehend how she didnt get charged for child abuse atleast

i know people who have gotten charged with much more for way less

I'm no legal scholar, so I'll defer to the smarter people here (Beantown?)...but I don't think our legal system is designed to work that way. I don't think the prosecution can charge someone with 1st degree murder and then go down the line and charge them with every lesser charge, just in case the murder one doesn't stick.

Boss Man
07-05-2011, 07:57 PM
I'm no legal scholar, so I'll defer to the smarter people here (Beantown?)...but I don't think our legal system is designed to work that way. I don't think the prosecution can charge someone with 1st degree murder and then go down the line and charge them with every lesser charge, just in case the murder one doesn't stick.

what i meant to say was i know people who have gotten ***ed hard by the legal system, when someone like this gets away scott free when she should have atleast been charged with child abuse

houghtam
07-05-2011, 08:05 PM
what i meant to say was i know people who have gotten ***ed hard by the legal system, when someone like this gets away scott free when she should have atleast been charged with child abuse

Very true, and it sucks. It goes back to what another poster was saying about the prosecution not going for murder one.

If you're on the 40 at the end of the game and you need a field goal to win, and the defense has all 11 players in the end zone, are you still going to throw the hail mary just to prove a point?

This woman probably could have been put away easily for a different, lesser charge.

Again, I don't know all the ins and outs of the legal system so I'm still waiting for someone to come in and put their two cents in. Waaaaaitiiiing...

Dr. Broncenstein
07-05-2011, 08:10 PM
what i meant to say was i know people who have gotten ***ed hard by the legal system, when someone like this gets away scott free when she should have atleast been charged with child abuse

She was charged with child abuse and found not guilty. Even though the child went missing on Casey's watch and Casey neglected to notify anyone for a month... then lied to the police about the circumstances regarding the disappearance. Then the child is eventually found in a swamp with duct tape strapped to her face. But she was convicted of lying to the police about the circumstances regarding the disappearance. I swear to God I'm living in the f--king Twilight Zone.

GreatBronco16
07-05-2011, 08:12 PM
I'm no legal scholar, so I'll defer to the smarter people here (Beantown?)...but I don't think our legal system is designed to work that way. I don't think the prosecution can charge someone with 1st degree murder and then go down the line and charge them with every lesser charge, just in case the murder one doesn't stick.

Actually, she was up on like 10 separate counts in this trial. She was up for murder, manslaughter, child neglect, and a whole host of lying to police charges. They only found her guilty of all the lying charges.

Dr. Broncenstein
07-05-2011, 08:14 PM
Dexter, this is your Bat Signal.

GreatBronco16
07-05-2011, 08:15 PM
She was charged with child abuse and found not guilty. Even though the child went missing on Casey's watch and Casey neglected to notify anyone for a month... then lied to the police about the circumstances regarding the disappearance. Then the child is eventually found in a swamp with duct tape strapped to her face. But she was convicted of lying to the police about the circumstances regarding the disappearance. I swear to God I'm living in the f--king Twilight Zone.

Exactly. My thing is this. They know she lied about the 'nanny', so in this 31 days of partying she did, who had the child? The grandparents? No. Her boyfriend? Nope. So who? She dumped the kid somewhere while she was out and about for a month.....Ohhhhhh, but she didn't have anything to do with her death??? Give me a break.

So if she didn't do it, and can't ever be tried for it again, who's next in line?

db56
07-05-2011, 08:16 PM
I'm still sitting here completely shocked!!

I guess this is what happens when the defense gets to select the jurors, they choose as many single women as they could get thinking they would sympathize with this babykiller and it worked.

I just cant believe they had enough evidence to hold her for 3 years but not enough to get convict her on any of the major charges. miserable failure by the prosecution...

GreatBronco16
07-05-2011, 08:18 PM
I'm still sitting here completely shocked!!

I guess this is what happens when the defense gets to select the jurors, they choose as many single women as they could get thinking they would sympathize with this babykiller and it worked.

I just cant believe they had enough evidence to hold her for 3 years but not enough to get convict her on any of the major charges. miserable failure by the prosecution...

No, it was a failure of the jury.

Dr. Broncenstein
07-05-2011, 08:23 PM
She neglected to notify any one that her child was missing / drowned / kidnapped / or whatever her story was at the time. For a month.

During the month that her child was "missing" Casey didn't give a rat's ass about anything but partying.

When Casey could no longer hide the fact that the child was missing, she misled the police and was actually convicted of that.

How is this not at the very least child abuse?

houghtam
07-05-2011, 08:25 PM
Actually, she was up on like 10 separate counts in this trial. She was up for murder, manslaughter, child neglect, and a whole host of lying to police charges. They only found her guilty of all the lying charges.

Gotcha. Well then everyone here saw physical evidence of how someone in their 30s can survive without hearing anything but headlines about an internationally publicized murder trial. You all can do it too, I know you can!

That said, it seems like the verdict was a ****ty one, but as far as I know, none of us were on the jury, in the courtroom, or privy to all the evidence, so not only is it a little presumptuous to pass judgement from afar, but it's also pointless. Let it go. A little girl died and the mother will have to live with it for the rest of her life. Nothing anyone can say on this message board changes that.

Rulon Velvet Jones
07-05-2011, 08:27 PM
When we're out with our little girl, I don't go 5 seconds with her out of my view. Thirty days?

GreatBronco16
07-05-2011, 08:30 PM
Gotcha. Well then everyone here saw physical evidence of how someone in their 30s can survive without hearing anything but headlines about an internationally publicized murder trial. You all can do it too, I know you can!

That said, it seems like the verdict was a ****ty one, but as far as I know, none of us were on the jury, in the courtroom, or privy to all the evidence, so not only is it a little presumptuous to pass judgement from afar, but it's also pointless. Let it go. A little girl died and the mother will have to live with it for the rest of her life. Nothing anyone can say on this message board changes that.

I had no choice but to hear about it. Between work slowing down and sitting at the computer a lot more with very few sites the company lets us go to, and the wife having it on when I get home, I hear about it.

And let it go? You act like I'm all up in heals about it. I didn't like the outcome, that's it. My life went on as soon as the verdict was read.

Pony Boy
07-05-2011, 08:30 PM
She neglected to notify any one that her child was missing / drowned / kidnapped / or whatever her story was at the time. For a month.

During the month that her child was "missing" Casey didn't give a rat's ass about anything but partying.

When Casey could no longer hide the fact that the child was missing, she misled the police and was actually convicted of that.

How is this not at the very least child abuse?

Maybe you could offer your services to remove her ovaries before she is released.

GreatBronco16
07-05-2011, 08:32 PM
All I know is that there are some sick people out there with 1-2 year old kids who don't want them, and have now found a way out of it.

Dr. Broncenstein
07-05-2011, 08:33 PM
Maybe you could offer your services to remove her ovaries before she is released.

I would gladly volunteer to perform a laparoscopic bilateral tubal ligation, free of charge.

Boss Man
07-05-2011, 08:45 PM
She neglected to notify any one that her child was missing / drowned / kidnapped / or whatever her story was at the time. For a month.

During the month that her child was "missing" Casey didn't give a rat's ass about anything but partying.

When Casey could no longer hide the fact that the child was missing, she misled the police and was actually convicted of that.

How is this not at the very least child abuse?

this x100...makes ZERO sense

houghtam
07-05-2011, 08:46 PM
I had no choice but to hear about it. Between work slowing down and sitting at the computer a lot more with very few sites the company lets us go to, and the wife having it on when I get home, I hear about it.

And let it go? You act like I'm all up in heals about it. I didn't like the outcome, that's it. My life went on as soon as the verdict was read.

There's a lot lost in typing on the interwebz. If you and I had been speaking, you probably would have a different opinion on my tone. From the little I've heard of it, it sounds like a bad mother got away with neglect, at the very least. It sucks, but really, what're we gonna do?

Also, the question needs to be asked:

Would Spider hit it?

That One Guy
07-05-2011, 09:03 PM
I think it's pretty much accepted across the board that she did it but she got lucky and not enough evidence was left behind. Did the justice system work as it's supposed to? Probably. Did a guilty person just get away with a crime? I'm pretty sure.

The thing that gets me the most is how police are all the time using alternate charges to prosecute a crime. Gangsters everywhere are in prison for huge sentences just because their other activities could not be prosecuted successfully. How the F did the prosecution botch this one so bad that, after considering time served, she'll probably walk free very soon.

