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.
Duct tape was NOT the "murder weapon." It's been proven that it was placed over or near her mouth AFTER she was already dead. Dr. G only testified that her finding would be that duct tape placed in that manner would constitute a homicide, but she DID NOT say that the duct tape caused her death.
As I've pointed out before, from records and testimony, Casey was driving Lazzaro's jeep between June 17th and June 22, 2008. So who was driving "her" car????
This is a capitol murder case.
Capital offenses include but are not limited to:
Murder in the first degree - The planned, premeditated murder of another person.
Treason in time of war.
Espionage in time of war.
Cowardice and fleeing in the face of the enemy in time of war.
Killing a police officer in the commission of a felony.
Killing a kidnap victim.
Killing a carjack victim.
Has a premeditated or planned murder been proven? No. A computer search for chloroform has been proven but not the application.
-Duct tape (where's the fingerprints, DNA or any scientific evidence linking Casey to the tape? There is none.)
-Not the law. State does not have to prove motive, although I think they have (Sure they have to prove motive and premeditation in this type of murder trial)
-Done and (lol the State has NOT linked Casey to any murder weapon, what the hell are you talking about?)
-Done she lived at the home, had sole access to the car and was Caylee's mother with primary custody and access to the dump site. Add to that the guilt associated with deliberate lies is common sense you can toss out only to find a doubt as easliy as you can assume guilt. (Let me elaborate, the state has not proven that Casey Anthony is the one who put her daughter in the woods, has not proven that she is the one who took her daughter's life, the only think they have proven is a smell in a car that is subjective to the eye of the beholder or nose, and items in the home have been linked to Caylee (a house she lived in) but not to the actual murder or death of Caylee via the actions of Casey)
-Aint gonna happen - thats why its a circumstantial case
You said it best at the end, it's a circumstantial case, in which the reasonable doubt is very heavy and this is a case based on THEORY not fact.
I stopped reading at the bolded.You don't know what your talking about.
Oohh, DayDreamer? TW?
It's a reg, check out the last post they made. They started out acting like they knew very little regarding the Anthony case (or is it the Anderson's) *haha*...and now they are full blown into listing all the facts.
I say it's a sock puppet all the way!
And that makes them even more pathetic, can't post in their own name.
It's unfortunate, but those of us who actually want the truth (regardless what it is) have to go to alternate sources from HLN which sets the stage for all the other "reports" on the news regarding this trial. It takes some digging, but of course you and R.D., et al., can't be bothered. Therefore, just accusing those of us who read and listen clearly to BOTH SIDES of the evidence are labeled pathetic, liars, sock puppets, blah blah blah. So typical of today's reactionary attitude. Now that's what's pathetic.
It's unfortunate, but those of us who actually want the truth (regardless what it is) have to go to alternate sources from HLN which sets the stage for all the other "reports" on the news regarding this trial. It takes some digging, but of course you and R.D., et al., can't be bothered. Therefore, just accusing those of us who read and listen clearly to BOTH SIDES of the evidence are labeled pathetic, liars, sock puppets, blah blah blah. So typical of today's reactionary attitude. Now that's what's pathetic.
Let me educate you chatters some more.
First degree murder: a murder that is committed with premeditation or during the course of a serious felony (as kidnapping) or that otherwise (as because of extreme cruelty) requires the most serious punishment under the law.
OK, has a kidnapping been proven here? No. Has the course of a serious felony been proven here? No. The THEORY that child endangerment hasn't been proven, but yet it has been theorized. Has premeditation been proven? No. Just searches for chloroform and self defense on her computer has been shown, but not linked to the actual death of Caylee. Has extreme cruelty been proven? Nope.
Nothing has been proven, just theories as to "reasons why" actions were what they were and I guarantee you there are logical members of this jury who will not convict Casey. Unfortunately, but it's true. The State's Attorney's have a weak circumstantial evidence case and they know it. The weak circumstantial evidence case is exactly why Ashton keeps trying to limit testimony, limited access to evidence, and is using the type of "hide the weasel" tactics you see in court. His actions PROVE he knows this is a weak case.
It's unfortunate, but those of us who actually want the truth (regardless what it is) have to go to alternate sources from HLN which sets the stage for all the other "reports" on the news regarding this trial. It takes some digging, but of course you and R.D., et al., can't be bothered. Therefore, just accusing those of us who read and listen clearly to BOTH SIDES of the evidence are labeled pathetic, liars, sock puppets, blah blah blah. So typical of today's reactionary attitude. Now that's what's pathetic.
