Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm not harping on ya.....Circumstantial evidence can convict. Has, and will.
No worries, you are right. i haven't made a solid point, I is all over the board! not literally, figuaritvely. (I am also distracted by the bruins being up 3-0)
Understandable distraction! I do have to admit, the PT has not won the battle. I can admit, that if I was on the jury, I'd be asking the questions about how we can link ICA to the evidence. I'm sorry, it took me a min to type that last word. A little girl died here, and the charged knows more than she is saying. I get overwhelmed from time to time.....
That other bottomfeeder Scott Peterson was convicted of 1st degree murder by circumstantial evidence. I believe that the same thing will happen here. ~BH
If I remember correctly Scott Peterson was convicted on a little more than circumstantial evidence... isn't he the one the fed his wife to the sharks outside the Golden Gate?
Immie
No worries, you are right. i haven't made a solid point, I is all over the board! not literally, figuaritvely. (I am also distracted by the bruins being up 3-0)
Understandable distraction! I do have to admit, the PT has not won the battle. I can admit, that if I was on the jury, I'd be asking the questions about how we can link ICA to the evidence. I'm sorry, it took me a min to type that last word. A little girl died here, and the charged knows more than she is saying. I get overwhelmed from time to time.....
the state must prove its case; thus i am a more than willing participant of the system to wait for the defense to present theirs. all i know is, if i were innocent, and i were sitting in a chair in a courtroom facing life/death removal from "my" life as I knew it...i'd want someone like me saying "give me all you got state and defense equally."
That other bottomfeeder Scott Peterson was convicted of 1st degree murder by circumstantial evidence. I believe that the same thing will happen here. ~BH
If I remember correctly Scott Peterson was convicted on a little more than circumstantial evidence... isn't he the one the fed his wife to the sharks outside the Golden Gate?
Immie
Yep, but there was no evidence linking him to that other than a missing boat anchor. Look up the case. They ended up with two bodies yes (which was the closer for the conviction), but they got a body in this case as well. ~BH
Understandable distraction! I do have to admit, the PT has not won the battle. I can admit, that if I was on the jury, I'd be asking the questions about how we can link ICA to the evidence. I'm sorry, it took me a min to type that last word. A little girl died here, and the charged knows more than she is saying. I get overwhelmed from time to time.....
the state must prove its case; thus i am a more than willing participant of the system to wait for the defense to present theirs. all i know is, if i were innocent, and i were sitting in a chair in a courtroom facing life/death removal from "my" life as I knew it...i'd want someone like me saying "give me all you got state and defense equally."
Yeah, but if it were you, you'd a spoke up by now......huh?
the state must prove its case; thus i am a more than willing participant of the system to wait for the defense to present theirs. all i know is, if i were innocent, and i were sitting in a chair in a courtroom facing life/death removal from "my" life as I knew it...i'd want someone like me saying "give me all you got state and defense equally."
Yeah, but if it were you, you'd a spoke up by now......huh?
My conduct would have been most certainly different, yet we are all f*cked up in our own way...who the hell knows. ICA obviously isn't equipped with life sustaining tools, maybe she was always taught to rug sweep and deny and pretend it isn't happening and it'all go away. ICA was how old when this began? 21'ish? If from a dysfunctional family than had not the time to detox poor behavioral thinking and cultivate healthy actions.
thank goodness this isn't my family is all i can say...and mine is no normal rockwell painting!
bruins win!
If I remember correctly Scott Peterson was convicted on a little more than circumstantial evidence... isn't he the one the fed his wife to the sharks outside the Golden Gate?
Immie
Yep, but there was no evidence linking him to that other than a missing boat anchor. Look up the case. They ended up with two bodies yes (which was the closer for the conviction), but they got a body in this case as well. ~BH
Well, her hair was in the pair of pliers and there was a witness that saw him loading a "bulk" according to the article into his truck on the morning of his "fishing trip".