And to the poster above who said a mother had to live with what happened... well, that mother was out partying it up while her baby was rotting in the woods. I wouldn't expect much internal strife in that area.

gunns
07-05-2011, 09:16 PM
Very true, and it sucks. It goes back to what another poster was saying about the prosecution not going for murder one.

If you're on the 40 at the end of the game and you need a field goal to win, and the defense has all 11 players in the end zone, are you still going to throw the hail mary just to prove a point?

This woman probably could have been put away easily for a different, lesser charge.

Again, I don't know all the ins and outs of the legal system so I'm still waiting for someone to come in and put their two cents in. Waaaaaitiiiing...

There was a charge for child abuse and one for manslaughter. She was found not guilty on both also. Not knowing, or seemingly caring, where your child is for a month seems to be neglect to me. Lying about it also seems like a form of child abuse. Well actually, in this case, murder.

Bronco Yoda
07-05-2011, 09:42 PM
She was charged with child abuse and found not guilty. Even though the child went missing on Casey's watch and Casey neglected to notify anyone for a month... then lied to the police about the circumstances regarding the disappearance. Then the child is eventually found in a swamp with duct tape strapped to her face. But she was convicted of lying to the police about the circumstances regarding the disappearance. I swear to God I'm living in the f--king Twilight Zone.

My Jaw hit the floor when I heard she didn't even get charged with even this. Incredible really. I would have bet the farm on that charge if nothing else. This was just a given IMO.

Mr Chatterboodamn
07-05-2011, 10:03 PM
The burden beyond a reasonable doubt as to each element is quite fierce. Murder has lots of elements, particularly the obtuse theories of murder tried here. The wording of the jury instructions for "reasonable doubt" have been constitutionally molded over the years to favor defendants.

The defense did everything possible to mess it up. The prosecution's case would have worked well with a "hangin' jury". The defense appeared lackadaisical, but I think it might have had the effect of emphasizing that the defendant has no burden to prove innocence. I did not see the whole trial, but I think they basically had a crazy enough family (Anthonys) to probe and raise some doubt.

Casie's various obstructions of justice were winning moves, they kept her out of the noose by allowing incriminating evidence rot. I think her theory was also plausible. Sometimes we do strange things and have momentary impulses to cover things up when tragic accidents occur out of the blue. Doesn't make the act itself a crime of malice. Death penalty was also too harsh of an option for that itty bitty crazy girl interrupted.

EDIT: Also, Belvin was an amazing judge IMO.
Attached is a pic of him from law school graduation. So throwed!

cutthemdown
07-05-2011, 10:06 PM
All I know is that there are some sick people out there with 1-2 year old kids who don't want them, and have now found a way out of it.

Cmon no one is going to try and kill their kid now because this girl got off. Plenty get convicted.

Archer81
07-05-2011, 10:19 PM
No, it was a failure of the jury.


The prosecution, not the jury. The jury cannot convict if no evidence supports it. Google searches and Casey's behavior are not sufficient to convict in a capital murder case. They also lacked evidence for manslaughter and child abuse. I am wondering how this case got by a grand jury.


:Broncos:

Boss Man
07-05-2011, 10:43 PM
my best friend will do the next 5-10 due to breaking and entering(ya grew up in the hood, ya my friend took his unfortunate well being in his own hands to try and SURVIVE(yet didnt touch a soul, not tryin to give it any merit but he didnt HURT or KILL, or assault any one, however this b**** will do a max of what appears to be 6 months due to killing AN INNOCENT BEING, or being negligent enough to not care what happened(which in this instance should be the same as murder/homicide, or at the very least child abuse) for a month which is the same as a death sentence for a infant


**** maybe i am just supremely ignorant sho knows

epicSocialism4tw
07-06-2011, 01:07 AM
prosecution was pretty horrid, folks. this shouldn't be shocking in the least, IMO.

Yep. I didnt even follow this thing very closely, but it was easy to see from the get go how poor of a job the policework and the proscecution was. There wasnt really even a case. It was one of those things where you throw a bunch of circumstantial bits that may or may not have inferred anything according to the law that she was being tried for.

It was weird. Probably the worst case I have ever seen.

It dont feel certain of her innocence, but I do feel certain that under the parameters given, that the proscecution was really far off in doing their job. It was amateurish.

I was expecting the jury to get caught up in all the attacks on her reputation, but they were reasonable and did a great job of following the law and comparing the cases to exactly what they were supposed to compare them to in terms of the statutes.

epicSocialism4tw
07-06-2011, 01:10 AM
my best friend will do the next 5-10 due to breaking and entering(ya grew up in the hood, ya my friend took his unfortunate well being in his own hands to try and SURVIVE(yet didnt touch a soul, not tryin to give it any merit but he didnt HURT or KILL, or assault any one, however this b**** will do a max of what appears to be 6 months due to killing AN INNOCENT BEING, or being negligent enough to not care what happened(which in this instance should be the same as murder/homicide, or at the very least child abuse) for a month which is the same as a death sentence for a infant


**** maybe i am just supremely ignorant sho knows

There are other ways to survive than breaking into peoples' homes. It sounds like he was probably guilty of other offenses as well or has an additional record if hes getting that kind of sentance.

You should tell your friend to get his self straight so that he doesnt keep letting you and his family down by getting locked up.

epicSocialism4tw
07-06-2011, 01:16 AM
This was a case with an extremely weak, poorly defined motive, hardly any evidence, poor expert testimony, and terrible prosecution.

They kind of tried to use the court to figure out who did it while they had a person on trial for the crime. Thats pretty much a subconscious admission by the prosecution that they didnt have a case. Thats the kind of work that is supposed to be done by detectives before the suspect is even arrested.

extralife
07-06-2011, 01:18 AM
Call me crazy, but I can't think of any instances where innocent people lie to police in a murder investigation.

I don't know what the **** this thread is about, but I hope this post was supposed to be sarcastic.

El Guapo
07-06-2011, 03:44 AM
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f121/apokcustoms/df3540ff-dc5b-46d7-afd9-6a3e955bc244.jpg

Beantown Bronco
07-06-2011, 04:27 AM
Yep. I didnt even follow this thing very closely

And yet you go on for two entire posts with conclusion after conclusion, criticizing the prosecution, etc. Interesting.

Look, as was mentioned earlier, you drew conclusions not off of what actually happened in the case, but what some biased reporters wanted you to think happened. Period.

Beantown Bronco
07-06-2011, 06:22 AM
Just remember folks: kill your kid, hide the body and lie to the police about it. You'll face no punishment. Spank your kid? 5 years probation, parenting classes and monetary fines for you!

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=98563

bronco militia
07-06-2011, 06:51 AM
I don't know what the **** this thread is about, but I hope this post was supposed to be sarcastic.

nothing gets past this guy

Kaylore
07-06-2011, 08:30 AM
This was a case with an extremely weak, poorly defined motive, hardly any evidence, poor expert testimony, and terrible prosecution.

They kind of tried to use the court to figure out who did it while they had a person on trial for the crime. Thats pretty much a subconscious admission by the prosecution that they didnt have a case. Thats the kind of work that is supposed to be done by detectives before the suspect is even arrested.

Yeah. She was found not-guilty. That's not the same thing as innocent. Unfortunately for justice (but fortunately for human rights) there is no double jeopardy and she cannot be tried by a more competent team again.


http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f121/apokcustoms/df3540ff-dc5b-46d7-afd9-6a3e955bc244.jpg
LOL Rep. Love me some Dexter.

Willynowei
07-06-2011, 08:43 AM
I will say that even though i think the verdict was the correct one given what i've heard, as people we sometimes have conflicting responsibilities. Without question, the jurors made the right decision in adhering to their duty to the legal system, but sometimes a person's moral responsibilities should weigh heavier than anything else, civil disobedience is founded on this very concept.

I know personally I would've ignored the court's instructions in this case and found that there was enough evidence for both the intent and act requirements. Usually, you shouldn't take the law into your own hands, but this simply isn't one of those times.

Beantown Bronco
07-06-2011, 10:34 AM
• An unlikely lead defender. Anthony's heretofore little-known lead attorney, Jose Baez, is a former bikini salesman who had been barred from practicing law for eight years for failing to pay child support and secure insurance for his children. He has quickly gone from a financially troubled rookie local lawyer to pulling off what some are calling the biggest legal upset since O.J. Simpson walked free.

