Casey Anthony

[jillian]

The jurors that didn't even believe in the child abuse and the manslaughter charges are fucking idiots. The murder 1 charge was a reach, but it's common sense she was guilty of the 2 other major crimes.
If it was an accident, you don't wait days, weeks to a month to report your child is "missing."
What most likely happened was that she was drugging her daughter to put her to sleep so she could go partying, but she overdosed her which killed her. She freaked out and hide her in the swamp, then avoided her parents awhile until she was forced to admit her daughter was so-called missing.
I think this bitch is so stupid to believe her parents wouldn't ask questions about her daughter...she is that fucking stupid.

[
...... 31 days of lying and trying to blow her mom off. 31 days of partying down butt grinding and tatoos,, never once seeking help to find her lost baby why? cause she knew,, she knew,, she knew.

......31 days casey lied to her mom and wouldn't let her see Caylee. 31 days, I wonder how the dummies on the jury resolved that information??

They're saying that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' wasn't proven. That because they couldn't say how Caylee died . . . broken neck/suffocated/drown, etc . . . that that's why the jury came back with not guilty. Um . . hellooo? DUCT TAPE, IN A BAG, IN A SWAMP. How did they not come back with guilty?
So . . that outweighs the mother's actions? Her lies? The proof (chloroform in the trunk ... for crying out loud someone killed this baby!) they did have?
This is nuts. The jury had to have be comprised of moronic dummies.

I don't give a shit what anybody says, about the technicalities of the case. Anyone with any common sense, could tell she was responsible for what happened to that child.
An innocent person does NOT act or do the things that bitch did.
This is a travesty, and the jury is full of shit.
This bitch got away with participating in her child's death, if not murder.
I hope someday, somewhere, someone will recognize this scumbag slut out on the street, and ends her useless time here on Earth.
Fucking retards on that Florida jury should have their asses kicked in.

unlike you, someone who signs their name to a jury verdict actually has to look at what the elements of the case are and see if the prosecutor proved EVERY ONE OF THEM.

and no, the prosecutor did not prove cause of death beyond a reasonable doubt.... at least not according to the jurors.

you do not convict based on what you wish. you convict based on what the prosecutor PROVES. she had to prove nothing but only raise a reasonable doubt. and apparently she did.

are you about 12? your "analysis" and reaction makes me think you might be.

grow up. you sound pathetic.

 

[Sarah G]

Cheney Mason says "Hello from Orlando"

Classy!

He'a dope. His arguments and closing just about put everyone to sleep. I thought they'd convict her just based on Cheney Mason's monotone voice alone..

 

[High_Gravity]

Well it looks like all of us were wrong the poll in this thread.

 

[WillowTree]

The jurors that didn't even believe in the child abuse and the manslaughter charges are fucking idiots. The murder 1 charge was a reach, but it's common sense she was guilty of the 2 other major crimes.
If it was an accident, you don't wait days, weeks to a month to report your child is "missing."
What most likely happened was that she was drugging her daughter to put her to sleep so she could go partying, but she overdosed her which killed her. She freaked out and hide her in the swamp, then avoided her parents awhile until she was forced to admit her daughter was so-called missing.
I think this bitch is so stupid to believe her parents wouldn't ask questions about her daughter...she is that fucking stupid.

They're saying that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' wasn't proven. That because they couldn't say how Caylee died . . . broken neck/suffocated/drown, etc . . . that that's why the jury came back with not guilty. Um . . hellooo? DUCT TAPE, IN A BAG, IN A SWAMP. How did they not come back with guilty?
So . . that outweighs the mother's actions? Her lies? The proof (chloroform in the trunk ... for crying out loud someone killed this baby!) they did have?
This is nuts. The jury had to have be comprised of moronic dummies.

I don't give a shit what anybody says, about the technicalities of the case. Anyone with any common sense, could tell she was responsible for what happened to that child.
An innocent person does NOT act or do the things that bitch did.
This is a travesty, and the jury is full of shit.
This bitch got away with participating in her child's death, if not murder.
I hope someday, somewhere, someone will recognize this scumbag slut out on the street, and ends her useless time here on Earth.
Fucking retards on that Florida jury should have their asses kicked in.

unlike you, someone who signs their name to a jury verdict actually has to look at what the elements of the case are and see if the prosecutor proved EVERY ONE OF THEM.

and no, the prosecutor did not prove cause of death beyond a reasonable doubt.... at least not according to the jurors.

you do not convict based on what you wish. you convict based on what the prosecutor PROVES. she had to prove nothing but only raise a reasonable doubt. and apparently she did.

are you about 12? your "analysis" and reaction makes me think you might be.

grow up. you sound pathetic.

