Casey Anthony

[Iridescence]

1melissa3, I totally agree with you that the Anthony family "dynamic" (for lack of better wording) was truly dysfunctional and certainly contributed to Casey Anthony's mental health. It is truly tragic.

However, in my opinion, mental instability does not give one free license to act in whatever manner they choose. In this particular instance, mental illness would only be applicable if it was shown that Ms. Anthony was incapable of knowing right from wrong. Apparently she does, or her defense failed to raise the issue as an affirmative defense.

OMG THANK YOU! NO it absolutely IS NOT a FREE LICENSE.

However... defining wrong from right is up to more than an individual, obviously, in ANY case. NOW, to what advantage do PURITANICAL living and their BELOVED belief system stand for Americans?

Don't TREAD on my GOD, indeed.... Fore I may only be a mere individual representing such. Define and Redefine Him accordingly to whatever route ONE needs to take to get to HIM, but do NOT deny Him.

OK, now we disagree

ETA: I simply mean you lost me at "puritanical"

Yes, of course, I can yet ingest 100 proof as well.

 

[oldsalt]

Boy, do Mel and Sunny look stupid now...

 

[Sunshine]

AND...FWIW, there is no way someone can say a person was murdered if the cause of death is unknown.

I suppose Laci Peterson wasn't murdered then? She just fell off a boat and was decapitated I suppose. Robert Pickton didn't kill any Vancouver prostitutes, even though numerous bone fragments of these women were found on his pig farm? The young mens' remains found on Herb Baumeister's property simply laid down and died there?

I guess reasonable inference has no place in the American justice system...

They were able to deterine the cause of death wth Laci Peterson. I am not familiar with the other case. Besides it is in another country. According to this article, the cause of death WAS known in that case: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070207012726AAiz7pE

nuary 22, 2007 was the first day of the jury trial where Pickton faces first-degree murder charges in the deaths of Marnie Frey, Sereena Abotsway, Georgina Papin, Andrea Joesbury, Brenda Wolfe and Mona Wilson. The media ban was finally lifted and for the first time Canadians heard the details of what was found during the long investigation. In his opening statement, Crown Counsel Derrill Prevett told the jury of evidence that was found on Pickton's property, including skulls cut in half with hands and feet stuffed inside. The remains of another victim were stuffed in a garbage bag in the bottom of a trash can and her blood stained clothing was found in the trailer in which Pickton lived. Part of one of the victim's jaw bone and teeth were found in the ground beside the slaughter house and a .22 calibre [14] revolver with an attached d*ldo containing both his and a victim's DNA was in his laundry room. In a video taped recording played for the jury, Pickton claimed to have attached the d*ldo to his weapon as a makeshift silencer

Legal standards differ from country to country. If you were accused of a crime in China all your lawyer would do is negotiate your sentence.

 

[timesplitter]

It seems as though timesplitter has left the building, so I'll just post the definition of first-degree murder, as defined in Florida's Criminal Code, for everyone's benefit:

782.04 Murder.—
(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:
1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;
2. When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
a. Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
b. Arson,
c. Sexual battery,
d. Robbery,
e. Burglary,
f. Kidnapping,
g. Escape,
h. Aggravated child abuse,
i. Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
j. Aircraft piracy,
k. Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
l. Carjacking,
m. Home-invasion robbery,
n. Aggravated stalking,
o. Murder of another human being,
p. Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person,
q. Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism; or
3. Which resulted from the unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium, or methadone by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user,

is murder in the first degree and constitutes a capital felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082.

nice try but the state did not prove any of this by fact or evidence . pure guesswork and speculation = reasonable doubt = hung jury or a not guilty verdict . all 12 jurors are not nancy grace mental misfits . not to mention any conviction will be tossed out on appeal due to prosecutorial misconduct or error by the judge of which he made many . as i stated before i am not commenting on miss anthonys guilt or innocence . im commenting on the legal issues and rules of law . as the jury will be instructed you must put your opinions aside and reach a verdic based on facts and the law . concocted stories and fabricated evidence by either side are not facts or evidence and must be ignored . we all have our own opinions as to her guilt or innonence or involvement . unfortunatly those opinions are just that . and are not relevant to the jurys decision in this case . and judging by what ive seen so far juror #4 is voting not guilty . thats all it takes is one . and due to her being declared indegent , and the millions the state has already wasted on their anemic case , they will not seek to re-try her .

 

[wharfrat]

They were able to deterine the cause of death wth Laci Peterson.