TV host Nancy Grace called him (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011580/Casey-Anthony-trial-verdict-Jose-Baez-biggest-legal-upset-OJ-Simpson.html#ixzz1RKcRp89E) "incompetent" in her coverage of the trial (she hasn't apologized for that (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2011/07/nancy-grace-says-the-devil-is-dancing-at-casey-anthony-verdict.html), saying the "devil is dancing" at the verdict), and legal experts told ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey-anthony-trial-defense-attorney-jose-baez/story?id=13784113) that it seemed at times as though Baez were improvising and overwhelmed in the courtroom at times. Baez, a Navy veteran, had only been practicing as a lawyer for three years before Anthony heard other inmates talking about him and requested that he represent her.

"I can say I saved a life," he told reporters yesterday, apparently basking in the glow of his unexpected success.

broncocalijohn
07-06-2011, 10:45 AM
There was a charge for child abuse and one for manslaughter. She was found not guilty on both also. Not knowing, or seemingly caring, where your child is for a month seems to be neglect to me. Lying about it also seems like a form of child abuse. Well actually, in this case, murder.

Exactly. If your child was found crawling on a major highway 100 yards from your house and they came to your house and found you drunk as a skunk, you are charged with child abuse. Not knowing where your child has been for a month and most of that time the daughter is dead. Add the fact that the mother is partying (getting drunk), she is found not guilty of child abuse. Seems Anthony did the correct things in getting a not guilty verdict. She is the perfect person to go to when you need to kill your child and want to get away with it. Also helps if your Mom lies for you too.

GreatBronco16
07-06-2011, 10:45 AM
There's a lot lost in typing on the interwebz. If you and I had been speaking, you probably would have a different opinion on my tone. From the little I've heard of it, it sounds like a bad mother got away with neglect, at the very least. It sucks, but really, what're we gonna do?

Also, the question needs to be asked:

Would Spider hit it?

My appologies. I'm not on here enough anymore to gather the tones of people anymore. :)

But in other news, I think Spider has hit it.

GreatBronco16
07-06-2011, 10:53 AM
The prosecution, not the jury. The jury cannot convict if no evidence supports it. Google searches and Casey's behavior are not sufficient to convict in a capital murder case. They also lacked evidence for manslaughter and child abuse. I am wondering how this case got by a grand jury.


:Broncos:

Look, I knew she wasn't going to get convicted of murder, I knew the evidence was very weak for that, and there was no smoking gun.

But come on, not enough evidence for child neglect/abuse? Give me a break. They had pleanty for that charge alone. The very fact that they convicted her on every 'lying to authorities' charge, should tell you that she neglected her child.

GreatBronco16
07-06-2011, 10:57 AM
Here's my thing, the defense team came out and said that Kaylee drowned and Kaysee and her father covered it up.

Can they both not be arrested for that now? That is a completly different charge for Kaysee Anthony, and her lawyer has already admitted in court that this is what really happend.

cutthemdown
07-06-2011, 10:57 AM
not guilty has never meant innocent. Just means they couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. All we can do is move on. It's the system we have to live with. Sucks because she is most likely a killer of children. Whatever these people many times have a way of ending up in prison. Too bad there isn't a dad who can file a civil lawsuit for wrongful death, in which the burden of proof is less. Not sure about the legality or how that would work, just wishing something could be done. Then at least you get a judgement against her like OJ where you have no money.

Dr. Broncenstein
07-06-2011, 11:04 AM
Reasonable doubt does not mean beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is a dead child on the mothers watch and a coverup for whatever reason. This is fact. This is at least manslaughter and child neglect.

Archer81
07-06-2011, 11:11 AM
Look, I knew she wasn't going to get convicted of murder, I knew the evidence was very weak for that, and there was no smoking gun.

But come on, not enough evidence for child neglect/abuse? Give me a break. They had pleanty for that charge alone. The very fact that they convicted her on every 'lying to authorities' charge, should tell you that she neglected her child.


Clearly they didnt. You seem to be stuck under the impression that jurists are to consider things not in evidence to come up with a conviction. All the prosecution could prove was that she lied. They could not prove she killed her daughter, they could not prove that she abused her daughter. They have no idea how Kaylee died. They just know she is dead.

The prosecution did a horrible job stitching together a credible story, and they did a horrible job of proving it.

:Broncos:

sutoazul
07-06-2011, 12:01 PM
Here's my thing, the defense team came out and said that Kaylee drowned and Kaysee and her father covered it up.

Can they both not be arrested for that now? That is a completly different charge for Kaysee Anthony, and her lawyer has already admitted in court that this is what really happend.

Oh why didn't you say so... you should call the judge and tell him to look into this. You, of course, have proof of this, right? And since when it is illegal for a kid to drown in a pool?? How are you going to proof they pre-meditate the drowning and if not premeditate that there was malicious intent to kill the child?

That Casey liked to party?
Yes, but that doesn't proof she kill her child.

That it looks suspicious that after the child was missing/dead she was partying and lying?

Yes it looks bad but it doesn't proof anything.

Was there any evidence of child abuse or neglect?

The prosecution could not/did not present a single piece of evidence/testimony of any type of abuse or neglect while the whereabouts of the child were known. Not even a friend or an ex-boyfriend saying she was mistreating the child or anything.

The bottom line is it sucks that our collective "gut feeling" is that Casey did something very wrong/illegal to her child and the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt of that she did it.

There is still doubt in my mind that her death could have been an accident. Casey being a compulsive liar wanted to cover it up, just because she's that stupid/ignorant/maybe neglected her or who knows what, and threw her in a swamp with duct tape to confuse the police. Who knows!!??

TheElusiveKyleOrton
07-06-2011, 12:18 PM
http://kissingsuzykolber.uproxx.com/2011/07/casey-anthony-in-if-i-like-did-it.html

Rock Chalk
07-06-2011, 12:19 PM
Exactly. My thing is this. They know she lied about the 'nanny', so in this 31 days of partying she did, who had the child? The grandparents? No. Her boyfriend? Nope. So who? She dumped the kid somewhere while she was out and about for a month.....Ohhhhhh, but she didn't have anything to do with her death??? Give me a break.

So if she didn't do it, and can't ever be tried for it again, who's next in line?

Why cant she ever be tried for it again?

You can be tried for something repeatedly. You can only be convicted for something once.

edit: I stand corrected, apparently if you are legitimately acquitted you cannot be tried again. I thought it only applied to convictions.

Bronco Yoda
07-06-2011, 12:22 PM
The Prosecution dropped the ball as well IMO. The defense flipped the script and put her father on trial and the Prosecution never really staved it off head on.

They also overcharged (even though there were plenty of lower charges the jury could have settled on.)

Old Dude
07-06-2011, 01:28 PM
Pretty thorough timeline here:

http://investigation.discovery.com/blogs/criminal-report/casey_anthony_full_coverage/timeline/caylee_anthony_timeline.html

Dr. Broncenstein
07-06-2011, 02:11 PM
Oh why didn't you say so... you should call the judge and tell him to look into this. You, of course, have proof of this, right? And since when it is illegal for a kid to drown in a pool?? How are you going to proof they pre-meditate the drowning and if not premeditate that there was malicious intent to kill the child?

That Casey liked to party?
Yes, but that doesn't proof she kill her child.

That it looks suspicious that after the child was missing/dead she was partying and lying?

Yes it looks bad but it doesn't proof anything.

Was there any evidence of child abuse or neglect?

The prosecution could not/did not present a single piece of evidence/testimony of any type of abuse or neglect while the whereabouts of the child were known. Not even a friend or an ex-boyfriend saying she was mistreating the child or anything.

The bottom line is it sucks that our collective "gut feeling" is that Casey did something very wrong/illegal to her child and the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt of that she did it.

There is still doubt in my mind that her death could have been an accident. Casey being a compulsive liar wanted to cover it up, just because she's that stupid/ignorant/maybe neglected her or who knows what, and threw her in a swamp with duct tape to confuse the police. Who knows!!??