In the Anthony case, there is nothing even remotely like that.
Was Caylee's DNA even found in the trunk of the car? I would think that if he body had been left in the trunk long enough to decompose, her DNA would be found in the trunk.
Immie
If I remember correctly Scott Peterson was convicted on a little more than circumstantial evidence... isn't he the one the fed his wife to the sharks outside the Golden Gate?
Immie
Yep, but there was no evidence linking him to that other than a missing boat anchor. Look up the case. They ended up with two bodies yes (which was the closer for the conviction), but they got a body in this case as well. ~BH
Well, her hair was in the pair of pliers and there was a witness that saw him loading a "bulk" according to the article into his truck on the morning of his "fishing trip".
In the Anthony case, there is nothing even remotely like that.
Was Caylee's DNA even found in the trunk of the car? I would think that if he body had been left in the trunk long enough to decompose, her DNA would be found in the trunk.
Immie
Are you even following this case? Of course her hair was found in the car. Actually, it was found in the trunk! Know what that means? = circumstantial evidence. One of her toys could have been put in the trunk at anytime. Hell, My daughter's hair is in our trunk because that's where we keep her broken down stroller.
As for Peterson, "Hair on the pliers"? Same thing. Hell, My wife's hair seems to wrap around my fingers on numerous items that I grab daily. And the "Witness seeing him load a bulk item into his truck? = circumstantial evidence again. So what, people load crap into their trucks all the time. It could be recycled cans, bottles, trash ect.
What you really need is alot of blood, and I mean alot of blood. However, The smell of death in my opinion border lines circumstantial. Who the hell is gonna run over an animal, and then put it inside the trunk of their car? I don't believe that she claimed that, I think she claimed it was an old box of Pizza, but that's even more entertaining than the former. Hopefully I think that you get my point. ~BH
I don't see where this matters. The defense claims drowning and no foul play = no blood.
The States case is poisoning and suffocation = no blood.
JB fool is trying to get to the no blood point across right now which is stupid, everyone agrees there was no blood.
He also just put into evidence there was possibly female DNA on the shovel, idiot. Again it's his claim she didn't try to bury Caylee
eta: He's trying to say DNA on shovel but not tape. Lame. It wasn't her shovel and the DNA can't be linked to her or Caylee
It seems some don't think a person can be convicted on circumstantial evidence........
Not true, if you mean me. However, I think in this case, the circumstantial evidence can all be explained away and that is all that the defense must do. They don't have to find the real killer... um if it is not Casey.
As I said, I have not watched the trial, but from what I have seen the prosecution has not done their job very well. We will just have to wait and see.
Immie
Um, apparently you DID miss the DT's opening statement. They profess to know Caylee drowned in the family pool, an accident. According to them, they don't really have to explain away anything. Caylee is dead from an accident. And yes, the trial is still going to have to go on, because ICA, apparently, at this point, is the ONLY witness they have to testify to their so-called story, and she's a pathological liar. Doesn't look good for ICA, nor should it, based upon the evidence.
There's a huge hole the defense can't explain away, that 31 day hole where she didn't report the child missing.
Granted. I don't disagree with you, but that doesn't mean they can't explain it. It seems to me that they initially tried to say that she was not missing those 31 days. Then again, it also seems the prosecution has proven that she was.
Immie
You can always put yourself in the shoes of the jury, they are you and me. If my child was missing, I would report it immediately. I wouldn't go shopping and dancing.
Yep, but there was no evidence linking him to that other than a missing boat anchor. Look up the case. They ended up with two bodies yes (which was the closer for the conviction), but they got a body in this case as well. ~BH
Well, her hair was in the pair of pliers and there was a witness that saw him loading a "bulk" according to the article into his truck on the morning of his "fishing trip".
In the Anthony case, there is nothing even remotely like that.
Was Caylee's DNA even found in the trunk of the car? I would think that if he body had been left in the trunk long enough to decompose, her DNA would be found in the trunk.
