Casey Anthony

[FuelRod]

What say you now?.... all you media-hypnotized Casey haters?
You're all reside in the Land of the Lemming where you fuel your thoughts based on how others react. No one thinks for themselves any longer.

And if you DID you would have all seen there wasn't a shed of evidence showing she killed her child.
But everyone wanted to play these arm-chair psychiatrists and convict her on how she acted afterward because the mainstream media kept replaying the same old video tapes.

You're nothing but a flock of Sheeple.

How many decomposing bodies have you had in your car?

 

[FuelRod]

If my daughter accidently drowned, I lied to my parents and police about a ficticious babysitter and/or father having her for 31 days, drove around with her body in my car for three weeks and finally dumped her body in the woods I'd expect to be executed to clear out the gene pool as much as anything.

 

[Liability]

This has me thinking, if Osama Bin Laden was put on trial here in the US he would probably get off, is there really any solid evidence tying him to 9/11? everything is circumstancial.

Off hand I'd say that his claims of responsibility (even as off-set by his contradictory denials of responsibility) would constitute evidence which a jury could credit. And that's not circumstantial.

But, thankfully, the piece of shit got his skull ventilated -- so we don't have to worry about giving the scumbag a trial.

 

[martybegan]

If my daughter accidently drowned, I lied to my parents and police about a ficticious babysitter and/or father having her for 31 days, drove around with her body in my car for three weeks and finally dumped her body in the woods I'd expect to be executed to clear out the gene pool as much as anything.

For all we know she might be a sociopath/pychopath. Its rare to find female ones but they exist, but her show of emotion only when items related to herself occured may be an indicator of this type of personality disorder.

 

[High_Gravity]

So basically if you kill someone, keep the body away from the authorities for at least 30 days and the case is a slam dunk? everything is circumstancial at best at that point.

 

[FuelRod]

So basically if you kill someone, keep the body away from the authorities for at least 30 days and the case is a slam dunk? everything is circumstancial at best at that point.

It's true and it's tragic that basically this is only possible in the murder of a small child or possibly a homeless person.
No one is asking where they are or expects to see them on a daily basis necessarily.
You can stash the body a while and then find a suitable dumping ground. All forensic evidence is contaminated. Common sense is not reasonable doubt.

 

[LAfrique]

So, the great American jury has fucked it up again. Why do we always say the jury system is so great?

I don't know.

I am a lawyer and I have tried cases to juries. I have talked to jurors afterwards. What I have heard has scared me.

For instance, I lost a case, personal injury, I was defending. Ladies on the jury tell me, "your client wasn't negligent, but we thought she (plaintiff) was real nice." Right... facts be damned, you awarded her all that money because she was "real nice"...

I won a case, personal injury. Again, I was defending. Facts weren't so great for my side, actually -- plaintiff could have easily won. Again, I talk to jurors. They tell me "she was such a bitch" so they denied her money. OK, again, facts be damned.

It's like all these people thought the jury trial was about "who they like" and "who they don't"... the mental level of a 9-year-old, or something. They couldn't focus on the basic question before them: "You are here to decide if the defendant, Blank Corp., was negligent. Negligence is defined as blah blah." Etc. Nope, tuned it all out.

Are American juries too stupid to be trusted? Should we switch to professional juries? Do juries really tend to get it right more often than not?

Jurors are humans having emotions and are bound to make sentimental decisions: I, pro se, took a false imprisonment case in Texas court to jury, made a case that got judge, defense counsel and jurors leaving me complimentary notes. I won case with less than 15 minutes jury deliberation, but got crappy award because jurors thought I did not look like I needed much money and defendant looked pitiful!

As per Casey Anthony: You forget that the prosecutor has burden of proof and I do not think prosecutor proved case beyond doubt:

1). Prosecutor built case on mere speculation.

2). Assuming child was murdered by Casey and parents covered up, why then were parents not named as defendants?

3). I think Casey Anthony is victim of incest and child may have been product, and reason parents would have helped with cover-up to suppress possible beans spilling by Casey.

4). If Casey indeed murdered her child, I think research would show Casey's father and possible sire of deceased child, George Anthony, has ties with his community and is being protected by State after consideration of implications.


Counsel, I am at peace with the NOT GUILTY verdict in this case. Just too many inclusive issues. Thus, I would rather see a guilty walk, than see an innocent punished.

 

[kwc57]

So, the great American jury has fucked it up again. Why do we always say the jury system is so great?

I don't know.

I am a lawyer and I have tried cases to juries. I have talked to jurors afterwards. What I have heard has scared me.

For instance, I lost a case, personal injury, I was defending. Ladies on the jury tell me, "your client wasn't negligent, but we thought she (plaintiff) was real nice." Right... facts be damned, you awarded her all that money because she was "real nice"...