Yeah... there was a child under the care of her mother who ended up dead in the swamp with duct tape on her face. Plus a mother who neglected to inform anyone about her "missing" child for a month. You know... pretty much the definition of neglect.

gunns
07-06-2011, 02:33 PM
Clearly they didnt. You seem to be stuck under the impression that jurists are to consider things not in evidence to come up with a conviction. All the prosecution could prove was that she lied. They could not prove she killed her daughter, they could not prove that she abused her daughter. They have no idea how Kaylee died. They just know she is dead.

The prosecution did a horrible job stitching together a credible story, and they did a horrible job of proving it.

:Broncos:

I understand the law and I understand under that law the jury found her not guilty. It's just frustrating when the law messes with logic. I'm sorry though, the fact that she did not know where her child was for 31 days, is child neglect, especially when that child turns up murdered.

TDmvp
07-06-2011, 02:38 PM
Why cant she ever be tried for it again?

You can be tried for something repeatedly. You can only be convicted for something once.

edit: I stand corrected, apparently if you are legitimately acquitted you cannot be tried again. I thought it only applied to convictions.



Coming from the guy who has never even heard of this case I'm not surprised you've never heard of Double Jeopardy.

broncosteven
07-06-2011, 02:41 PM
I understand the law and I understand under that law the jury found her not guilty. It's just frustrating when the law messes with logic. I'm sorry though, the fact that she did not know where her child was for 31 days, is child neglect, especially when that child turns up murdered.

My kids spent 4 days with their Grandparents and I missed them the whole time and couldn't wait to get our nightly call.

I don't understand how people can discard their kids or not be responsible for them.

Dr. Broncenstein
07-06-2011, 02:42 PM
My kids spent 4 days with their Grandparents and I missed them the whole time and couldn't wait to get our nightly call.

I don't understand how people can discard their kids or not be responsible for them.

Sociopaths are like honey badgers. They really don't give a shiat and they take what they want.

cutthemdown
07-06-2011, 02:44 PM
People exaggerate how much life would suck without kids. Still once you have one you should keep it alive.

broncosteven
07-06-2011, 03:11 PM
People exaggerate how much life would suck without kids. Still once you have one you should keep it alive.

Not really.

They are a life changing event no matter how difficult they may become as a teen.

epicSocialism4tw
07-06-2011, 03:29 PM
I will say that even though i think the verdict was the correct one given what i've heard, as people we sometimes have conflicting responsibilities. Without question, the jurors made the right decision in adhering to their duty to the legal system, but sometimes a person's moral responsibilities should weigh heavier than anything else, civil disobedience is founded on this very concept.

I know personally I would've ignored the court's instructions in this case and found that there was enough evidence for both the intent and act requirements. Usually, you shouldn't take the law into your own hands, but this simply isn't one of those times.

Activism should never enter the courtroom.

Its the job of a juror to measure the evidence against the statutes. Its not the juror's job to say "well, they didn't prove the case but I feel like she's guilty" and then drop the hammer. That's what injustice looks like. Its how they do things in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

The policework presented the prosecutor with a weak case. Then the prosecutor made a mess out of it.

We really don't know if she was guilty or not. The prosecutor didnt have a motive, didnt have a murder weapon, didnt have a cause of death, etc. There was just a bunch of loose assumption that didn't really have the facts or evidence to back them up.

Dr. Broncenstein
07-06-2011, 03:38 PM
Activism should never enter the courtroom.

Its the job of a juror to measure the evidence against the statutes. Its not the juror's job to say "well, they didn't prove the case but I feel like she's guilty" and then drop the hammer. That's what injustice looks like. Its how they do things in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

The policework presented the prosecutor with a weak case. Then the prosecutor made a mess out of it.

We really don't know if she was guilty or not. The prosecutor didnt have a motive, didnt have a murder weapon, didnt have a cause of death, etc. There was just a bunch of loose assumption that didn't really have the facts or evidence to back them up.

Except for a dead toddler with duct tape on her face thrown into the swamp... and a mother who on multiple occasions obstructed the investigation into the death of her daughter by lying about literally every facet.

epicSocialism4tw
07-06-2011, 03:58 PM
Except for a dead toddler with duct tape on her face thrown into the swamp... and a mother who on multiple occasions obstructed the investigation into the death of her daughter by lying about literally every facet.

The prosection was never able to provide a framework by which to judge the woman. They had an amorphous narrative of loosely connected facts.

This is the worst police and legal work I have ever seen.

They just didn't provide the jury with a reasonable set of facts to judge the defendant by.

houghtam
07-06-2011, 04:35 PM
Activism should never enter the courtroom.

Its the job of a juror to measure the evidence against the statutes. Its not the juror's job to say "well, they didn't prove the case but I feel like she's guilty" and then drop the hammer. That's what injustice looks like. Its how they do things in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

The policework presented the prosecutor with a weak case. Then the prosecutor made a mess out of it.

We really don't know if she was guilty or not. The prosecutor didnt have a motive, didnt have a murder weapon, didnt have a cause of death, etc. There was just a bunch of loose assumption that didn't really have the facts or evidence to back them up.

Thank you, voice of reason. Taking activism into the courtroom is the first step to destroying the entire legal system.

You get picked for jury duty, you follow the damn rules. Your sense of justice (some would call it vengeance) and your desire to enact punishment based on your own version of the events are why there are multiple other jurors.

OABB
07-06-2011, 04:50 PM
So shes single and a free woman! Hells yeah! you dont have to wear a rubber with that one.

Archer81
07-06-2011, 05:07 PM
Except for a dead toddler with duct tape on her face thrown into the swamp... and a mother who on multiple occasions obstructed the investigation into the death of her daughter by lying about literally every facet.


None of which proves she did it.


:Broncos:

OABB
07-06-2011, 05:40 PM
None of which proves she did it.


:Broncos:

it proves neglect, which I believe was his point.

Dr. Broncenstein
07-06-2011, 05:42 PM
None of which proves she did it.


:Broncos:

When a child under your care dies as the result of homicide and you neglect to notify the authorities and interfere with their investigation, you are guilty of at the very least manslaughter and child neglect.

Archer81
07-06-2011, 05:47 PM
When a child under your care dies as the result of homicide and you neglect to notify the authorities and interfere with their investigation, you are guilty of at the very least manslaughter and child neglect.


You should have finished with "in my opinion". The jurors thought differently.


:Broncos:

Dr. Broncenstein
07-06-2011, 06:00 PM
You should have finished with "in my opinion". The jurors thought differently.


:Broncos:

The jurors were wrong. They didn't have to convict her of 1st degree murder. They were wrong in not convicting her of a less culpable form of homicide... and they were f--king crazy to exonerate her from neglect charges.

Here is a quote from one of the jurors:

""I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."

Link (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/07/06/2011-07-06_casey_anthony_juror_jennifer_ford_speaks_i_did_ not_say_she_was_innocent.html)

The crimes were homicide, child neglect, and obstruction of justice . Just because they couldn't prove the exact cause of death doesn't change the manner of death. And failing to report the abduction / drowning / natural death of a child is the very definition of neglect.

Bronco Yoda
07-06-2011, 06:03 PM
Juror #3 now speaks (the only one so far)

"I did not say she was innocent.... I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."

Interesting thing though here. See where she says 'PUNISHMENT'. That's not up to the jury to decide the punishment. Only in the death penalty is that their job (that's the judges job). Remember there were other counts as well they had to rule on as well. Like manslaughter...etc.

They shouldn't have even been considering this when they were determining guilty or not guilty.

I see people talking about activism here... yet there was activism going on... just in the other direction IMO.

Archer81
07-06-2011, 06:06 PM
The jurors were wrong. They didn't have to convict her of 1st degree murder. They were wrong in not convicting her of a less culpable form of homicide... and they were f--king crazy to exonerate her from neglect charges.

Here is a quote from one of the jurors:

""I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."

Link (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/07/06/2011-07-06_casey_anthony_juror_jennifer_ford_speaks_i_did_ not_say_she_was_innocent.html)

The crimes were homicide, child neglect, and obstruction of justice . Just because they couldn't prove the exact cause of death doesn't change the manner of death. And failing to report the abduction / drowning / natural death of a child is the very definition of neglect.


No evidence directly tied Casey to the death of Kaylee. No evidence tied Casey to Kaylee's disappearance. No evidence proves Casey neglected Kaylee. Anything that was presented was circumstantial and could be explained in ways that weakened the prosecutions case. The only thing the jury had proof of was that she lied. Your issue should be with the detectives and prosecution who failed to present a coherent case and evidence to support conviction.