Link? I don't recall any reliable publication stating that authorities had. ABC states the cause of death was undetermined; see abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90600&page=1. The same is true from a USA Today article; see usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-12-13-peterson_x.htm. Both are dated articles, so I could be wrong. Nevertheless, this would have been the information provided the jury at the time.

I am not familiar with the other case. Besides it is in another country. According to this article, the cause of death WAS known in that case...

That isn't an article; it's a collection of blog entries about Pickton's case, which includes a link to Wikipedia. Your point is well-taken though. Of those victims found at Robert Pickton's farm, cause of death could be determined in some, and not in others. Here is a link to a Vancouver Sun article describing the same: missingpeople.net/serial_killer_willie_pickton.htm; another from the Vancouverite: vancouverite.com/2011/02/19/serial-killer-picktons-victim-still-not-identified/.

Legal standards differ from country to country. If you were accused of a crime in China all your lawyer would do is negotiate your sentence.

I am well-aware that legal standards differ from country to country. However, Pickton is being tried in Canada, a common-law system modeled after the British common-law system, from which the United States also derives its roots. A far cry from Communist China, and much more comparable to the United States.

I won't get into a comparative law summary between the United States and Canada, because the point is, regardless of whether you live in Canada, China, the United States or you live on Mars, to assert that "there is is no way someone can say a person was murdered if the cause of death is unknown" is simply not true. There are numerous instances in which cause of death is indeterminate, yet the elements of murder have otherwise been met. C'mon counselor, you can do better than that.

(Sorry that I can't link URL's for a few more posts.)

 

[sunshine1404]

Are u here ? need ur Opinion D

 

[wharfrat]

nice try but the state did not prove any of this by fact or evidence . pure guesswork and speculation = reasonable doubt = hung jury or a not guilty verdict . all 12 jurors are not nancy grace mental misfits . not to mention any conviction will be tossed out on appeal due to prosecutorial misconduct or error by the judge of which he made many . as i stated before i am not commenting on miss anthonys guilt or innocence . im commenting on the legal issues and rules of law . as the jury will be instructed you must put your opinions aside and reach a verdic based on facts and the law . concocted stories and fabricated evidence by either side are not facts or evidence and must be ignored . we all have our own opinions as to her guilt or innonence or involvement . unfortunatly those opinions are just that . and are not relevant to the jurys decision in this case . and judging by what ive seen so far juror #4 is voting not guilty . thats all it takes is one . and due to her being declared indegent , and the millions the state has already wasted on their anemic case , they will not seek to re-try her .

I'll take your arguments one by one:

1. The prosecution offered evidence for each of the elements required to convict a defendant of first-degree murder. Proof comes in the form of evidence, which can be either direct or indirect (circumstantial). The evidence needed to "prove" each of the elements is there, you simply don't see it. Which is why I posted the codified definition of first-degree murder in the first place.

2. Speaking of "proof," where is yours to back your assertion of "prosecutorial misconduct?" What specific "error by the judge" occurred? As to admission of evidence? Show me case law and/or statutory law which agrees with your assertion(s). In your infinite wisdom of appellate law, on what legal grounds do you base your assertion(s)?

3. I don't watch Nancy Grace. My opinions are based on the evidence which was presented during the course of the trial. Which is the same as what the jury has heard.

4. Do you know Juror #4 personally? What have you "seen" so far, other than a picture in a newspaper, to indicate one way or another what this juror may be thinking?

5. Ms. Anthony's indigence was addressed in this trial. I see no reason why it wouldn't be in another.

The more you tell me you know the law, the less I believe you.

 

[oldsalt]

Looks like mel and sunny took the day off.....................

 

[Zona]

Unless there is one idiot on the jury she will do time. I don't think they have beyond a doubt proved premeditation, but i think they will find her quilty of murder in some form.

Though She should fry, she doesn't deserve a minute of happiness.

I agree...but I think they will come back with the baby drowning, and the illegal thing they will get her on is burying the child. That will be the hindering part. They didnt actually prove she killed the child. Its all circumstantial evidence. Overwhelming but circumstantial.

Lohan time...Lohan time...

(Then the movies and the books she and her mother will write.) Wait for it..

Nope OJ time, OJ time

Agreed and as long as she doesnt have anything to do with sport memorabilia in Vegas, she will be fine with no extra time in jail.

Hindering an investigation will be it...not murder. (even though she killed this child). Hey, how goes it in Arkansas by the way? How is the weather down there.....sock puppet. Represent!

 

[Zona]

I believe she is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

I also believe that tot talk show host to be a vile person to make money off that poor child's death.