I won a case, personal injury. Again, I was defending. Facts weren't so great for my side, actually -- plaintiff could have easily won. Again, I talk to jurors. They tell me "she was such a bitch" so they denied her money. OK, again, facts be damned.

It's like all these people thought the jury trial was about "who they like" and "who they don't"... the mental level of a 9-year-old, or something. They couldn't focus on the basic question before them: "You are here to decide if the defendant, Blank Corp., was negligent. Negligence is defined as blah blah." Etc. Nope, tuned it all out.

Are American juries too stupid to be trusted? Should we switch to professional juries? Do juries really tend to get it right more often than not?

Hmmmmm? Yeah........I've sat on a jury. The other side of the equation here is that most lawyers are total dicks who play fast and lose with the "facts". Perhaps the legal profession should be nonprofit so earning big fees isn't a motivating factor when trying to arrive at "justice". One bad idea begats another, huh?

 

[High_Gravity]

So basically if you kill someone, keep the body away from the authorities for at least 30 days and the case is a slam dunk? everything is circumstancial at best at that point.

It's true and it's tragic that basically this is only possible in the murder of a small child or possibly a homeless person.
No one is asking where they are or expects to see them on a daily basis necessarily.
You can stash the body a while and then find a suitable dumping ground. All forensic evidence is contaminated. Common sense is not reasonable doubt.

Hell if you find a good place for the body, there isn't too much that can be done. No body, no trial.

 

[oldsalt]

Knowing and Proving are Entirely Different things...

The State could NOT Prove the Mother did it.

Whether or not any of us Feel she is Guilty, we don't Convict on Feelings...

We Convict on Fact, Evidence and Proof.

The State Failed Miserably to Prove anything, and much of that Failure was out of their Control.

Sometimes Justice can't be Served.

Get the Fuck over it already.



peace...

Tell Caylee that...Oh wait, she's dead. We all know the **** shut her fucking hole so that she'd walk. Nice, tot mom.

 

[oldsalt]

What say you now?.... all you media-hypnotized Casey haters?
You're all reside in the Land of the Lemming where you fuel your thoughts based on how others react. No one thinks for themselves any longer.

And if you DID you would have all seen there wasn't a shed of evidence showing she killed her child.
But everyone wanted to play these arm-chair psychiatrists and convict her on how she acted afterward because the mainstream media kept replaying the same old video tapes.

You're nothing but a flock of Sheeple.

Because we don't believe she's guilty? She was the MOM, dumbass. She never spoke up, because she's a fucking wuss. You're the sheeple, for not being honest.

 

[High_Gravity]

Casey Anthony has brought light and hope to the hearts of murderers everywhere.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I was thinking the exact same thing, we as a society place no value on human life, so why the surprise when it's not valued any longer? She was an inconvenience, why it matters what the age of the child is when you get rid of it is just a technicality.

Really stupid comments but sop for you.

Stupid is thinking there's a difference between killing your child at a few months or at a few years. It's the same human life being destroyed, period. But, don't let your politics get in the way of rationalizing murder, whatever it takes to make your conscience clear.

If you can't see the difference between a woman using contraception, and this woman who murdered her child I feel sorry for you.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Casey Anthony has brought light and hope to the hearts of murderers everywhere.

What an odd and untrue thing to say.

 

[High_Gravity]

Casey Anthony has brought light and hope to the hearts of murderers everywhere.

What an odd and untrue thing to say.

How so? if I was a murderer this whole trial has given me new angles to work on.

 

[saveliberty]

Casey will get busted for something else down the road. That is where the parallel to O.J. comes in.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

FindLaw KnowledgeBase.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Better 10 Guilty Men Go Free than to Convict a Single Innocent Man"

Article provided by Kansas City Criminal Defense Attorney - Paul Cramm

The essence of this quote forms the very cornerstone of the system of justice that separates the United States from virtually every other civilized nation. Think about the presumption of innocence; the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt; the requirement of a unanimous jury verdict. These core elements of our system of criminal justice all flow directly from the premise that the wrongful conviction of a single innocent person is ten times worse than a guilty person going unpunished.

Many of us are instinctively patriotic; downright “‘jingoistic” about the protections afforded us by the Bill of Rights: the right to be free from unlawful search and seizure of our person or effects; the right to remain silent if accused of wrongdoing; the right to be represented by counsel; the right to a trial by jury.

We take off our hats and hold our hands over our hearts when we hear the national anthem at a sporting event. We get misty eyed at images of our enlisted men and women returning from active duty. We hang our flags on Memorial Day, Veteran’s Day the Fourth of July and Presidents Day.