Did Casey have something to do with Kaylee's death? My gut says yes. I cant prove that. The prosecution could not prove it. The result was a not guilty.

:Broncos:

Bronco Yoda
07-06-2011, 06:06 PM
Also, how does everyone feel about juror #5 now wanting five figures to talk. Interesting...hmmmmmmmmmmmm

Dr. Broncenstein
07-06-2011, 06:20 PM
No evidence directly tied Casey to the death of Kaylee. No evidence tied Casey to Kaylee's disappearance. No evidence proves Casey neglected Kaylee. Anything that was presented was circumstantial and could be explained in ways that weakened the prosecutions case. The only thing the jury had proof of was that she lied. Your issue should be with the detectives and prosecution who failed to present a coherent case and evidence to support conviction.

Did Casey have something to do with Kaylee's death? My gut says yes. I cant prove that. The prosecution could not prove it. The result was a not guilty.

:Broncos:

No, my issue is with a jury that does not understand the phrase reasonable doubt. There is no reasonable doubt that the child died of a homicide while in the custody of her mother. There is no reasonable doubt that Casey neglected to notify the authorities that her child was missing / accidentally drowned / died of natural causes / or whatever her story was at the time.

enjolras
07-06-2011, 07:04 PM
Also, how does everyone feel about juror #5 now wanting five figures to talk. Interesting...hmmmmmmmmmmmm

They'd get that with a guilty verdict.

enjolras
07-06-2011, 07:05 PM
No, my issue is with a jury that does not understand the phrase reasonable doubt. There is no reasonable doubt that the child died of a homicide while in the custody of her mother. There is no reasonable doubt that Casey neglected to notify the authorities that her child was missing / accidentally drowned / died of natural causes / or whatever her story was at the time.

From what I understand there is plenty of reasonable doubt on the first side. They couldn't even establish a cause of death, so they have no real way of establishing that a homicide even took place. The alternate-juror who talked this morning more or less said exactly that. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Dr. Broncenstein
07-06-2011, 07:52 PM
From what I understand there is plenty of reasonable doubt on the first side. They couldn't even establish a cause of death, so they have no real way of establishing that a homicide even took place. The alternate-juror who talked this morning more or less said exactly that. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

The medical examiner ruled the manner of death to be homicide. This due to the method in which the body was disposed and the finding of duct tape to the face. The exact cause of death could not be explained because of the extent of decomposition. So no, there isn't a reasonable doubt about weather or not a homicide took place. Cause of death is not the same as manner of death.

broncosteven
07-06-2011, 07:55 PM
The medical examiner ruled the manner of death to be homicide. This due to the method in which the body was disposed and the finding of duct tape to the face. The exact cause of death could not be explained because of the extent of decomposition. So no, there isn't a reasonable doubt about weather or not a homicide took place. Cause of death is not the same as manner of death.

Don't they always figure that **** out on CSI?

Hercules Rockefeller
07-06-2011, 07:55 PM
Juror #3 now speaks (the only one so far)

"I did not say she was innocent.... I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."

Interesting thing though here. See where she says 'PUNISHMENT'. That's not up to the jury to decide the punishment. Only in the death penalty is that their job (that's the judges job). Remember there were other counts as well they had to rule on as well. Like manslaughter...etc.

They shouldn't have even been considering this when they were determining guilty or not guilty.

I see people talking about activism here... yet there was activism going on... just in the other direction IMO.

Jurors consider possible penalities all the time when making their decision, doesn't matter how many times the judge tells them that possible penalties are not to be taken into account when they are deliberating.

Flat out had a jury tell me one time they didn't want to make a 19-year old kid a sex offender after they had walked him.

Dr. Broncenstein
07-06-2011, 08:03 PM
Don't they always figure that **** out on CSI?

Beyond a reasonable doubt has changed to beyond any mathematical uncertainty. If you kill someone, make sure to run them through the wood chipper or feed them to the pigs. Can't find the actual cause of death that way... and by golly without an exact cause of death there is no homicide.

GreatBronco16
07-06-2011, 08:38 PM
Clearly they didnt. You seem to be stuck under the impression that jurists are to consider things not in evidence to come up with a conviction. All the prosecution could prove was that she lied. They could not prove she killed her daughter, they could not prove that she abused her daughter. They have no idea how Kaylee died. They just know she is dead.

The prosecution did a horrible job stitching together a credible story, and they did a horrible job of proving it.

:Broncos:

Ok, I clearly stated that they had enough to get her for 'abuse/neglect', neglect being the key word here, and you spout off about proving she killed her and what not. How bout you read the post and understand it next time before you spout off like that. Better yet, go back and read some of my other posts in this thread and you will see where I stand.

GreatBronco16
07-06-2011, 08:41 PM
Oh why didn't you say so... you should call the judge and tell him to look into this. You, of course, have proof of this, right? And since when it is illegal for a kid to drown in a pool?? How are you going to proof they pre-meditate the drowning and if not premeditate that there was malicious intent to kill the child?

Yet another person who can't comprehend what they are reading.

I didn't say anything about them killing or drowning her. I clearly said that the defense team stated that she drowned in the pool and the two of them covered it up. The drowning part is not a crime, them covering it up to look like a murder is though.

Read, people read.

GreatBronco16
07-06-2011, 08:51 PM
No evidence proves Casey neglected Kaylee.

:Broncos:


Oh now that is horsecrap and you know it. She said her daughter was with the nanny to begin with, a nanny who turned out to not even be a real person. So, she never could prove what she did with her child before she went on her partying spree. That is neglect. Not even knowing what you have done with your child for an entire month? That my friend is neglect.

Bronco Yoda
07-06-2011, 08:53 PM
They'd get that with a guilty verdict.

So then what you're really saying is this guy should be asking for more then ;).

Dr. Broncenstein
07-06-2011, 08:59 PM
Another sad statistic against fatherless kids. This case doesn't happen if there was a responsible and involved father in this kid's life.

GreatBronco16
07-06-2011, 09:06 PM
Another sad statistic against fatherless kids. This case doesn't happen if there was a responsible and involved father in this kid's life.

I had heard, that the father was dead. This was around the time they proved that her dad and brother wasn't the father.

gunns
07-06-2011, 09:11 PM
Pretty thorough timeline here:

http://investigation.discovery.com/blogs/criminal-report/casey_anthony_full_coverage/timeline/caylee_anthony_timeline.html

Very interesting.

GreatBronco16
07-06-2011, 09:27 PM
My gosh, even the judge during the first arignment when he denied bond, the judge said...." she showed a woeful disregard for the welfare of her child.


If that is not neglect, I don't know what is.

Dr. Broncenstein
07-06-2011, 09:30 PM
My gosh, even the judge during the first arignment when he denied bond, the judge said...." she showed a woeful disregard for the welfare of her child.


If that is not neglect, I don't know what is.

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/news2011/alt-juror-750000_rdax_676x456.jpg

What a person who can't wrap his mind around such difficult terms might look like.

broncocalijohn
07-07-2011, 12:37 AM
From what I understand there is plenty of reasonable doubt on the first side. They couldn't even establish a cause of death, so they have no real way of establishing that a homicide even took place. The alternate-juror who talked this morning more or less said exactly that. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

So I guess the trick is to kill someone but make sure all evidence that can show how someone died is hidden. Here is the facts: 1) Kid is dead, 2) Kid has not been seen in 30 days, 3) Mom does not report kid missing, 4) When confronted, lies about how child is nowhere to be found. I don't need to know how the child died. If the defense wants us to believe it was accidental, then at minimum the sentence should be based on that. When a person is dead (and in this case a defenseless toddler), you shouldnt need to know cause of death, just that there is a death!!!! I would take circumstantial evidence easy on this one.

epicSocialism4tw
07-07-2011, 12:47 AM
One thing about that girl Casey is for sure though...she's a piece of work.

I believe that her neglect led to the child's death. I think that it could have been one of those things where she made a mistake and it led to the child's death, and then she being a pathological liar, thought that she could avoid the scorn of her family and the wrath of the law by disposing of her body and claiming ignorance.

The prosecution just couldn't put together any sort of coherent case to illustrate that or any other scenario.

