Casey Anthony

[FurthurBB]

Because she was found NOT GUILTY turdroller.

Not guilty does not mean innocent. Why are you obsessed with feces?

It's the law of the land. She walks like the innocent lamb that she is.

Okay, whatever. I am not sure many people think she is innocent in this or anything else really, so how does this add to the conversation? Just another form of poop talking nonsense? I am glad my children have outgrown that phase.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Nope, we have him on tape discussing it. Of course some claim the tape is fake....

I've lost faith in our legal system, I think with a good enough legal team he could walk.

Lost faith in our legal system? How can someone lose faith in the system when it actually worked?

I believe that Casey is a cold blooded murderer. I have the "facts" as they have been laid out by the press and am absolutely convinced that Casey Anthony is at the very least a co-conspirator in the murder of her daughter. But in this case, the system worked. We don't let the press convict defendants... Thank God.

This was a very difficult case to prove for the prosecution. They had little to no cold hard facts that they could present as evidence. They had a tremendous amount of circumstantial evidence, much of which could also point to another murderer.

The prosecution did the best with what they had to work with. In this case, it seems evident that the guilty got away with it. If I ever end up on the wrong side of a murder trial, I will be extremely glad to know that our system works as designed.

Immie

 

[Contumacious]

NOT GUILTY.

Nothing showing that she was guilty of murder BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

.

 

[High_Gravity]

Nope, we have him on tape discussing it. Of course some claim the tape is fake....

I've lost faith in our legal system, I think with a good enough legal team he could walk.

Lost faith in our legal system? How can someone lose faith in the system when it actually worked?

I believe that Casey is a cold blooded murderer. I have the "facts" as they have been laid out by the press and am absolutely convinced that Casey Anthony is at the very least a co-conspirator in the murder of her daughter. But in this case, the system worked. We don't let the press convict defendants... Thank God.

This was a very difficult case to prove for the prosecution. They had little to no cold hard facts that they could present as evidence. They had a tremendous amount of circumstantial evidence, much of which could also point to another murderer.

The prosecution did the best with what they had to work with. In this case, it seems evident that the guilty got away with it. If I ever end up on the wrong side of a murder trial, I will be extremely glad to know that our system works as designed.

Immie

I have seen people go to prison with less evidence than Casey Anthony had, I'm sorry but I truly believe if you have a top notch legal team fighting for you like what Anthony had you can walk on pretty much any charge in this country.

 

[WillowTree]

Nope, we have him on tape discussing it. Of course some claim the tape is fake....

I've lost faith in our legal system, I think with a good enough legal team he could walk.

Lost faith in our legal system? How can someone lose faith in the system when it actually worked?

I believe that Casey is a cold blooded murderer. I have the "facts" as they have been laid out by the press and am absolutely convinced that Casey Anthony is at the very least a co-conspirator in the murder of her daughter. But in this case, the system worked. We don't let the press convict defendants... Thank God.

This was a very difficult case to prove for the prosecution. They had little to no cold hard facts that they could present as evidence. They had a tremendous amount of circumstantial evidence, much of which could also point to another murderer.

The prosecution did the best with what they had to work with. In this case, it seems evident that the guilty got away with it. If I ever end up on the wrong side of a murder trial, I will be extremely glad to know that our system works as designed.

Immie

Another one of those " I think she did it but the state didn't prove it" types.. Well, if the state didn't prove it why do you think it? That's the question of the day innit?

 

[FurthurBB]

I've lost faith in our legal system, I think with a good enough legal team he could walk.

Lost faith in our legal system? How can someone lose faith in the system when it actually worked?

I believe that Casey is a cold blooded murderer. I have the "facts" as they have been laid out by the press and am absolutely convinced that Casey Anthony is at the very least a co-conspirator in the murder of her daughter. But in this case, the system worked. We don't let the press convict defendants... Thank God.

This was a very difficult case to prove for the prosecution. They had little to no cold hard facts that they could present as evidence. They had a tremendous amount of circumstantial evidence, much of which could also point to another murderer.

The prosecution did the best with what they had to work with. In this case, it seems evident that the guilty got away with it. If I ever end up on the wrong side of a murder trial, I will be extremely glad to know that our system works as designed.

Immie

I have seen people go to prison with less evidence than Casey Anthony had, I'm sorry but I truly believe if you have a top notch legal team fighting for you like what Anthony had you can walk on pretty much any charge in this country.

I wasn't overly impressed with Casey's defense team. What kid of defense team did Scott Peterson have? I have never even heard of another case that was this speculative. I fully believe Casey is responsible for her daughter's death, but I do not think it happened the way the prosecution presented it.