I've learned my lesson. Hide the body let it rot. Then you can't say how it died. I walk.. That sound about right? Good. Oh and I have nothing to do with Mr. JOnes.Nothing.

 

[WillowTree]

Cheney Mason says "Hello from Orlando"

Classy!

He'a dope. His arguments and closing just about put everyone to sleep. I thought they'd convict her just based on Cheney Mason's monotone voice alone..

We're supposed to respect assholes like this.

 

[High_Gravity]

Classy!

He'a dope. His arguments and closing just about put everyone to sleep. I thought they'd convict her just based on Cheney Mason's monotone voice alone..

We're supposed to respect assholes like this.

I thought Casey Anthonys Lawyer was very nice, humble, and respectful.

 

[tinydancer]

I don't give a shit what anybody says, about the technicalities of the case. Anyone with any common sense, could tell she was responsible for what happened to that child.
An innocent person does NOT act or do the things that bitch did.
This is a travesty, and the jury is full of shit.
This bitch got away with participating in her child's death, if not murder.
I hope someday, somewhere, someone will recognize this scumbag slut out on the street, and ends her useless time here on Earth.
Fucking retards on that Florida jury should have their asses kicked in.

unlike you, someone who signs their name to a jury verdict actually has to look at what the elements of the case are and see if the prosecutor proved EVERY ONE OF THEM.

and no, the prosecutor did not prove cause of death beyond a reasonable doubt.... at least not according to the jurors.

you do not convict based on what you wish. you convict based on what the prosecutor PROVES. she had to prove nothing but only raise a reasonable doubt. and apparently she did.

are you about 12? your "analysis" and reaction makes me think you might be.

grow up. you sound pathetic.

I've learned my lesson. Hide the body let it rot. Then you can't say how it died. I walk.. That sound about right? Good. Oh and I have nothing to do with Mr. JOnes.Nothing.

Sadly entomologists are now reluctant to testify anywhere. After that one crackpot swore to God and the Heavens almighty to convict Westerfield, no one else is coming out.

Sad. Very sad. Because it is a true science that can absolutely pin point time of death. But that one bastard, in that one case has tainted it for the lot of them. He was such a lying piece of shit.

I hate that bastard.

 

[frazzledgear]

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?

What do you want to see it replaced with then? A PROFESSIONAL jury as they have in some countries? Major problems with that and far fewer remedies when it goes wrong as well. You assume some GOVERNMENT controlled entity is better suited for hearing such cases? You are aware of the RAMPANT corruption that occurs in such systems that are stacked against people based on their political views or financial status, right?

There is no such thing as a perfect system of justice but as an innocent person I would take THIS system over ANY other in existence in the world because it is a system that allows the defendant to show where the state's case is flawed and the defendant to put on a vigorous defense. A lot of people falsely assume our standards are quite common but in fact they are not. In the UK a defendant can be forced to testify against himself thereby requiring a defendant to assist the government in making a case against him. In most countries around the world a defendant is presumed GUILTY and must prove he is innocent of charges. In most countries there is no such thing as a trial by a jury of one's peers and cases are heard by judges who then have two roles in a courtroom and not just one as they do in ours.

I have never seen a system anywhere in the world that works better in favor of the individual who is up against the huge power of the state when charged with a crime and could be easily swamped under it. Most in the world are set up to work in favor of the state.

Do juries get it wrong in our system? Sure, it does anywhere in the world. But do you REALLY think other countries are MORE likely to get it wrong in favor of the state -or the individual? I think our system is STILL more likely to get it wrong in favor of the state but that rate I would bet is significantly lower than it is in just about any other country in the world. You either believe it is better that one guilty man go free than one be falsely convicted -or you don't. I happen to believe that while it is angering to see such blatantly guilty people go free as happened with OJ and Casey Anthony -it is still preferable than seeing an innocent person falsely convicted. But that's me -I know there really are millions in the world who don't give a shit about the innocent and believe it is better to sacrifice the innocent if it increases the odds of also convicting the guilty. I'm just not one of them.

If you are really a lawyer and can't get through to a jury about what their oath really means and why they may NOT use any sympathy or antipathy as the basis for rendering their verdict -then you are a shitty lawyer who can't do his job. Because plenty of lawyers both for the state and defense are able to do just that every single day in this country and really nice people who broke the law are still found guilty and really nasty people who did not break the law are acquitted in spite of the fact they are nasty people.