Archer81
07-07-2011, 12:57 AM
Oh now that is horsecrap and you know it. She said her daughter was with the nanny to begin with, a nanny who turned out to not even be a real person. So, she never could prove what she did with her child before she went on her partying spree. That is neglect. Not even knowing what you have done with your child for an entire month? That my friend is neglect.


A lie is not proof of neglect, nor is it sufficient to convict her in the case of child neglect. All it proves is that she is a liar. Which she was convicted of.


:Broncos:

Archer81
07-07-2011, 01:02 AM
Ok, I clearly stated that they had enough to get her for 'abuse/neglect', neglect being the key word here, and you spout off about proving she killed her and what not. How bout you read the post and understand it next time before you spout off like that. Better yet, go back and read some of my other posts in this thread and you will see where I stand.


I would advise you to do the same. You believe that juries should convict if they "feel" someone is guilty. The case the prosecution presented did not prove murder, did not prove neglect and did not prove manslaughter. If they had "enough" to get her, she would have been found guilty on something other than lying to the police. Being an ass with me because you fail to understand this basic fact is not my problem.


:Broncos:

enjolras
07-07-2011, 01:06 AM
I would advise you to do the same. You believe that juries should convict if they "feel" someone is guilty. The case the prosecution presented did not prove murder, did not prove neglect and did not prove manslaughter. If they had "enough" to get her, she would have been found guilty on something other than lying to the police. Being an ass with me because you fail to understand this basic fact is not my problem.


:Broncos:

I was getting to type pretty much that in rebuttal to another poster. I agree.

I'd really hate to have mane on a jury involving me:)

Shananahan
07-07-2011, 01:29 AM
Since my last post in this thread I have somewhat developed an understanding of what happened, etc. Where had all of you people been hearing about this? I like to think I stay up on current events, news, etc, but this was way off my radar. Is this the kinda stuff they cover on Nancy Grace?

I also am always slightly annoyed by the amount of attention cases like this one receive. This has all probably been said before in here, but if the mother were a hideous crackhead and the little girl had a unibrow I'm thinking not too many people would care at all about any of it.

Rock Chalk
07-07-2011, 06:05 AM
Coming from the guy who has never even heard of this case I'm not surprised you've never heard of Double Jeopardy.

I knew about double jeopardy, douche. I just thought it only applied to being CONVICTED of a crime.

Im surprised really that being acquitted prevents you from being tried again as new evidence can come up.

I wonder though, could they try her for 2nd degree murder or manslaughter? Its not the same crime they she was acquitted of?

Beantown Bronco
07-07-2011, 06:23 AM
The prosection was never able to provide a framework by which to judge the woman. They had an amorphous narrative of loosely connected facts.

This is the worst police and legal work I have ever seen.

They just didn't provide the jury with a reasonable set of facts to judge the defendant by.

I love how you can make all these definitive statements, when just a few pages ago you said this:

Yep. I didnt even follow this thing very closely

tsiguy96
07-07-2011, 06:31 AM
I love how you can make all these definitive statements, when just a few pages ago you said this:

i see this a lot, people on facebook blowing up over her when they did not even follow the case.

how can you judge innocence or guilt when you watched 10 minutes of news highlights?

Dr. Broncenstein
07-07-2011, 06:45 AM
Indisputable facts in this case:

1. The manner of death was homicide. This, according to the medical examiner.

2. The child goes missing for a month while in the mother's custody and ends up dead from a homicide.

3. The mother neglected to notify law enforcement that the child was missing for a month.

4. The mother obstructed the investigation into the missing child and homicide by lying about every single facet regarding the disappearance of her child.

Direct evidence tying Casey to the cause of death is not required to convict her of child neglect and/or a less culpable form of homicide. The direct evidence was destroyed by decomposition. This idea that forensic evidence has to be established to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt Casey's involvement is wrong. Reasonable doubt does not mean zero doubt.

Beantown Bronco
07-07-2011, 06:47 AM
Well, at least the judge stepped up. She got the max 1 year for each of the 4 charges so she'll do 1 more year in prison (3 years already served).

I would've lost even more money betting on this case.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
07-07-2011, 07:20 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/06/casey-anthony-jurors-sick-to-stomachs_n_891798.html#s303265&title=Casey_Anthony_Verdict

Good read.

Beantown Bronco
07-07-2011, 07:27 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/06/casey-anthony-jurors-sick-to-stomachs_n_891798.html#s303265&title=Casey_Anthony_Verdict

Good read.

My favorite quote:

"The prosecution failed to prove their case and there was reasonable doubt. Again, they didn't show us how Caylee died. They didn't show us a motive. I'm sorry people feel that way. ... These were 17 total jurors. They really listened to this case and kept an open mind," Huekler said.

Yup, that's great Mr. Juror. Too bad only one of the counts she was charged with required proof of how she died and proof of motive. What about the other counts? Unreal.

broncocalijohn
07-07-2011, 09:12 AM
A lie is not proof of neglect, nor is it sufficient to convict her in the case of child neglect. All it proves is that she is a liar. Which she was convicted of.


:Broncos:

So, you leave your kid in the car as you are partying inside a club and the cops are called and they break into the car to save the child from 100 degree temperature inside the car. Parent is prosecuted with child neglect and endangerment. BUT, you leave your child for 30 days plus without knowing where the child is and then lie about the whereabouts of the kid and you get off scott free! Where does this make sense to some of you people? Seems if you can stash the evidence (child), then you get away with it. Find the individual, still not good enough.

BTW, I think too many people watch NCI type shows and think everything of evidence is quick and easy. Maybe doing cases like this one and get the guilty convictions will make these tube heads not critique so much when it is their turn to be on a jury.

jhns
07-07-2011, 09:20 AM
Indisputable facts in this case:

1. The manner of death was homicide. This, according to the medical examiner.

2. The child goes missing for a month while in the mother's custody and ends up dead from a homicide.

3. The mother neglected to notify law enforcement that the child was missing for a month.

4. The mother obstructed the investigation into the missing child and homicide by lying about every single facet regarding the disappearance of her child.

Direct evidence tying Casey to the cause of death is not required to convict her of child neglect and/or a less culpable form of homicide. The direct evidence was destroyed by decomposition. This idea that forensic evidence has to be established to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt Casey's involvement is wrong. Reasonable doubt does not mean zero doubt.

Why is it that you feel made up "facts" help your arguments? This happens a lot with you.

The medical examiner did not say the death was a homicide. He said he couldn't determine a cause of death... He said logically, he thinks its a homicide due to how the body was disposed of, along with the tape on the face.

vancejohnson82
07-07-2011, 09:26 AM
Why is it that you feel made up "facts" help your arguments? This happens a lot with you.

The medical examiner did not say the death was a homicide. He said he couldn't determine a cause of death... He said logically, he thinks its a homicide due to how the body was disposed of, along with the tape on the face.

he said that in cross examination....but true

however, if the child died in an accident, why would you put tape over the mouth?

Smiling Assassin27
07-07-2011, 09:27 AM
http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/ca1.jpg

jhns
07-07-2011, 09:28 AM
he said that in cross examination....but true

however, if the child died in an accident, why would you put tape over the mouth?

I don't know why you would. I think the bitch is guilty though. Those are still the facts.

vancejohnson82
07-07-2011, 09:29 AM
I don't know why you would. I think the b**** is guilty though. Those are still the facts.

true...and that's why the capital murder charge disappeared

however, what about the child abuse question? That's really baffling

jhns
07-07-2011, 09:39 AM
true...and that's why the capital murder charge disappeared

however, what about the child abuse question? That's really baffling

I wasn't defending the ruling with that post. I would have convicted her of murder. I can't explain the final outcome of almost no charges sticking. Was she even charged with child abuse/neglect? That may have been an error from before the trial started. If she wasn't being tried for it, they won't convict her of it. Maybe they were too cocky and thought the murder charges would stick?

vancejohnson82
07-07-2011, 09:42 AM
I wasn't defending the ruling with that post. I would have convicted her of murder. I can't explain the final outcome of almost no charges sticking. Was she even charged with child abuse/neglect? That may have been an error from before the trial started. If she wasn't being tried for it, they won't convict her of it. Maybe they were too cocky and thought the murder charges would stick?

she was found NOT GUILTY of child neglect/abuse....

which is scary

jhns
07-07-2011, 09:43 AM
she was found NOT GUILTY of child neglect/abuse....

which is scary

Then I have no clue. They found a jury that hates kids...