 

[WillowTree]

Not guilty does not mean innocent. Why are you obsessed with feces?

It's the law of the land. She walks like the innocent lamb that she is.

Okay, whatever. I am not sure many people think she is innocent in this or anything else really, so how does this add to the conversation? Just another form of poop talking nonsense? I am glad my children have outgrown that phase.

Another one of those "I think she's guilty but the state didn't prove it types." Well, if the state didn't prove it why do you think it?

 

[FurthurBB]

I've lost faith in our legal system, I think with a good enough legal team he could walk.

Lost faith in our legal system? How can someone lose faith in the system when it actually worked?

I believe that Casey is a cold blooded murderer. I have the "facts" as they have been laid out by the press and am absolutely convinced that Casey Anthony is at the very least a co-conspirator in the murder of her daughter. But in this case, the system worked. We don't let the press convict defendants... Thank God.

This was a very difficult case to prove for the prosecution. They had little to no cold hard facts that they could present as evidence. They had a tremendous amount of circumstantial evidence, much of which could also point to another murderer.

The prosecution did the best with what they had to work with. In this case, it seems evident that the guilty got away with it. If I ever end up on the wrong side of a murder trial, I will be extremely glad to know that our system works as designed.

Immie

Another one of those " I think she did it but the state didn't prove it" types.. Well, if the state didn't prove it why do you think it? That's the question of the day innit?

If all I had to go on was what was presented to the jury, I might have doubts that she did it.

 

[WillowTree]

Lost faith in our legal system? How can someone lose faith in the system when it actually worked?

I believe that Casey is a cold blooded murderer. I have the "facts" as they have been laid out by the press and am absolutely convinced that Casey Anthony is at the very least a co-conspirator in the murder of her daughter. But in this case, the system worked. We don't let the press convict defendants... Thank God.

This was a very difficult case to prove for the prosecution. They had little to no cold hard facts that they could present as evidence. They had a tremendous amount of circumstantial evidence, much of which could also point to another murderer.

The prosecution did the best with what they had to work with. In this case, it seems evident that the guilty got away with it. If I ever end up on the wrong side of a murder trial, I will be extremely glad to know that our system works as designed.

Immie

I have seen people go to prison with less evidence than Casey Anthony had, I'm sorry but I truly believe if you have a top notch legal team fighting for you like what Anthony had you can walk on pretty much any charge in this country.

I wasn't overly impressed with Casey's defense team. What kid of defense team did Scott Peterson have? I have never even heard of another case that was this speculative. I fully believe Casey is responsible for her daughter's death, but I do not think it happened the way the prosecution presented it.

Well do tell, Einstein.. how did Caylee die?

 

[martybegan]

It's the law of the land. She walks like the innocent lamb that she is.

Okay, whatever. I am not sure many people think she is innocent in this or anything else really, so how does this add to the conversation? Just another form of poop talking nonsense? I am glad my children have outgrown that phase.

Another one of those "I think she's guilty but the state didn't prove it types." Well, if the state didn't prove it why do you think it?

Because the criminal justice system works under aristotilian black/white logic. Yes, No, Guilty, Not Guilty, with 99% guilty still being considered not guilty.

People on the other hand can deal in things like "sort of, kind, of, most likely, almost certainly." based on a fuzzy logic approach to reasoning. This is more in line with civil procedure. Under civil codes, she would have been convicted in a heartbeat. Criminal, not so much.

Laws create systems, and systems have rules. Opinion, on the other hand has no rules whatsover.

 

[kwc57]

That's why I was stunned when I was chosen for a jury trial in a wrongful termination case at a chemical processing plant. I was in grad school for my PhD in chemistry at the time and already had a BS in chemical engineering at the time.

Neither attorney disqualified me.

We found for the corporation, btw. The guy was shitcanned for being a slacker.

I was selected some years back for an age discrimination suit. The guy fired was a really nice guy. Had great character witnesses. As the case unfolded, the real reason he was fired (reading between the lines) was because he was aware of an affair going on between two upper management people. The lady involved in the affair came to him (he was something of the office grandfatherly type) asking why people were treating her so weird and he told her why. She freaked. Her boyfriend freaked. They built a "case" of poor performance against him and used that as the reason to fire him. He knew he couldn't win his case based on that since Oklahoma is an "at will work" state. The judge later told us after the trial why he allowed the age suit. A senior management person had come to their office and done a company town hall meeting and told this guy, "you know, they are getting rid of us gray hairs". As poorly as this guy had been fucked over by his company and as much as we wanted to find for him and penalize the company, in the final analysis he was not fired because of his age. He was fired for knowing dirt on someone in a high place. That was not what the case was about. Judges give very specific instructions to the jury and as much as we wanted to help the guy, we couldn't.