I think Casey Anthony killed her child and this verdict was a total miscarriage of justice but I don't blame the jury as much for it as I do the state. They overcharged her and the made it a death penalty case knowing full well that was never going to happen. Even after watching that trial, I still don't know beyond a reasonable doubt if she deliberately killed her child or accidentally did it but I am convinced she is the only one responsible for her death, accidental or not. I am just not convinced it was premeditated. So why overcharge her with a level of crime they had to know (if they were any good as lawyers) they could not prove? Did they do it to make a media circus out of her trial? THEN they made some pretty significant mistakes that don't sit well with juries -including the failure to inform the jury that Casey's mother had already claimed SHE did those searches on the computer. Juries are FAR more unforgiving of errors committed by prosecutors than they are defense attorneys -that's just a fact. They expect government to be UP FRONT and show their case warts and all. They expect defense attorneys to blow smoke up their asses but NOT the prosecution! So the prosecution failed to tell the jury that Casey's mother had already claimed SHE made those computer searches -knocking out the "premeditation" right there. She didn't suddenly claim it at trial but right off the bat as soon as computer experts found it. But the prosecution failed to tell the jury about that fact and the jury was aware they would NEVER have known about it if the defense hadn't told them. Thereby giving jurors the impression the prosecution had tried to hide information from them that was helpful to the defense. Which would only increase suspicions of jurors that the prosecution was not above hiding OTHER information from them that supported the defense case.

In the OJ case I blamed that idiot judge for allowing that trial to turn into a circus right in the courtroom and allowing the nonstop UNPROFESSIONAL behavior by all parties and stunts that had NO place in that courtroom and allowing the defense to engage in stunts NO other judge would have allowed from trying on a hard, shriveled glove from dried blood on top of a hand that already had a glove on in order to pretend it didn't fit and allowing the continued questioning of a witness who had taken the 5th, which is NEVER, NEVER allowed and is automatic reversible error when the prosecution does it because it allows jurors to get the false impression that person is taking the 5th regarding ALL those questions when in fact once they take the 5th for a question, they MUST do it for all even if it is a question they would have answered before taking the 5th! But Ito allowed it knowing full well the state had NO recourse to fix that error -something a couple of jurors later said actually played a role in their decision to acquit OJ who were convinced the witness who took the 5th about using the "n" word and therefore had to continue, was asked if he had planted evidence at OJs house! The jury later said they thought that had PROVED the cop planted evidence when he was actually locked into continuing taking the 5th no matter the question. So the defense asked unrelated loaded questions knowing full well the impression the jury would take from it when he continued taking the 5th! That was such a monumental and very basic error that even every law student was gasping! Yet Ito, knowing full well the witness HAD to continue taking the 5th no matter what the question would be, allowed the defense to go on and ask unrelated, loaded questions in order to manipulate the jury into thinking the witness was all but admitting to having framed OJ. It was a deliberate ploy by the defense to first get the guy to take the 5th over the "n" word and then ask him loaded questions about whether he had framed OJ they KNEW he couldn't answer after having taken the 5th! That alone was such a monumental error by the JUDGE I think should have been removed from the bench for that one alone -and definitely for all his stupid rulings in totality.

I think that judge believed the evidence against OJ was so overwhelming that 1/10th that amount would have EASILY convicted a non-celebrity and decided to show how "fair" he was by letting the defense get away with just about any bullshit they wanted to "prove" he got a fair trial, allowed the defense to engage in bullshit stunts no other judge would have tolerated in their courtroom and should not have been tolerated in that case. Judge Ito bears the greatest blame for that total miscarriage of justice, nearly single-handedly got OJ acquitted in spite of such overwhelming evidence that if it were us, we'd be rotting in prison for it and setting the stage for the INSANE notion that it takes far more evidence to convict a celebrity than it does "normal" people because one celebrity after another got away with murder after that case - and the prosecution carries the blame for the miscarriage of justice in the Casey Anthony trial.

In most cases jurors cannot be expected to do a better job than those charged with making sure they understand not just the evidence, but the gravity of the situation, the oath they took, exactly what must be proven and what does NOT have to be proven (an alternate Casey Anthony juror said she thought they acquitted because the prosecution had not proven motive which is NEVER required -so why did this one who also sat there through the whole trial still come away believing the state had to prove motive?) and the emphasis of how allowing one's sympathy or antipathy will result in a grave miscarriage of justice that demeans our entire system.