How many of us, however, grumble disparagingly under our breath during the evening news when a photograph of a suspect is displayed during a report of a criminal investigation, based on nothing more than the suspect's race, ethnicity or socio-economic status? How many of us could truly be fair and impartial jurors in a criminal case after we have seen or read wholly unsubstantiated news accounts of the alleged incident? How many of us refrain from commenting about sensational and salacious tidbits spread about a criminal case we have seen or heard about on the news? How many of us would honestly and sincerely honor the Defendant's Constitutional Presumption of Innocence?

If you grew up in an upper middle class (or better) family and neighborhood, there may not be anyone in your immediate or extended family who has ever even been accused, let alone convicted, of a criminal offense. It’s possible that someone in your family got a DUI on his or her way home from the annual company Christmas party, or maybe someone in your family got caught with a misdemeanor amount of marijuana while in high school or college. But the reality is that true, firsthand experience with the criminal justice system is rare among most middle and upper class registered voters: the people most likely to be called for Jury Duty.

We live in truly amazing times. An event can occur in New York and someone in Los Angeles can log on to a near "real time" live video feed. We can call from San Diego to Maine on our cell phones, from our cars, and tell each other the events of our day. News media like CNN and MSNBC provide round-the-clock coverage of national and international events. Cable networks provide real-time coverage of trials across the nation. All of this provides us access to information that may be deemed wholly unsubstantiated, unreliable and inadmissible at the ultimate trial of a sensationalized crime.

Thus, can we be "good jurors" in today's day and age? Are we able to decide cases based solely on evidence admitted into court, regardless of what we may have seen or heard about a case from local and sometimes national or even international news media? Often times being fed dramatized information from the day of the crime, which happened long before trial was scheduled? Moreover, do we all still agree that it truly is “Better that 10 guilty men go free than to convict a single innocent man” or has it become too easy to ignore the reality of wrongful conviction; as long as it isn't happening to our own neighbors?

The Innocence Project has now had some 100 death sentences overturned based upon post-conviction evidence. According to their study of the first 70 cases reversed:

• Over 30 of them involved prosecutorial misconduct.
• Over 30 of them involved police misconduct which led to wrongful convictions.
• Approximately 15 of them involved false witness testimony.
• 34% of the police misconduct cases involved suppression of exculpatory evidence.
• 11% involved outright evidence fabrication.
• 37% of the prosecutorial misconduct cases involved concealing exculpatory evidence.
• 25% involved knowing use of false testimony.

Keep in mind; these statistics involve Death Penalty cases wherein the State sought to literally kill the innocent person who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

How many of those 100 innocent, wrongly accused citizens were convicted in the media before jury selection ever began in their trial? How many were wholly deprived of their Constitutional Presumption of Innocence? If we allow ourselves to make watershed decisions far "upstream" about whom is and is not deserving of the protections afforded by our Constitution, our entire system of justice becomes a hollow shell with a predetermined outcome.

I recently had the privilege of meeting Dennis Fritz at local book club meeting to discuss his book “Journey toward Justice.” Dennis was charged along with Ronald Williamson for the murder in Ada Oklahoma that prompted John Grisham to write “The Innocent Man.” In Dennis’ book, he describes in a way that only first-hand experience allows what it was like to be accused, arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned for 11 years for a crime he did not commit. The fact that OUR esteemed system of “justice” is responsible for what happened to this innocent man is chilling. We all need to remember that our system of justice is what truly separates us from all other civilized nations. The way we as a community treat those accused of crimes defines us as a nation. We must treat those accused of heinous crime with blind and impartial fairness as much for them as we do for our own integrity.

"Better 10 Guilty Men Go Free than to Convict a Single Innocent Man"

 

[FuelRod]

Casey will get busted for something else down the road. That is where the parallel to O.J. comes in.

Remember the end of the flick "Casino"? I think Casey ends up similar to Sharon Stone's character.

 

[High_Gravity]

Casey will get busted for something else down the road. That is where the parallel to O.J. comes in.

Remember the end of the flick "Casino"? I think Casey ends up similar to Sharon Stone's character.

I'd rather she end up like Joe Pesci's character.

 

[WillowTree]

I would like to first know who the father of deceased child is. I think if Casey Anthony's deceased child was product or rape and/or incest, it just may explain a lot about this case.

Moot point

JB tried and failed to make the incest connection and if she was raped we would have been told. Only ICA knows who the father is and she may not even know.

Not a moot point. There is something fishy about the Casey Anthony case. Since it is alleged parents helped with cover-up, does it not bother you that the prosecutor was not also after parents as accessories?

I think Casey Anthony, as alleged by her counsel, is a victim of in house sexual abuse and deceased child may have been product - which would explain why parents would help cover-up whatever happened. I am however at peace with the NOT GUILTY verdict. I prefer to see even a possible guilty walk, than see an innocent penalized.

Yes, moron you are right. The parents covered it up. That's exactly why Cindy Anthony called 9-11. Stupid people like you do not good jurors make.