Isn't the building of a false case against someone still fraud, or defamation of character? Its using falsehoods to affect the employment of someone, there has to be at least something not kosher with it.

I agree on the age discrimination thing, it wasnt true, so you have to instruct the jury the right way.

Being an at will work state, an employer can simply call you in and say you're gone. What they can't do is mess with your civil rights. Though the "evidence" was weak, that is what they built the case on and lost.

 

[FurthurBB]

I have seen people go to prison with less evidence than Casey Anthony had, I'm sorry but I truly believe if you have a top notch legal team fighting for you like what Anthony had you can walk on pretty much any charge in this country.

I wasn't overly impressed with Casey's defense team. What kid of defense team did Scott Peterson have? I have never even heard of another case that was this speculative. I fully believe Casey is responsible for her daughter's death, but I do not think it happened the way the prosecution presented it.

Well do tell, Einstein.. how did Caylee die?

For one, it makes no sense that she would kill Caylee because she wanted she party. There was a much simpler way to achieve that. If she actually murdered Caylee there must be another reason that actually makes sense. Most likely she accidentally killed her through some kind of extreme neglect, like drugged her to keep her out of the way or left her in a hot car too long.

 

[martybegan]

I was selected some years back for an age discrimination suit. The guy fired was a really nice guy. Had great character witnesses. As the case unfolded, the real reason he was fired (reading between the lines) was because he was aware of an affair going on between two upper management people. The lady involved in the affair came to him (he was something of the office grandfatherly type) asking why people were treating her so weird and he told her why. She freaked. Her boyfriend freaked. They built a "case" of poor performance against him and used that as the reason to fire him. He knew he couldn't win his case based on that since Oklahoma is an "at will work" state. The judge later told us after the trial why he allowed the age suit. A senior management person had come to their office and done a company town hall meeting and told this guy, "you know, they are getting rid of us gray hairs". As poorly as this guy had been fucked over by his company and as much as we wanted to find for him and penalize the company, in the final analysis he was not fired because of his age. He was fired for knowing dirt on someone in a high place. That was not what the case was about. Judges give very specific instructions to the jury and as much as we wanted to help the guy, we couldn't.

Isn't the building of a false case against someone still fraud, or defamation of character? Its using falsehoods to affect the employment of someone, there has to be at least something not kosher with it.

I agree on the age discrimination thing, it wasnt true, so you have to instruct the jury the right way.

Being an at will work state, an employer can simply call you in and say you're gone. What they can't do is mess with your civil rights. Though the "evidence" was weak, that is what they built the case on and lost.

The employer may be free and clear, but wouldn't the person making up the false claims be liable for libel or slander? I would hold the company itself free of liability, but the second the person went about creating false statements/documents/accusations of incompetence, they become liable, at least civilly, and maybe criminally.

 

[Immanuel]

I've lost faith in our legal system, I think with a good enough legal team he could walk.

Lost faith in our legal system? How can someone lose faith in the system when it actually worked?

I believe that Casey is a cold blooded murderer. I have the "facts" as they have been laid out by the press and am absolutely convinced that Casey Anthony is at the very least a co-conspirator in the murder of her daughter. But in this case, the system worked. We don't let the press convict defendants... Thank God.

This was a very difficult case to prove for the prosecution. They had little to no cold hard facts that they could present as evidence. They had a tremendous amount of circumstantial evidence, much of which could also point to another murderer.

The prosecution did the best with what they had to work with. In this case, it seems evident that the guilty got away with it. If I ever end up on the wrong side of a murder trial, I will be extremely glad to know that our system works as designed.

Immie

I have seen people go to prison with less evidence than Casey Anthony had, I'm sorry but I truly believe if you have a top notch legal team fighting for you like what Anthony had you can walk on pretty much any charge in this country.

Your the first person that I have read that stated that the defense in the Anthony trial was "top notch". Everything I have seen and heard says that they got lucky because the prosecution had crap to work with.

The "she drowned in the family pool" defense almost got Casey a date with the executioner's needle and would have if the prosecution had a lick of evidence actually linking Casey to the killing.

Immie

 

[ABikerSailor]

Wanna hear my take?

Casey got tired of not being able to go out partying. She then researched cloroform on the computer to see how to make it.

One night, she overdosed the kid and she died.

Casey panicked and here we are.

I don't think she intentionally set out to do so, but when it happened, she panicked and tried to cover it up.

Interesting that she'd got off of the child abuse charge though. If she'd reported it right away, she may have gotten nailed for that.