Jurors are just ordinary people who are given the rules by professionals who bear the entire burden for making sure they know and understand and are able to comply with the rules and the laws as given to them. The people really running the show claim to be professionals and know how to do it -so nearly always when there is a failure and a miscarriage of justice, the real blame for that is nearly always going to be with those so-called professionals who failed to do their job and do it in a way that was perceived to be upfront and honest by jurors. Like it or not juries hold the government and government witnesses to a higher standard than they do defense attorneys and their witnesses. They KNOW what the defense is up to and are mentally prepared for that. But they expect the state to be entirely up front, present a full, honest case that hasn't been cherry picked where they feel they are being manipulated to reach a certain verdict. If they perceive the state is tailoring their evidence and keeping information from them because it favors the defense, they start looking for reasons to pick apart even more prosecution evidence and can usually find it.

The prosecution in the Anthony case has no one but itself to blame by first overcharging her for a crime they already knew they couldn't prove and then the way they presented this case to the jury in a way that gave them the perception the prosecution was deliberately hiding any facts that favored the defense in order to manipulate them into reaching a guilty verdict.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Tiny dancer do you ever make positive posts or post without cussing?

 

[tinydancer]

The jurors that didn't even believe in the child abuse and the manslaughter charges are fucking idiots. The murder 1 charge was a reach, but it's common sense she was guilty of the 2 other major crimes.
If it was an accident, you don't wait days, weeks to a month to report your child is "missing."
What most likely happened was that she was drugging her daughter to put her to sleep so she could go partying, but she overdosed her which killed her. She freaked out and hide her in the swamp, then avoided her parents awhile until she was forced to admit her daughter was so-called missing.
I think this bitch is so stupid to believe her parents wouldn't ask questions about her daughter...she is that fucking stupid.

They're saying that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' wasn't proven. That because they couldn't say how Caylee died . . . broken neck/suffocated/drown, etc . . . that that's why the jury came back with not guilty. Um . . hellooo? DUCT TAPE, IN A BAG, IN A SWAMP. How did they not come back with guilty?
So . . that outweighs the mother's actions? Her lies? The proof (chloroform in the trunk ... for crying out loud someone killed this baby!) they did have?
This is nuts. The jury had to have be comprised of moronic dummies.

I don't give a shit what anybody says, about the technicalities of the case. Anyone with any common sense, could tell she was responsible for what happened to that child.
An innocent person does NOT act or do the things that bitch did.
This is a travesty, and the jury is full of shit.
This bitch got away with participating in her child's death, if not murder.
I hope someday, somewhere, someone will recognize this scumbag slut out on the street, and ends her useless time here on Earth.
Fucking retards on that Florida jury should have their asses kicked in.

unlike you, someone who signs their name to a jury verdict actually has to look at what the elements of the case are and see if the prosecutor proved EVERY ONE OF THEM.

and no, the prosecutor did not prove cause of death beyond a reasonable doubt.... at least not according to the jurors.

you do not convict based on what you wish. you convict based on what the prosecutor PROVES. she had to prove nothing but only raise a reasonable doubt. and apparently she did.

are you about 12? your "analysis" and reaction makes me think you might be.

grow up. you sound pathetic.

Jury members can be wrong. Jury members can be shopping for book deals and movie roles. Have we not seen this before?

Or are you still supporting OJ?



Look, this case has been most interesting because the mother was a slut and a liar but yo do you understand where they were trying her?

its where all sluts and liars are in florida. jury of your peers. yuppers. sluts and liars.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Someone should be on meds or in a padded room. I won't mention names.

 

[tinydancer]

Tiny dancer do you ever make positive posts or post without cussing?

Of course I do.

Here's one I just made moments ago.

Turkey, if memory serves me well was a serious conduit for Jews running for their lives. As was Holland.

Now though there is a serious problem with uber conservative Islamists who want to literally take out the moderates.

It's a time bomb I've been watching for some time.

I make many positive posts. But I also call bullshit when I see it. I'm a Ted Nugent kinda born again after all. With a very native base and with a Newf attitude with rock and roll.

 

[Sarah G]

He'a dope. His arguments and closing just about put everyone to sleep. I thought they'd convict her just based on Cheney Mason's monotone voice alone..

We're supposed to respect assholes like this.

I thought Casey Anthonys Lawyer was very nice, humble, and respectful.

