• Casey Anthony found not guilty of murder
    437 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30927253]And I'd support a negligence charge brought against her if that's truly the case Why wasn't there one[/QUOTE] I could've sworn I heard the jury say that they found her not guilty on a charge of criminal negligence or something along those lines. I may be remembering incorrectly though. [b]Edit:[/b] Nope, sorry, I was getting it confused with aggravated child abuse.
someone post some videos of nancy grace's reaction
[QUOTE=RBM11;30927913]Then some psycho lady came on screaming. I'll try to get a transcript: "Joining us, Susan Moss, Child Advocate, New York..." "WEVE BEEN OJ'D THIS IS THE WORST THING TO HAPPEN TO FLORIDA SINCE THE HANGING [unintelligible]... HOW DID THEY MISS THE DUCT TAPE?... HOW DID THEY MISS THE CHLOROFORM SEARCHES... THIS JURY IGNORED THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE... APPARENTLY THEY PICKED THE 12 REMAINING PEOPLE ON EARTH WHO THINK THE EARTH IS FLAT" Not quite an exact transcript[/QUOTE] OJ is a verb now
[QUOTE=Atlascore;30928017]You actually replied to someone on Facebook? [sp]Non-existent[/sp]Lord have mercy on your soul.[/QUOTE] antisocial + criticizing others for being social + angsty atheist = shut up
i can only wait till some crazed gunman shoots her dead
[QUOTE=Ermac20;30928376]i can only wait till some crazed gunman shoots her dead[/QUOTE] thanks for at least admitting that you're a terrible person. saves us a lot of trouble
not really
I think Casey Anthony is at more risk for some sort of harassment or attack - whether verbal, physical, whatever - just because she isn't a celebrity (past the whole trial). OJ was a star football player, murderer or not. Anthony is just some girl from Florida, who in the course of 2+ years has turned into the most detested woman in the US.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulO8rl7z5xQ[/media] Nancy Grace's reaction is about 12:10 in i want more [editline]5th July 2011[/editline] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyH6XDaenJs[/media]
I hope that at least everyone here can agree she is a horrible person for not reporting her missing child for 31 days. I personally believe that it's more likely she actually did it than not, but the prosecution was shit and there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict. Better to let one Casey Anthony go due to lack of evidence than one hundred innocent people get convicted on circumstantial evidence and sensationalism.
Why the fuck is she showing this innocent and playful looking footage of Caylee whilst saying "HER BODY. DECOMPOSED. NOTHING BUT SKELETON. GNAWED ON BY ANIMALS. DISARRANGED THERE IN A TRASH DUMP." I hate using this new ITN buzzword "sensationalist" but come the fuck on, this is just ridiculous.
Wasn't Nancy Grace's husband murdered, and the suspect found innocent?
I really hated this case because it was the only thing on the news during the day. Though I'm expecting about a week of analysis.
Nevermind, he was convicted.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;30928515]What. What I meant was there are a lot of idiots on Facebook (It kinda has 500m people on it), getting in arguments with people over things like a little kid being murdered almost always end up in "DURR DAETH PENALTY NAO" or some other idiotic dribble. Which you know is kinda what the fucking guy I was quoting was complaining about, nice lack of reading comprehension.[/QUOTE] Oh, well, yeah sorry.
I'll say to you all what I did to the people on my facebook. To those of you concerned with the verdict reached in the Casey Anthony trial, take solace in the fact that her life has been ruined. With a trial publicized on such a grand scale, it's impossible to avoid the fact that people will always look upon her as 'That woman who killed her baby daughter.'; she will never be able to find a job, walk in public without being boo'd, etc. Sometimes not receiving the death penalty is more punishment than receiving it. I wouldn't doubt that she'll eventually commit suicide. I didn't really follow the case much, so I can't really form much of an opinion either way as to her guilt, but I can safely say she'll suffer. Look at OJ Simpson, imagine where he'd be if he wasn't famous to start with.
Why everyone says "what the hell herp she guilty derp", I will never know. The way it works is, innocent until proven guilty, not the inverse. Until you show me solid, not the circumstantial bullshit everyone is going off of, I refuse to believe her guilt. I think she's a lying bitch, and is something of a whore, but she's not a killer until there is hard evidence.