 

[WillowTree]

Okay, whatever. I am not sure many people think she is innocent in this or anything else really, so how does this add to the conversation? Just another form of poop talking nonsense? I am glad my children have outgrown that phase.

Another one of those "I think she's guilty but the state didn't prove it types." Well, if the state didn't prove it why do you think it?

Because the criminal justice system works under aristotilian black/white logic. Yes, No, Guilty, Not Guilty, with 99% guilty still being considered not guilty.

People on the other hand can deal in things like "sort of, kind, of, most likely, almost certainly." based on a fuzzy logic approach to reasoning. This is more in line with civil procedure. Under civil codes, she would have been convicted in a heartbeat. Criminal, not so much.

Laws create systems, and systems have rules. Opinion, on the other hand has no rules whatsover.

That's a nice lecture but it does not speak to the illogical statement. "I think she's guilty but the state did not prove it." Well, if the state didn't prove it why do you think it?

It is logical though to say I think she's guilty and the state proved it."


I think the "I think she's guilty but the state did not prove it" crowd just want to have their cake and eat it too. They seem to know she killed the kid but are happy she walked free. Poor little Caylee.. just let the body rot cause then we won't know how you died. That's a good excuse.

 

[Immanuel]

I've lost faith in our legal system, I think with a good enough legal team he could walk.

Lost faith in our legal system? How can someone lose faith in the system when it actually worked?

I believe that Casey is a cold blooded murderer. I have the "facts" as they have been laid out by the press and am absolutely convinced that Casey Anthony is at the very least a co-conspirator in the murder of her daughter. But in this case, the system worked. We don't let the press convict defendants... Thank God.

This was a very difficult case to prove for the prosecution. They had little to no cold hard facts that they could present as evidence. They had a tremendous amount of circumstantial evidence, much of which could also point to another murderer.

The prosecution did the best with what they had to work with. In this case, it seems evident that the guilty got away with it. If I ever end up on the wrong side of a murder trial, I will be extremely glad to know that our system works as designed.

Immie

Another one of those " I think she did it but the state didn't prove it" types.. Well, if the state didn't prove it why do you think it? That's the question of the day innit?

I have believed it since the day that the news broke that Caylee was missing and had been missing for 31 days. Nothing I have seen or heard since then has convinced me otherwise. However, any reasonable person can look at the circumstantial evidence placed in the records and come away with the belief that it is possible that someone else killed Caylee.

It was a "gut feeling", but we don't convict on gut feelings.

Immie

 

[WillowTree]

I wasn't overly impressed with Casey's defense team. What kid of defense team did Scott Peterson have? I have never even heard of another case that was this speculative. I fully believe Casey is responsible for her daughter's death, but I do not think it happened the way the prosecution presented it.

Well do tell, Einstein.. how did Caylee die?

For one, it makes no sense that she would kill Caylee because she wanted she party. There was a much simpler way to achieve that. If she actually murdered Caylee there must be another reason that actually makes sense. Most likely she accidentally killed her through some kind of extreme neglect, like drugged her to keep her out of the way or left her in a hot car too long.

Too bad for you. The jury acquitted her on manslaughter, aggravated child abuse and first degree. Nice try though.

 

[martybegan]

Another one of those "I think she's guilty but the state didn't prove it types." Well, if the state didn't prove it why do you think it?

Because the criminal justice system works under aristotilian black/white logic. Yes, No, Guilty, Not Guilty, with 99% guilty still being considered not guilty.

People on the other hand can deal in things like "sort of, kind, of, most likely, almost certainly." based on a fuzzy logic approach to reasoning. This is more in line with civil procedure. Under civil codes, she would have been convicted in a heartbeat. Criminal, not so much.

Laws create systems, and systems have rules. Opinion, on the other hand has no rules whatsover.

That's a nice lecture but it does not speak to the illogical statement. "I think she's guilty but the state did not prove it." Well, if the state didn't prove it why do you think it?

It is logical though to say I think she's guilty and the state proved it."


I think the "I think she's guilty but the state did not prove it" crowd just want to have their cake and eat it too. They seem to know she killed the kid but are happy she walked free. Poor little Caylee.. just let the body rot cause then we won't know how you died. That's a good excuse.

Maybe for other people, but for me its the fact that the majority of the evidence points to her doing SOMETHING to her daughter, but under criminal law it isnt enough to convict.

Why can't you get that?

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Alternate juror states:

Jurors Believed What George Told River Cruz About An Accident That Snowballed And Did Not Like How George Fought With Baez


Dr. Lillian Glass Body Language Blog