Baez could still be facing contempt charges.

 

[P@triot]

We’ve finally reached the point of no return on absurdity in this nation. And like all of the rest of the degradation in our society, we can thank the liberals for the nightmare.

For those of you who cry “beyond a reasonable doubt” as the “standard”, I say – why even have a trial? By the very nature of that standard, everyone is 100% not guilty. It’s impossible to ever reach beyond a reasonable doubt. You could have 10,000 witnesses, the act video taped, the act photographed, and a fully signed confession by the perpetrator and I could EASILY create a “reasonable shadow of a doubt”.

First, I claim a thousand different mental aspects for my client to explain the signed confession. He was afraid the police would beat him into the confession, the police actually did beat him into the confession, he suffered mental trauma as a child, he has a need for attention, he suffers from a condition in which he blames himself for all bad things that occur in the world, he suffers from severe mental anguish. There, just filled an Olympic size swimming pool with “reasonable doubt”. The signed confession is now useless by that standard.

Next, I subpoena the cell phones and watches of everyone in the court room that day, as well as the official clock in the courtroom. I then show how each and every device shows a different time from another, and I then show how they also differ from the time stamp from both the video of the event and the digital pictures of the event. The time frames are off from seconds, to ten’s of minutes (10, 20, etc.). Those varying times proves that the video and pictures are not reliable because the time frame is off from the official police reports. What can be trusted when the watches, cell phone, and court room clocks didn’t even match? Additionally, how do you know that is actually my client? Sure, it looks like him. But lots of people look like someone else. You can’t take DNA from the video and pictures and match it to my client. Boom – I just filled a bank vault full with “reasonable doubt”. So much for the video and the pictures! They are now either inadmissible or must be disregarded by the juror using the rigid “reasonable doubt” standard.

Finally, I discredit the 10,000 witnesses in my sleep. There was a phenomenon in which they all dreamed this! It’s a conspiracy – they are all out to get my client. How do any of them really know they were there – they could suffer from a condition that causes them to imagine things. How come all the witnesses have a different account of what happened? This just proves how unreliable humans are as “evidence”. Bang – just created an ocean’s worth of “reasonable doubt”.

The point is, if a reason of doubt is the standard, then there is no point in holding a trial. There is simply no such thing as “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Even DNA evidence is 1 in a billion number. Ok, so that leaves doubt that someone else in that billion could have the exact same DNA. It’s not impossible; it’s 1 in a billion. Well, there’s doubt. At some point, these obnoxious jurors need to use some freaking COMMON SENSE. Does common sense tell you that video, pictures, and 10,000 witnesses means the person is guilty. Does COMMON SENSE tell you that a psychopathic, self-centered, pathological liar killed her own daughter when she doesn’t report her missing freaking child to the police, claims she’s doing her own “investigation”, has a trunk that smells like a dead body, shows ZERO grief over the fact that her daughter is missing while she’s partying, and whose daughter is finally found to have duct tape over her mouth which is forensically MATCHED to duct tape in her home???? Yes, common sense tells you she’s absolutely guilty. History of people who have done this and acted this way tells us she is absolutely guilty. Her actions tell us she is absolutely guilty.

 

[P@triot]

We’ve finally reached the point of no return on absurdity in this nation. And like all of the rest of the degradation in our society, we can thank the liberals for the nightmare.

For those of you who cry “beyond a reasonable doubt” as the “standard”, I say – why even have a trial? By the very nature of that standard, everyone is 100% not guilty. It’s impossible to ever reach beyond a reasonable doubt. You could have 10,000 witnesses, the act video taped, the act photographed, and a fully signed confession by the perpetrator and I could EASILY create a “reasonable shadow of a doubt”.

First, I claim a thousand different mental aspects for my client to explain the signed confession. He was afraid the police would beat him into the confession, the police actually did beat him into the confession, he suffered mental trauma as a child, he has a need for attention, he suffers from a condition in which he blames himself for all bad things that occur in the world, he suffers from severe mental anguish. There, just filled an Olympic size swimming pool with “reasonable doubt”. The signed confession is now useless by that standard.