Immie
Hair, odor, flies and fatty acids.
Yep, but there was no evidence linking him to that other than a missing boat anchor. Look up the case. They ended up with two bodies yes (which was the closer for the conviction), but they got a body in this case as well. ~BH
Well, her hair was in the pair of pliers and there was a witness that saw him loading a "bulk" according to the article into his truck on the morning of his "fishing trip".
In the Anthony case, there is nothing even remotely like that.
Was Caylee's DNA even found in the trunk of the car? I would think that if he body had been left in the trunk long enough to decompose, her DNA would be found in the trunk.
Immie
Are you even following this case? Of course her hair was found in the car. Actually, it was found in the trunk! Know what that means? = circumstantial evidence. One of her toys could have been put in the trunk at anytime. Hell, My daughter's hair is in our trunk because that's where we keep her broken down stroller.
As for Peterson, "Hair on the pliers"? Same thing. Hell, My wife's hair seems to wrap around my fingers on numerous items that I grab daily. And the "Witness seeing him load a bulk item into his truck? = circumstantial evidence again. So what, people load crap into their trucks all the time. It could be recycled cans, bottles, trash ect.
What you really need is alot of blood, and I mean alot of blood. However, The smell of death in my opinion border lines circumstantial. Who the hell is gonna run over an animal, and then put it inside the trunk of their car? I don't believe that she claimed that, I think she claimed it was an old box of Pizza, but that's even more entertaining than the former. Hopefully I think that you get my point. ~BH
It has Immie, the hair can be traced as matenrally linking Cindy, Caylee and ICA as the donors....excluding GeorgeWhen I brought up the question, I mentioned I had not been watching the trial. Obviousely you did not read that. I was getting bits and pieces from the local news which has been covering the trial extensively because I am in Central Florida and this case is hot around here.
I asked the question, because what I am hearing is that the prosecution has done a piss poor job in this trial. Obviously there are some on the board that disagree with me. I believe Casey is guilty and have believed so since she was reported as missing. I don't want her to walk, but it seems that there has been nothing to directly tie her into the murder.
On the other hand, those on the board that disagree with me, seem to think that even if the prosecution has done such a piss poor job, the defense has screwed up even more so.
Now, regarding "her" hair, from what I understand they could not prove that the hair belonged to Caylee. And you are right, a some hair in the trunk would be explainable. On the other hand, from what I can tell, the prosecution has not presented any evidence of other body fluids belonging to Caylee in the trunk. How the hell can that be possible?
Immie
If they dump it, they're screwed.
Then you seem to think they are screwed either way.
Maybe you are right. Maybe the Prosecution has done a better job than I realized or maybe the defense was incompetent from the beginning and dug a hole too deep to get out of.
I still don't think the prosecution has actually proven it was Casey that committed the murder. Maybe though, the defense did it for them?
Immie
Beyond a reasonable doubt, I believe they have. We'll just have to differ in opinion.
Yep, but there was no evidence linking him to that other than a missing boat anchor. Look up the case. They ended up with two bodies yes (which was the closer for the conviction), but they got a body in this case as well. ~BH
Well, her hair was in the pair of pliers and there was a witness that saw him loading a "bulk" according to the article into his truck on the morning of his "fishing trip".
In the Anthony case, there is nothing even remotely like that.
Was Caylee's DNA even found in the trunk of the car? I would think that if he body had been left in the trunk long enough to decompose, her DNA would be found in the trunk.
Immie
Hair, odor, flies and fatty acids.
Hey!
I'm the defense here remember? I don't have to explain why. That is your job.
I only have to raise enough doubt to convince the jury that it was done by someone else besides my client.
Immie
Actually, when the DT puts out the explanation like that, they do have some proving to do, if they want any cred with the jury. If the DT had gone with, 'we don't know who killed Caylee, but neither does the Pros.....' that might have gone better with them.
Ain't hindsight grand?
Immie