Hercules Rockefeller
07-07-2011, 10:07 AM
Why is it that you feel made up "facts" help your arguments? This happens a lot with you.

The medical examiner did not say the death was a homicide. He said he couldn't determine a cause of death... He said logically, he thinks its a homicide due to how the body was disposed of, along with the tape on the face.

Cause of death and manner of death are not the same things.

Dr. Broncenstein
07-07-2011, 10:16 AM
Why is it that you feel made up "facts" help your arguments? This happens a lot with you.

The medical examiner did not say the death was a homicide. He said he couldn't determine a cause of death... He said logically, he thinks its a homicide due to how the body was disposed of, along with the tape on the face.

Maybe it's because the words out of the medical examiner's mouth were "the manner of death was homicide." You should do a little reading about the subject. Manner of death is not the same as cause of death. The official medical examiner's report lists this as a homicide.

houghtam
07-07-2011, 10:17 AM
I was getting to type pretty much that in rebuttal to another poster. I agree.

I'd really hate to have mane on a jury involving me:)

Exactly. The OMane jury trial for your murder of Al Davis would go something like this:

Juror 1: Ok guys, so we know Al died sometime between Friday and Sunday...but his body wasn't discovered until Thursday of that next week.

Juror 2: Yeah, and Enjolras was in Oakland watching the Broncos/Raiders game on Sunday, but his plane ticket shows he arrived in Oakland on Friday.

Juror 3: That gives him 2 whole days.

Juror 1: Sure does, and we know he's a Broncos fan, so why wouldn't he do it?

Juror 2: Yep, not to mention that message board where he's been quoted making fun of Mr. Davis or posting in threads making fun of him. I think that's motive enough.

Juror 4: I think you're right. Never mind what our responsibilities to the legal system and to our fellow citizens are. We need to make a statement. Just because the judge told us to examine only the evidence given, that doesn't mean we can't give a verdict based on our feelings.

Juror 1: Guilty!

All: Guilty!

Rock Chalk
07-07-2011, 10:17 AM
Cause of death and manner of death are not the same things.

No, but without cause of death it is very difficult to prove manner of death. It becomes circumstantial.

The mother COULD have panicked and did the things to the child post mortem that make it appear like a homicide after the child died of something else that the mother didn't do.

Im not saying that's how it went down or anything but without cause of death, manner of death is just opinion (albeit, an educated one from a M.E.), not fact.

TheReverend
07-07-2011, 10:17 AM
Should spray Raid all over her family tree.

jhns
07-07-2011, 10:22 AM
Maybe it's because the words out of the medical examiner's mouth were "the manner of death was homicide." You should do a little reading about the subject. Manner of death is not the same as cause of death. The official medical examiner's report lists this as a homicide.

He said he doesn't know and that homicide was his opinion... How is that proof of anything? Who cares what the report said? You should learn what was said at the trial... It is my opinion that she killed the kid. Do you think she should be convicted based on my opinion, while ignoring facts?

Maybe you didn't make it up. You are just making retarded points that don't make sense.

Dr. Broncenstein
07-07-2011, 10:25 AM
No, but without cause of death it is very difficult to prove manner of death. It becomes circumstantial.

The mother COULD have panicked and did the things to the child post mortem that make it appear like a homicide after the child died of something else that the mother didn't do.

Im not saying that's how it went down or anything but without cause of death, manner of death is just opinion (albeit, an educated one from a M.E.), not fact.

Kill a random stranger by strangulation, throw them in a woodchipper, and feed the pulverized remains to the pigs. There would be no motive and no provable cause of death. No provable cause of death = no murder or homicide, amiright?

alkemical
07-07-2011, 10:26 AM
Kill a random stranger by strangulation, throw them in a woodchipper, and feed the pulverized remains to the pigs. There would be no motive and no provable cause of death. No provable cause of death = no murder or homicide, amiright?

it works for me!

Errr....

Beantown Bronco
07-07-2011, 10:28 AM
The mother COULD have panicked and did the things to the child post mortem that make it appear like a homicide after the child died of something else that the mother didn't do.

Could be, though it would probably be the first documented time in history anyone tried to make an accident appear to be a homicide and not the other way around.

Dr. Broncenstein
07-07-2011, 10:29 AM
He said he doesn't know and that homicide was his opinion... How is that proof of anything? Who cares what the report said? You should learn what was said at the trial... It is my opinion that she killed the kid. Do you think she should be convicted based on my opinion, while ignoring facts?

Maybe you didn't make it up. You are just making retarded points that don't make sense.

They don't make sense to you, understandably. In all fairness you are barely smart enough to breathe. Run along now... lest you sprain something trying to understand anything else.

Dr. Broncenstein
07-07-2011, 10:30 AM
Could be, though it would probably be the first documented time in history anyone tried to make an accident appear to be a homicide and not the other way around.

Reasonable doubt!

jhns
07-07-2011, 10:32 AM
They don't make sense to you, understandably. In all fairness you are barely smart enough to breathe. Run along now... lest you sprain something trying to understand anything else.

The medical examiner says that there is no proof of anything but in his opinion, based on what we all know, he thinks it was a homicide. This is not proof of anything. You are an idiot.

Indisputable fact: A guys opinion!

This isn't Iran, homegirls...

houghtam
07-07-2011, 10:38 AM
He said he doesn't know and that homicide was his opinion... How is that proof of anything? Who cares what the report said? You should learn what was said at the trial... It is my opinion that she killed the kid. Do you think she should be convicted based on my opinion, while ignoring facts?

Maybe you didn't make it up. You are just making retarded points that don't make sense.

Well in A Few Good Men the medical examiner said that there was poison on the rag, even though it could have been because of Willy's medical condition, and the judge said that he accepted the examiner's testimony because he's an expert.

So not only does being in a movie make it true, but the movie has KEVIN BACON in it!

Mods, can we merge this and the Kevin Bacon thread? I think I should also get 10 bonus points for making a topical reference.

jhns
07-07-2011, 10:40 AM
Well in A Few Good Men the medical examiner said that there was poison on the rag, even though it could have been because of Willy's medical condition, and the judge said that he accepted the examiner's testimony because he's an expert.

So not only does being in a movie make it true, but the movie has KEVIN BACON in it!

Mods, can we merge this and the Kevin Bacon thread? I think I should also get 10 bonus points for making a topical reference.

LOL... nice.

jhns
07-07-2011, 10:51 AM
Could be, though it would probably be the first documented time in history anyone tried to make an accident appear to be a homicide and not the other way around.

If I worked on her defense, I would just make her say that the tape was supposed to help the lie of the girl being kidnapped. Make it also look like she was murdered since they would probably find the body at some point.

GreatBronco16
07-07-2011, 11:13 AM
I would advise you to do the same. You believe that juries should convict if they "feel" someone is guilty. The case the prosecution presented did not prove murder, did not prove neglect and did not prove manslaughter. If they had "enough" to get her, she would have been found guilty on something other than lying to the police. Being an ass with me because you fail to understand this basic fact is not my problem.


:Broncos:


Oh boy, now you're just pulling stuff out of mid air. I never said I believe a jury should convict based on their feelings.

I said they had enough to convict her of child neglect based on the fact that she doesn't know what she did with her child for an entire month. The fact that she lied about her whereabouts drives home that fact.

sutoazul
07-07-2011, 11:40 AM
Yeah... there was a child under the care of her mother who ended up dead in the swamp with duct tape on her face. Plus a mother who neglected to inform anyone about her "missing" child for a month. You know... pretty much the definition of neglect.

As a matter of fact, here in Florida there's a politician that is trying to come out with a law that says it is neglect if a parent/guardian does not report a child missing in a reasonable amount of time to authorities. INSANE!!

Anyways, is it child neglect if the kid drowned accidentaly and the parent tries to cover it up and dump the body on a swamp?? Plus you can even prove that she was the one that dumped the body!!

In other words, not knowing where your child is, is not child neglect by the law!! I'm not a parent, and I know this does sounds crazy but you can find her guilty if the law does not support this.

sutoazul
07-07-2011, 11:55 AM
No, my issue is with a jury that does not understand the phrase reasonable doubt. 1) There is no reasonable doubt that the child died of a homicide while in the custody of her mother. 2) There is no reasonable doubt that Casey neglected to notify the authorities that her child was missing / accidentally drowned / died of natural causes / or whatever her story was at the time.