[QUOTE=NuclearAnnhilation;30927977]I've gotten into countless facebook arguments today No one gives a fuck what you "think" happened. It's what the evidence says and the little bits and pieces that they have don't click to together. "DEATH PENALTY NOAW" You want her to die on suspicion? People are fucking stupid.[/QUOTE] The death penalty (all law really) is always always on suspicion. No matter how unlikely a cause is, it's still possible to some degree. My father and I were discussing this earlier today, he was saying in the defense of the death penalty (Which he does appose, it was for the sake of discussion. ) "There's certain circumstances that can't be dis-proven, such as when a prisoner in a jail stabs a security guard in front of witnesses." One may counter the argument with the possibility that all of the witnesses conspired against both the murdered guard and prisoner, used connections to have evidence placed, etc. It's highly unlikely, but there's still the possibility that it happened. From a ontological perspective, one could also argue (don't try to dispute it, it's off topic) that one cannot prove their perceptions to be the truth. One might tricked into believing that things are not as they truly are, or hallucinate/dream up the whole thing. It's a bit silly feeling, but ontology as whole is that way at times.
[QUOTE=rosar0980;30929387]Why everyone says "what the hell herp she guilty derp", I will never know. The way it works is, innocent until proven guilty, not the inverse. Until you show me solid, not the circumstantial bullshit everyone is going off of, I refuse to believe her guilt. I think she's a lying bitch, and is something of a whore, but she's not a killer until there is hard evidence.[/QUOTE] Who do you think murdered Emmit Till?
I've never heard of this before, what's the big deal?
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;30930622]I've never heard of this before, what's the big deal?[/QUOTE] I'd ask if you had been living under a rock but I'm certain you would have heard it even there. have you been living under a rock in another galaxy?
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence[/url] Why the hell wasn't she charged for this? Even if there's no hard evidence for murder, not reporting a missing 2 year old child for 31 days?
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;30929632]The death penalty (all law really) is always always on suspicion. No matter how unlikely a cause is, it's still possible to some degree. My father and I were discussing this earlier today, he was saying in the defense of the death penalty (Which he does appose, it was for the sake of discussion. ) "There's certain circumstances that can't be dis-proven, such as when a prisoner in a jail stabs a security guard in front of witnesses." One may counter the argument with the possibility that all of the witnesses conspired against both the murdered guard and prisoner, used connections to have evidence placed, etc. It's highly unlikely, but there's still the possibility that it happened. From a ontological perspective, one could also argue (don't try to dispute it, it's off topic) that one cannot prove their perceptions to be the truth. One might tricked into believing that things are not as they truly are, or hallucinate/dream up the whole thing. It's a bit silly feeling, but ontology as whole is that way at times.[/QUOTE] that's why it's called "reasonable doubt" not "any and all doubt"
[QUOTE=Lazor;30931450]that's why it's called "reasonable doubt" not "any and all doubt"[/QUOTE] This as well.