Remind us again who is Stacy Anderson?
Another problem with this case is the extreme lack of objectivity by the media. The presentations and breakdown of each day are given to us by former prosecutors, law enforcement specialists, and people who automatically side with the State's theories no matter what. You throw the human element of a dead child into the issue and you get the type of universal response to Casey's weirdo type behavior to this circumstantial evidence case. Taking my dislike for Baez and Casey herself out of the picture, I can objectively say the State has FAILED to prove without reasonable doubt the murder of Caylee Anthony at the hands of her mother. I'm sorry but if I'm on that jury I convict her for being deceptive to the police and nothing else has been proven beyond reasonable doubt for me. Keep watching Nancy Grace and letting this bald headed TruTV guy tell you how to think.
Another problem with this case is the extreme lack of objectivity by the media. The presentations and breakdown of each day are given to us by former prosecutors, law enforcement specialists, and people who automatically side with the State's theories no matter what. You throw the human element of a dead child into the issue and you get the type of universal response to Casey's weirdo type behavior to this circumstantial evidence case. Taking my dislike for Baez and Casey herself out of the picture, I can objectively say the State has FAILED to prove without reasonable doubt the murder of Caylee Anthony at the hands of her mother. I'm sorry but if I'm on that jury I convict her for being deceptive to the police and nothing else has been proven beyond reasonable doubt for me. Keep watching Nancy Grace and letting this bald headed TruTV guy tell you how to think.
The media frenzy over this has been going on for over two years. Every report, every tabloid "story" has Casey Anthony portrayed exactly the way the prosecution set her up in this trial, with not a single one of those story-tellers bothering to dig very deep into the entire dysfunctional family's habits and activities.
Another thing that I'm gonna rant about. The clear badgering of "experts" presented by the defense team, and the clear attempt to "cheapen" the "value" of an expert's testimony by the State (Ashton) and the media is truly annoying and lacks objectivity. The testimony of the well respected Dr. Werner Spitz was skimmed over and was really eye popping to me. Dr. Werner Spitz raised more reasonable doubt in my mind than can be overcome by the tactics of the slimy Ashton.
Another thing that I'm gonna rant about. The clear badgering of "experts" presented by the defense team, and the clear attempt to "cheapen" the "value" of an expert's testimony by the State (Ashton) and the media is truly annoying and lacks objectivity. The testimony of the well respected Dr. Werner Spitz was skimmed over and was really eye popping to me. Dr. Werner Spitz raised more reasonable doubt in my mind than can be overcome by the tactics of the slimy Ashton.
The judge doesn't seem to think there is any "badgering" taking place, he has the authority to stop such things, amirite??
Well then make your case, genius. You still haven't.
Ironically, you don't change your MO from topic to topic on this message board. You just assume everyone is going to take your word for something because you will unequivocally state what is, or is not, and that should be enough. (Well, R.D., sez, so it must be true...) Sorry, but you've never been able to suck me in with that strategy.
Another thing that I'm gonna rant about. The clear badgering of "experts" presented by the defense team, and the clear attempt to "cheapen" the "value" of an expert's testimony by the State (Ashton) and the media is truly annoying and lacks objectivity. The testimony of the well respected Dr. Werner Spitz was skimmed over and was really eye popping to me. Dr. Werner Spitz raised more reasonable doubt in my mind than can be overcome by the tactics of the slimy Ashton.
The judge doesn't seem to think there is any "badgering" taking place, he has the authority to stop such things, amirite??
This judge has sided with the State the entire time. The unprecedented request for the defense to disclose every single opinion a busy expert may make is a clear advantage to the State. Over the course of history in United State's courts this type of request is unprecedented and unique. The State won a huge legal battle with that court order. This gives the State ample time to cast shadows on experts in a circumstantial evidence case by using lines like "you don't practice in the State of Florida" (do practices change in other states?), "you have never been an expert in the state of Florida" etc etc etc, the handling of the defense experts has derailed the flow of this case which is being allowed by this slow lipped judge who clearly and I mean clearly sides with the State no matter what.
There are judges in the court system who side with the State automatically. You clearly don't understand the way court systems work in the United States. In most cases side deals and plea bargains are given to criminals through the State's Attorney and the judge merely signs off on it. These judges are programmed to side with the State in most cases. Judge Perry is a horrible judge, slow, and not objective. This case has so many aspects that will be subject to appeal with the way this judge has handled it, it isn't even funny.