Who, Nancy Grace? This is what she does. Most people dont know this, but that bitch went after anther person with the same kind of vengeance with no evidence and ripped her apart on her show. A day later, that woman killed herself.

Go Nancy! Your doing fine and believe me, there will be another case just like this unfortunatly, and your ratings will do just fine!

God Bless America.

 

[wharfrat]

I agree...but I think they will come back with the baby drowning, and the illegal thing they will get her on is burying the child. That will be the hindering part. They didnt actually prove she killed the child. Its all circumstantial evidence. Overwhelming but circumstantial.

Lohan time...Lohan time...

(Then the movies and the books she and her mother will write.) Wait for it..

Nope OJ time, OJ time

Agreed and as long as she doesnt have anything to do with sport memorabilia in Vegas, she will be fine with no extra time in jail.

Hindering an investigation will be it...not murder. (even though she killed this child). Hey, how goes it in Arkansas by the way? How is the weather down there.....sock puppet. Represent!

I predict first-degree by way of the felony murder rule, specifically attempted aggravated child abuse.

 

[Zona]

Nope OJ time, OJ time

Agreed and as long as she doesnt have anything to do with sport memorabilia in Vegas, she will be fine with no extra time in jail.

Hindering an investigation will be it...not murder. (even though she killed this child). Hey, how goes it in Arkansas by the way? How is the weather down there.....sock puppet. Represent!

I predict first-degree by way of the felony murder rule, specifically attempted aggravated child abuse.

That would be cool with me. I want that woman to do real time for killing that child. (I just have a feeling she wont..)

 

[oldsalt]

I agree...but I think they will come back with the baby drowning, and the illegal thing they will get her on is burying the child. That will be the hindering part. They didnt actually prove she killed the child. Its all circumstantial evidence. Overwhelming but circumstantial.

Lohan time...Lohan time...

(Then the movies and the books she and her mother will write.) Wait for it..

Nope OJ time, OJ time

Agreed and as long as she doesnt have anything to do with sport memorabilia in Vegas, she will be fine with no extra time in jail.

Hindering an investigation will be it...not murder. (even though she killed this child). Hey, how goes it in Arkansas by the way? How is the weather down there.....sock puppet. Represent!

She'll do thirty. I'm am south, Ft Myers, btw, thanks for playing, though!

 

[timesplitter]

nice try but the state did not prove any of this by fact or evidence . pure guesswork and speculation = reasonable doubt = hung jury or a not guilty verdict . all 12 jurors are not nancy grace mental misfits . not to mention any conviction will be tossed out on appeal due to prosecutorial misconduct or error by the judge of which he made many . as i stated before i am not commenting on miss anthonys guilt or innocence . im commenting on the legal issues and rules of law . as the jury will be instructed you must put your opinions aside and reach a verdic based on facts and the law . concocted stories and fabricated evidence by either side are not facts or evidence and must be ignored . we all have our own opinions as to her guilt or innonence or involvement . unfortunatly those opinions are just that . and are not relevant to the jurys decision in this case . and judging by what ive seen so far juror #4 is voting not guilty . thats all it takes is one . and due to her being declared indegent , and the millions the state has already wasted on their anemic case , they will not seek to re-try her .

I'll take your arguments one by one:

1. The prosecution offered evidence for each of the elements required to convict a defendant of first-degree murder. Proof comes in the form of evidence, which can be either direct or indirect (circumstantial). The evidence needed to "prove" each of the elements is there, you simply don't see it. Which is why I posted the codified definition of first-degree murder in the first place.

2. Speaking of "proof," where is yours to back your assertion of "prosecutorial misconduct?" What specific "error by the judge" occurred? As to admission of evidence? Show me case law and/or statutory law which agrees with your assertion(s). In your infinite wisdom of appellate law, on what legal grounds do you base your assertion(s)?

3. I don't watch Nancy Grace. My opinions are based on the evidence which was presented during the course of the trial. Which is the same as what the jury has heard.

4. Do you know Juror #4 personally? What have you "seen" so far, other than a picture in a newspaper, to indicate one way or another what this juror may be thinking?