1) The whole case on the defense side was that ther is reasonable doubt on HOW Caily died. Defense said it was an accident that they tried to cover up. I think they did a good job causing doubt there.


2) Again it is not illegal not to know where your child is. All they could PROVE on this was that she lied about her whereabouts. They found her guilty of this.

Bronco Yoda
07-07-2011, 11:58 AM
Well, at least the judge stepped up. She got the max 1 year for each of the 4 charges so she'll do 1 more year in prison (3 years already served).

I would've lost even more money betting on this case.

Guess what this all adds up to in the end. SIX DAYS!

http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_assets/640492/44773_bears_cutler_football.jpg&sa=X&ei=AQIWTtrgJIPdiAKSjY2FDw&ved=0CAQQ8wc4GQ&usg=AFQjCNH922G_9QlmJf0CSpRE7aAEh7DXkw

Casey gets out NEXT WED.

Released JULy 15th, 2011

Bronco Yoda
07-07-2011, 12:10 PM
BTW, The judge that recused himself from this very case early on spoke last night. He was shocked at the ruling. This is a judge. He watched the case very closely and is more than familiar with everything involved.

sutoazul
07-07-2011, 12:12 PM
1) Yet another person who can't comprehend what they are reading.

I didn't say anything about them killing or drowning her. I clearly said that the defense team stated that she drowned in the pool and the two of them covered it up. The drowning part is not a crime, them covering it up to look like a murder is though.

Read, people read..

So let me get this straight, you're saying that they should have found her guilty of murder because she claimed that she covered up an alledged accidental death?? Those are two separate crimes my friend, prosecution and for that matter jurors can only follow through with the chargers presented on this case. Get it?



2) Oh now that is horsecrap and you know it. She said her daughter was with the nanny to begin with, a nanny who turned out to not even be a real person. So, she never could prove what she did with her child before she went on her partying spree. That is neglect. Not even knowing what you have done with your child for an entire month? That my friend is neglect.

No it is not neglect. Can you prove that while Caily was alive that she did not care for her? Isn't there a possibility that the child drowned on let's say Friday night, she dumped the body on Sunday, and went partying the next weekend?? (she and her family are that disfunctional!!, where's the neglect?? maybe of a dead body, but she was not charged of that either)

What a lot of lawyers are saying now (in hindsight of course) is that the prosecution should have charge her differently, on charges where they had some solid evidence, they went for a home run when they could only get a hit or maybe a double.

Beantown Bronco
07-07-2011, 12:15 PM
Guess what this all adds up to in the end. SIX DAYS!Casey gets out NEXT WED.

Released JULy 15th, 2011

Yup - early release for good behavior.

For me, the point was more that the judge, by NOT combining the four counts into one, by giving her the maximum possible sentence for each of the four counts, and by ordering her serve the sentences consecutively instead of concurrently, made a statement. Even though it was essentially just a symbolic gesture, it was telling IMO, because a first time offender never receives that type of sentence for what amounts to misdemeanors.

Bronco Yoda
07-07-2011, 12:16 PM
Casey's attorney has already hired a big name Hollywood publicist to orchestrate her new 'career'.

She wants her own reality tv show. Bwahahahaaaaaaaa. No ****.

Crushaholic
07-07-2011, 12:20 PM
Is it child neglect when there is no live child to neglect? HMMMM...

Beantown Bronco
07-07-2011, 12:20 PM
What a lot of lawyers are saying now (in hindsight of course) is that the prosecution should have charge her differently, on charges where they had some solid evidence, they went for a home run when they could only get a hit or maybe a double.

Ummm, last time I checked, there were two other charges of manslaughter and child abuse.

Bronco Yoda
07-07-2011, 12:20 PM
Yup - early release for good behavior.

For me, the point was more that the judge, by NOT combining the four counts into one, by giving her the maximum possible sentence for each of the four counts, and by ordering her serve the sentences consecutively instead of concurrently, made a statement. Even though it was essentially just a symbolic gesture, it was telling IMO, because a first time offender never receives that type of sentence for what amounts to misdemeanors.

Yeah, I know YOU know whats going on. I just wanted to add upon your point. This is a very conservative judge. He did make a statement.

Now she can't sue or whatever she was trying to do about the time she already spent.

Beantown Bronco
07-07-2011, 12:21 PM
Is it child neglect when there is no live child to neglect? HMMMM...

Nope, that's why on October 21, 2008, the original charges of child neglect were dropped against Casey in favor of a new charge of child abuse. In a statement that morning, the State Attorney's Office explained: "The neglect charges were premised on the theory that Caylee was still alive. As the investigation progressed and it became clear that the evidence proved that the child was deceased, the State sought an indictment on the legally appropriate charges."

Bronco Yoda
07-07-2011, 12:22 PM
Ummm, last time I checked, there were two other charges of manslaughter and child abuse.

People still don't get this for some reason.

Bronco Yoda
07-07-2011, 12:27 PM
Think of all the time and money spent on searching for that little girl... all the while Casey (and possibly the Grand Parents but doubt it) knew she was already dead.

There's going to be some civil litigation's here in the future me thinks.

GreatBronco16
07-07-2011, 12:32 PM
So let me get this straight, you're saying that they should have found her guilty of murder because she claimed that she covered up an alledged accidental death?? Those are two separate crimes my friend, prosecution and for that matter jurors can only follow through with the chargers presented on this case. Get it?




OMG, would you go back and start from the beginning of the thread and read my posts as they are in responses to other peoples posts.

No, I'm not saying they should have found her guilty of murder because of that. My post was asking if other charges could be brought up now since her own defense lawyer said that her and her father covered up the drowning. If that is in fact what happend.

Read the entire thread instead of just the last few post of mine to understand what I'm saying/asking here.

Get it?

sutoazul
07-07-2011, 12:33 PM
Ummm, last time I checked, there were two other charges of manslaughter and child abuse.

And of course you have proof that she committed manslaughter and/or child abuse right??

The evidence in this case only points to a compulsive liar and leaves doubts about the story the prosecution painted. There's not proof of manslaughter, for God's sake all they had was a search on Google and found remains of chloroform (sp?) on her trunk. Does that mean she manslaughter Caily??

The neglect/abuse charges and get that they are harder to understand, especially to parents, but there was nothing presented to the jury of neglect/abuse of the child while the child was alive, not even an ex boyfriend or a friend that could say Casey neglect the child while she was alive!!!

Rulon Velvet Jones
07-07-2011, 12:34 PM
lol at anyone buying the drowning story

Beantown Bronco
07-07-2011, 12:40 PM
The evidence in this case only points to a compulsive liar and leaves doubts about the story the prosecution painted. There's not proof of manslaughter, for God's sake all they had was a search on Google and found remains of chloroform (sp?) on her trunk. Does that mean she manslaughter Caily??

They had a tad more than that, but whatever.

The neglect/abuse charges and get that they are harder to understand, especially to parents, but there was nothing presented to the jury of neglect/abuse of the child while the child was alive, not even an ex boyfriend or a friend that could say Casey neglect the child while she was alive!!!

Ummmm, probably because she had them all killed and buried in the woods too (see exhibit a: dead baby daddy). It's not like anyone went out of their way to speak up in her defense in that area.

sutoazul
07-07-2011, 12:41 PM
OMG, would you go back and start from the beginning of the thread and read my posts as they are in responses to other peoples posts.

No, I'm not saying they should have found her guilty of murder because of that. My post was asking if other charges could be brought up now since her own defense lawyer said that her and her father covered up the drowning. If that is in fact what happend.

Read the entire thread instead of just the last few post of mine to understand what I'm saying/asking here.

Get it?

I guess you watch a lot of tv court dramas... The proof you'd have to press charges are that her lawyer said they covered up an accidental death??

really?? LOL

GreatBronco16
07-07-2011, 12:46 PM
lol at anyone buying the drowning story

I never bought that story. But now that she got off, and her own lawyer admitted in a court of law that this is what happend, George and Casey should now be brought up on charges for covering it up to look like a murder. I'm sure there is something they can be charged with for that act.

And no, I am not saying that is what really happend, or that they both drowned the Kaysee, etc. before someone else spouts off reading more into that than what is actually there.