Next, I subpoena the cell phones and watches of everyone in the court room that day, as well as the official clock in the courtroom. I then show how each and every device shows a different time from another, and I then show how they also differ from the time stamp from both the video of the event and the digital pictures of the event. The time frames are off from seconds, to ten’s of minutes (10, 20, etc.). Those varying times proves that the video and pictures are not reliable because the time frame is off from the official police reports. What can be trusted when the watches, cell phone, and court room clocks didn’t even match? Additionally, how do you know that is actually my client? Sure, it looks like him. But lots of people look like someone else. You can’t take DNA from the video and pictures and match it to my client. Boom – I just filled a bank vault full with “reasonable doubt”. So much for the video and the pictures! They are now either inadmissible or must be disregarded by the juror using the rigid “reasonable doubt” standard.

Finally, I discredit the 10,000 witnesses in my sleep. There was a phenomenon in which they all dreamed this! It’s a conspiracy – they are all out to get my client. How do any of them really know they were there – they could suffer from a condition that causes them to imagine things. How come all the witnesses have a different account of what happened? This just proves how unreliable humans are as “evidence”. Bang – just created an ocean’s worth of “reasonable doubt”.

The point is, if a reason of doubt is the standard, then there is no point in holding a trial. There is simply no such thing as “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Even DNA evidence is 1 in a billion number. Ok, so that leaves doubt that someone else in that billion could have the exact same DNA. It’s not impossible; it’s 1 in a billion. Well, there’s doubt. At some point, these obnoxious jurors need to use some freaking COMMON SENSE. Does common sense tell you that video, pictures, and 10,000 witnesses means the person is guilty. Does COMMON SENSE tell you that a psychopathic, self-centered, pathological liar killed her own daughter when she doesn’t report her missing freaking child to the police, claims she’s doing her own “investigation”, has a trunk that smells like a dead body, shows ZERO grief over the fact that her daughter is missing while she’s partying, and whose daughter is finally found to have duct tape over her mouth which is forensically MATCHED to duct tape in her home???? Yes, common sense tells you she’s absolutely guilty. History of people who have done this and acted this way tells us she is absolutely guilty. Her actions tell us she is absolutely guilty.

 

[tinydancer]

I have a real problem with this case. Despite having some fun with this all the Nancy Gray crap, at the end of the day we have a baby murdered.

Now if her mother is innocent, we OWE the baby and her mother a true manhunt and a better job to try to find this child's killer.

On the other hand, if the mother is truly the merciless murderer, we owe this baby another trial.

But alas, that won't happen. This is beyond sad.

 

[WillowTree]

We’ve finally reached the point of no return on absurdity in this nation. And like all of the rest of the degradation in our society, we can thank the liberals for the nightmare.

For those of you who cry “beyond a reasonable doubt” as the “standard”, I say – why even have a trial? By the very nature of that standard, everyone is 100% not guilty. It’s impossible to ever reach beyond a reasonable doubt. You could have 10,000 witnesses, the act video taped, the act photographed, and a fully signed confession by the perpetrator and I could EASILY create a “reasonable shadow of a doubt”.

First, I claim a thousand different mental aspects for my client to explain the signed confession. He was afraid the police would beat him into the confession, the police actually did beat him into the confession, he suffered mental trauma as a child, he has a need for attention, he suffers from a condition in which he blames himself for all bad things that occur in the world, he suffers from severe mental anguish. There, just filled an Olympic size swimming pool with “reasonable doubt”. The signed confession is now useless by that standard.

Next, I subpoena the cell phones and watches of everyone in the court room that day, as well as the official clock in the courtroom. I then show how each and every device shows a different time from another, and I then show how they also differ from the time stamp from both the video of the event and the digital pictures of the event. The time frames are off from seconds, to ten’s of minutes (10, 20, etc.). Those varying times proves that the video and pictures are not reliable because the time frame is off from the official police reports. What can be trusted when the watches, cell phone, and court room clocks didn’t even match? Additionally, how do you know that is actually my client? Sure, it looks like him. But lots of people look like someone else. You can’t take DNA from the video and pictures and match it to my client. Boom – I just filled a bank vault full with “reasonable doubt”. So much for the video and the pictures! They are now either inadmissible or must be disregarded by the juror using the rigid “reasonable doubt” standard.

Finally, I discredit the 10,000 witnesses in my sleep. There was a phenomenon in which they all dreamed this! It’s a conspiracy – they are all out to get my client. How do any of them really know they were there – they could suffer from a condition that causes them to imagine things. How come all the witnesses have a different account of what happened? This just proves how unreliable humans are as “evidence”. Bang – just created an ocean’s worth of “reasonable doubt”.