Another thing that I'm gonna rant about. The clear badgering of "experts" presented by the defense team, and the clear attempt to "cheapen" the "value" of an expert's testimony by the State (Ashton) and the media is truly annoying and lacks objectivity. The testimony of the well respected Dr. Werner Spitz was skimmed over and was really eye popping to me. Dr. Werner Spitz raised more reasonable doubt in my mind than can be overcome by the tactics of the slimy Ashton.
So you won't be taping Dr. Henry Lee
In Session ALWAYS cuts to commercials right during the heart of the defense's case. Here this expert is totally disproving the theory that the duct tape was on Caylee prior to her decomposing, and that Casey's DNA would have "worn off" and they cut to a fu**ing commercial? If that was an expert presented by Ashton there is no way they go to this commercial break.
When we are talking about a murder trial this is what I need:
- A murder weapon
- A motive
- Link the defendant to the murder weapon
- Link the defendant to the crime scene or scenes
- Or a confession
What do we have in this case? Weird behavior by the defendant, a smell, no DNA or blood evidence, no linking of the defendant to a murder weapon (tape?), no linking of a defendant to the recovery scene. I'm sorry but the entire world has jumped to conclusions here. Like I said I "think" she's guilty of being involved or taking her daughter's life but in the court of law the burden of proof is on the state and the state hasn't proven without a shadow of a doubt the guilt of this defendant.
-Duct tape
-Not the law. State does not have to prove motive, although I think they have
-Done and
-Done she lived at the home, had sole access to the car and was Caylee's mother with primary custody and access to the dump site. Add to that the guilt associated with deliberate lies is common sense you can toss out only to find a doubt as easliy as you can assume guilt.
-Aint gonna happen - thats why its a circumstantial case
Duct tape was NOT the "murder weapon." It's been proven that it was placed over or near her mouth AFTER she was already dead. Dr. G only testified that her finding would be that duct tape placed in that manner would constitute a homicide, but she DID NOT say that the duct tape caused her death.
As I've pointed out before, from records and testimony, Casey was driving Lazzaro's jeep between June 17th and June 22, 2008. So who was driving "her" car????
I agree. Belvin won't allow the defense to offer different possibilities for certain "results" testified to for the prosecution, but just this morning allowed Ashton to offer several "what if" scenarios as a result of the testimony of the female FBI toxicology expert (can't remember her name, but won't even try for fear of getting bashed by the righteous here).
At some point after the trial, someone will post a count of the number of times Belvin sustained a prosecution objection and overruled a defense objection.
( I'm just having fun at your expense 'cause it's so important to ya)
-Duct tape
-Not the law. State does not have to prove motive, although I think they have
-Done and
-Done she lived at the home, had sole access to the car and was Caylee's mother with primary custody and access to the dump site. Add to that the guilt associated with deliberate lies is common sense you can toss out only to find a doubt as easliy as you can assume guilt.
-Aint gonna happen - thats why its a circumstantial case
Duct tape was NOT the "murder weapon." It's been proven that it was placed over or near her mouth AFTER she was already dead. Dr. G only testified that her finding would be that duct tape placed in that manner would constitute a homicide, but she DID NOT say that the duct tape caused her death.
As I've pointed out before, from records and testimony, Casey was driving Lazzaro's jeep between June 17th and June 22, 2008. So who was driving "her" car????
No one. It had Caylee's dead body in the back, and it stunk.
Ohh, but what about the rebuttal? Hippo.Actually, You just made yourself out to be a hypocrite, because you have given your opinions on this case just as I have. Someone's "opinion" on the case or her guilt is not the final chapter now is it? It's called a forum where people discuss the case and give their opinions on that specific case.
This isn't Maggie's fucking classroom, and it certainly is not yours. I'll form whatever opinions that I like. Hell, I already assumed she was guilty long before this circus side show of a trial if you want to know the truth. And hey, at the end of the day it don't matter what I think.Even though you and Maggie prefer to act as if my opinion will influence any outcome. So quit with that weak minded arguement. ~BH
I'm viewing this entire case as a juror should, and as jurors are INSTRUCTED to. Case closed.
You are so predictable, so lame.
Magpie, are you going towhen ICA gets the chair???
Au contraire. I even care what YOU think. I ponder it whilst I take a dump.
Is that where you do all your heavy thinking?
I match the info with the movement. Yours belongs there.