5. Ms. Anthony's indigence was addressed in this trial. I see no reason why it wouldn't be in another.

The more you tell me you know the law, the less I believe you.

ok , #1- you just proved my point , if i cant see it , neither will the jury . its not there . #2- proof ? errors ? misconduct ? maybe you just havent been paying attention to all the pre-trial motions and on the record filings and motions during the trial ? more to come im sure . #3- as i said OPINIONS , not fact or actual evidence . #4- no , i dont know her personally , but i have seen plenty as has everyone in the courtroom on a daily basis . her facial expressions and body language in response to certain things show plenty which i wont comment on until after the verdict comes in . i have heard some of the talking heads on tv commenting on this as well . the state made a huge mistake by letting her sit on this jury as she stated ( i dont think i can judge anyone ) during jury selection .#5- again , obviously you werent paying attention to pre-trial proceedings with the previous judge and judge perry . expenditures were severly limited and or refused to both sides due to the state refusing to pay or fund the costs involved . limits were set . many experts were not allowed to testify on either side due to these limits . not going to happen again sorry . this is their one and only shot . our wonderfull state of fla. isnt going to pay again for the state attorneys going forward with another fumbling and poorly presented case . and as far as what you believe or dont believe i really dont give it any weight as all nancys think alike . you actually have to have an open mind to get my attention for any consideration of your OPINIONS which just like your mentor nancy emits ,( denial and overinflated ego seeking attention in order to feel important ) makes me want to puke and change the channel . i have never nor will i ever have any respect for closed minded biased people . nor should anyone .

 

[JakeStarkey]

I believe she is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

I also believe that tot talk show host to be a vile person to make money off that poor child's death.

Who, Nancy Grace? This is what she does. Most people dont know this, but that bitch went after anther person with the same kind of vengeance with no evidence and ripped her apart on her show. A day later, that woman killed herself.

Go Nancy! Your doing fine and believe me, there will be another case just like this unfortunatly, and your ratings will do just fine!

God Bless America.

The tot talk show host is a vile, vile person. "Just doing her job"? I suppose drug dealers could say the same: "there's a market that I supply." Shame on those who watch her.

 

[Sarah G]

I believe she is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

I also believe that tot talk show host to be a vile person to make money off that poor child's death.

Who, Nancy Grace? This is what she does. Most people dont know this, but that bitch went after anther person with the same kind of vengeance with no evidence and ripped her apart on her show. A day later, that woman killed herself.

Go Nancy! Your doing fine and believe me, there will be another case just like this unfortunatly, and your ratings will do just fine!

God Bless America.

The tot talk show host is a vile, vile person. "Just doing her job"? I suppose drug dealers could say the same: "there's a market that I supply." Shame on those who watch her.

I hate it when NG calls her totmom. It almost sounds too nice a thing to call that murderer.

 

[Sarah G]

Ashton is ripping her stories to shreds..

 

[WillowTree]

She's guilty.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

During deliberations, how much does/should a juror's "gut" weigh into the decision making process?

The instructions, I believe, are to base the verdict on facts - so does a juror sometimes vote against their gut instincts because of facts? And in the abscence of facts, can they convict because their gut tells them guilty?

Anybody know?

Powerful closing arguments.

 

[tinydancer]

1melissa3, I totally agree with you that the Anthony family "dynamic" (for lack of better wording) was truly dysfunctional and certainly contributed to Casey Anthony's mental health. It is truly tragic.

However, in my opinion, mental instability does not give one free license to act in whatever manner they choose. In this particular instance, mental illness would only be applicable if it was shown that Ms. Anthony was incapable of knowing right from wrong. Apparently she does, or her defense failed to raise the issue as an affirmative defense.

OMG THANK YOU! NO it absolutely IS NOT a FREE LICENSE.

However... defining wrong from right is up to more than an individual, obviously, in ANY case. NOW, to what advantage do PURITANICAL living and their BELOVED belief system stand for Americans?

Don't TREAD on my GOD, indeed.... Fore I may only be a mere individual representing such. Define and Redefine Him accordingly to whatever route ONE needs to take to get to HIM, but do NOT deny Him.

I am desperately trying to deal with this post. I come from the land of Vincent Lee. You know the guy who went off his meds, decides to kill a carney kid on a bus going home to see his parents, and Vinny, off his meds Vinny, not only decides to kill the kid, but whoa whoa whoa, Vinny decides to behead him.

All on a greyhound bus. Now it actually freaking gets better. Now that Vinny has sawed the kids head off now he decides he's hungry.

Yes folks, guess what's up freaking next. Vinny is hungry. He decapitates the kid and then starts to eat him. The freaking RCMP are not allowed to blow him away. The bus driver has the door pinned. Every one can see him eating the kid.

They are now trying to get him day passes into Selkirk because he was declared not guilty because of mental incapatitation and apparently he needs fresh air.........

However, in my opinion, mental instability does not give one free license to act in whatever manner they choose. In this particular instance, mental illness would only be applicable if it was shown that Ms. Anthony was incapable of knowing right from wrong. Apparently she does, or her defense failed to raise the issue as an affirmative defense