The point is, if a reason of doubt is the standard, then there is no point in holding a trial. There is simply no such thing as “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Even DNA evidence is 1 in a billion number. Ok, so that leaves doubt that someone else in that billion could have the exact same DNA. It’s not impossible; it’s 1 in a billion. Well, there’s doubt. At some point, these obnoxious jurors need to use some freaking COMMON SENSE. Does common sense tell you that video, pictures, and 10,000 witnesses means the person is guilty. Does COMMON SENSE tell you that a psychopathic, self-centered, pathological liar killed her own daughter when she doesn’t report her missing freaking child to the police, claims she’s doing her own “investigation”, has a trunk that smells like a dead body, shows ZERO grief over the fact that her daughter is missing while she’s partying, and whose daughter is finally found to have duct tape over her mouth which is forensically MATCHED to duct tape in her home???? Yes, common sense tells you she’s absolutely guilty. History of people who have done this and acted this way tells us she is absolutely guilty. Her actions tell us she is absolutely guilty.

Yep! when you have bullshit lawyers just throwing bullshit against the wall without having to prove it.. I feel sorry for George Anthony and for his son. I hope they practice long distance spitting.

 

[Conservative]

Forgive me if someone has already mentioned this possibility...

...but has anyone considered the idea that the constant stream of lies, deceit, misdirections, story changes, blame games, etc. on the part of Casey Anthony and her parents... was a well thought out plan to achieve exactly what they ended up with... a jury that had so much crap thrown at them from so many different angles and directions, that it was literally impossible to figure out what really happened outside a reasonable doubt?

 

[Contumacious]

Forgive me if someone has already mentioned this possibility...

...but has anyone considered the idea that the constant stream of lies, deceit, misdirections, story changes, blame games, etc. on the part of Casey Anthony and her parents... was a well thought out plan to achieve exactly what they ended up with... a jury that had so much crap thrown at them from so many different angles and directions, that it was literally impossible to figure out what really happened outside a reasonable doubt?

I don't think so.

I believe that she asked grandma to baby sit. Somehow Caylee snoked out to the pool and drowned .

So in order to prevent her mom from being accussed she went into cover-up mode.

Sad but no premeditation.

.

 

[Lotsafreetime]

For three years we (those of us who paid any attention) have been bombarded with selective information that definitely seemed to justify convicting Casey of murder. This information was delivered by various media PUNDITS (who never give an unbiased view), and reporters (who are meant to deliver unbiased reports but rarely do). I too was convinced and also felt very strongly that she was guilty. But after casually watching this trial for the first time on day 8, I became rather obsessed with it and still believed Casey guilty of murder. However, the more I watched, the more I realized how much I had missed in those first few days of testimony. So, I began to do my own research online: watching the testimonies, watching interviews, listening to jailhouse conversations, reading official reports and documents, reading letters to Casey from her family, reviewing the timelines of details given, etc. I have put in hours of obsessive research. For some reason, I had to try and understand her behavior and motivation.
The conclusion I have ultimately come to is that despite all of her atrocious, despicable and disturbing behavior after the "disappearance" of her child, there is absolutely no concrete proof of what happened to Caylee. We know she died, but because the body was not found by authorities in August 2008, despite THREE calls reporting it, WE, none of US, will EVER know what happened.
I agree that there IS a lot of circumstancial evidence pointing at Casey, especially if you believe EVERYTHING George has said about the timeline and events.
But you must consider that as a former police officer, George knew he was also a suspect in this case. So WHY believe things that ONLY George can verify?
Too manys things he did and said just don't make common sense. And in a statement to FBI officers he admits that he is a liar. (Re: an internet scam he says was the cause of their financial ruin, but admits that he told Cindy it was gambling debts. So we know that he tells big lies, not just innocent white lies).
Considering that, why believe his version of anything? (We haven't really heard her version).

From George alone we "know" the alleged last time Caylee was seen alive, and we "know" the content of the conversation they (George and Casey) allegedly had about the gas cans and about him really wanting to talk to Caylee (which would boost his story of concern, despite his remarkable lack of action during those 31 days, and as a bonus, further destroy her character- however bad it already was)?
Why are his letters to Casey in jail completely unprobing, only supportive and complimentary? Why are his visits to her the same way? Her other family members are noteably concerned about Caylee and what Casey knows about her absence.
So again, why should ANYONE believe him? Because he acts nice? Because he's mild mannered and cooperative? Because he's recorded urging Casey to speak with authorities? What better way is there to prove his innocence than to be the one who is supporting the investigation into his granddaughter's dissappearance all the while subtly pointing away from himself and toward Casey behind closed doors?
An experienced officer would know how he needs to behave to reduce suspicion: appear to be a wonderful father/person. He evens brings up how he really wanted to make a good first impression on the authorities during one of his first FBI interviews. So we know it's on his mind don't we? Would that be your concern if your grandchild was missing? Making a good impression? No. Mine would be to do whatever it takes to find the child. (If I'm innocent, I'm not worried about APPEARING innocent because I naturally will look that way).
The Anthonys did not ever participate DIRECTLY in searching for Casey. And, WHY did the Anthonys (George, Cindy and Lee) refuse to take polygraphs? I know that polygraphs are not conclusive, nor are they admitted as evidence in a court of law. But consider that George is a former police officer, and he knows that if they were a) innocent and b)truthful while taking the exam the family most likely would would have been excluded from any suspicion immediately. But as a group, they decided not to be tested. Who led the group decision? My guess is George. Lee alone, the most truthful acting of the family, told the FBI that they would all take the polygraphs, then he spoke with his parents privately and minutes later they all refused as a group. If they hadn't all banded together, suspicion would be thrown toward only whoever refused, instead as a group, you can't rule any one of the three out and you can't focus on any one particular test that may show some deception either. Smart decision, especially if you KNOW you might be implicated.
Furthermore, as a former law officer wouldn't George have known that if Casey's Sunfire,that he picked up and drove home from the tow yard, had smelled like human decomposition, and the only two family members associated with that car had been mysteriously and uncharacteristically absent for 31 days, the ONLY thing he should have done with it was call the police to investigate the cause of the smell and the location of the missing individuals. AND to desperately try and reach the missing persons himself? But he didn't. Not a single call to find them or to call police.
One more thing - there was no physical evidence found to conclusively tie any living family member to the trunk of Casey's car or to the body's location. Yes, someone could have, and probably did, tamper with and move the remains around before it was found at it's final location. But who is so experienced in that family to know how to keep from leaving ANY conclusive evidence? No fingerprints on anything, not even the multiple plastic bags or duct tape? No hair, no DNA? I can certainly think of at least one person.
I'm NOT saying George killed Caylee, because there's no proof of that either. (The prosecuters say he was at work during the time of her death. Umm, when exactly did they determine her exact time of death? I never saw or read anything that pinpointed it). But there are plenty of reasons to believe that something else was going on to hide WHATEVER happened. I also personally think George and Casey most likely worked together, at first, to mislead authorities.
Unfortunately, I don't think George knew the extent of Casey's lies. He knew she lied, but I think he believed in "Zanny" as babysitter and possible scapegoat. I think when all of Casey's lies very quickly became evident to authorities, the point came when he had to choose between covering for himself and covering for Casey. And Casey lost. I think at first he intended to stand behind her, and for that reason, didn't implicate her immediately or directly. But as time went on, he knew he had to make a choice, and it was already decided for him by the public at large. Everyone was already convinced that Casey alone was responsible for what happened because of her undeniable lies about so many other things.
But before you think "a father would never do that to his daughter", think again. MY father would and has blamed me for things he has done. He has also denied abusive things he has done TO me. And I was a "daddy's girl". So please don't presume that when put in a desperate situation a parent won't sacrifice their own children. Some of them will.
So, WE KNOW Casey is undeniably involved in lying to police and her parents. Guilty. She's a thief. Guilty. She's lacking the morals expected of a good mother. Guilty. She didn't display grief in a way society demands to see it displayed. Guilty. (Or does she turn to attention from others, and partying to forget what's really bothering her? She did write disturbing and depressive blogs during those 31 days on MySpace...)But there's no proof of child abuse by Casey. No one witnessed the child ever being abused or neglected in any way by her. No one. And there's no proof of her murdering that child. There is an assumption, but no definitive proof. It's just as plausible to think that this was an accident that snowballed out of control, like George's unfairly villified friend/mistress testified to hearing him say. And then there's evidence that WHATEVER happened was covered up, just as possibly by making it look like a murder as by actually being murder. There's a lot of possibilities unproven. But there's no hard evidence.
So to finally wrap up my dissertation on the matter: This is only MY THEORY, and there is nothing to conclusively prove what I've suggested. And, I would have had to have voted "not guilty" to any charge of her killing that child. AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, but none of US knows how that child died due to the state of the body (skeleton). I think Casey and George do know, and I KNOW we can't trust what either of them has to say about it.