[QUOTE=Sanius;30927966]why are people like this allowed to be on live tv[/QUOTE] because people uneducated about law agree with every word she has said don't get me wrong I'm positive she did it but if the prosecution fucks about then that's what happens "Rather have 10 guilty men go free than one innocent suffer"- Blackmoore
[QUOTE=Sanius;30927966]why are people like this allowed to be on live tv[/QUOTE] Nancy Grace's Tv show Has a Hotline number you can call in and show off your opinion
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;30929360]I'll say to you all what I did to the people on my facebook. To those of you concerned with the verdict reached in the Casey Anthony trial, take solace in the fact that her life has been ruined. With a trial publicized on such a grand scale, it's impossible to avoid the fact that people will always look upon her as 'That woman who killed her baby daughter.'; she will never be able to find a job, walk in public without being boo'd, etc. Sometimes not receiving the death penalty is more punishment than receiving it. I wouldn't doubt that she'll eventually commit suicide. I didn't really follow the case much, so I can't really form much of an opinion either way as to her guilt, but I can safely say she'll suffer. Look at OJ Simpson, imagine where he'd be if he wasn't famous to start with.[/QUOTE] I don't think she did it though: [quote]Something to think about Missing Swamp Evidence Hard core tangible evidence that would link the killer to Cayle. 1. During the swamp investigation there would have been footprints left behind by the person who had carried Cayle's body into the swamp to dispose of it. Even though the body had been there for six months the impressions left behind would still be present as a result of the combined weight of the person carrying Cayle and Cayle herself forcing the foot into moist ground that would leave behind a footprint. A footprint that could be matched to the killer without question. 2.The shoes of the killer would also tell the tale of who committed the crime as the swamp material from where the killer walked into the swamp and deposited the body would be present on the shoes. Given the weight of Cayle and the killer the amount of swamp material on the shoes would be considerable. The swamp material would tell exactly who carried Cayle and who the killer is given the water line on the shoes theirself. If the shoes were covered in swamp material close to the top of the shoe then the person who killed and deposited Cayle's body would be a lightweight person who would have trouble in picking their feet out of the swamp material because of their strength in countering the suction of the swamp on their feet and the combined weight of carrying Cayle pressing their foot into the swamp. This level of swamp material on the shoe would point to a female killer. If the swamp material was closer to the bottom of the shoe then the evidence would point to a male killer who would have the strength to both carry Cayle and avoid the suction swamp while they were walking thus resulting in a shallower foot print. 3. If someone in the family had purchased a new pair of shoes prior to the disappearence of Cayle and those shoes are now gone then those shoes that are missing would also be a credible link to the killer. The Duct Tape 1. The duct tape was not used to suffocate Cayle but used to administer a lethal dose of either gasoline or other toxic substance that would have caused Cayle to become unconscious and remain unconscious until she died of affixaition due to gas inhalation. 2.If the duct tape was used to suffocated Cayle then it would have been crimped around the nose in order to seal the nostril pathway's to not allow any oxygen into Cayle's lungs. Depending upon the condition of the tape will determine how it was used. If it was crimped then it was used to affixiate Cayle. If not and the duct tape was a straight piece that went from the mouth to the mandible then the duct tape was used to administor a chemical substance to keep Cayle sedated as well as eventually causing her to suffocate. 3.The duct tape would also tell the tale of who placed the duct tape over Cayle's mouth due to the following fact. Duct Tape is maleable meaning that it can be formed to different ridges of preferation depending upon the temperature that the duct tape is present in. Stay with me. Take a piece of duct tape and place it on your hand over the knuckles. In order to form a tight seal you will need to press rather hard on the tape with the other hand thus leaving impression's of the killers fingertip's on the left side of the tape where it was drawn across Cayle's face and at the right end of the peice of tape where the killer would have attached the duct tape to the mandible of Cayle. When the duct tape is placed in such a manner on Cayle's face the killer would had to have pressed rather hard to make the tape stick. This evidence could then be placed against anyone in the family where the finger impression in the tape would match the person in the family who killed Cayle. DNA 3.DNA at the crime scene. If there was DNA taken at the crime scene such as a hair folicle that would tell the tale of the killer being a women because of the length of the hair. Then such hair folicle would once be admissable as a anothr link to who placed Cayle's body in the smamp. 4.Whoever placed Cayle's body in the swamp knew that because of the swampy environment that the heat and microbials associated with a decaying body would cause the body to decompose faster than if the body of Cayle had merely been thrown into a dumpster or cooler area. Computer Evidence 5.Computer evidence that relates to the search for Chloroform was present during the initial police forensics but when the information was later checked with new tools the information only related to facebook page searches. This would suggest that the new computer software was specifically designed to cover up the search criteria and to return a false report. If there is anyone that the family may know a software programmer then that person may have been contracted by the family to create such a program to cover up the old searches by saying that the old searches based upon the new searches all linked to facebook pages and not the information associated with searching for Chloroform which would once again provide a link to the actual killer. [b]It is also obvious that most of the family seemed to be against Casey and the burden of having to deal with Casey's way of life at having to watch Cayle instead of being able to enjoy their life. So the family conspires against Casey by murdering Cayle where they create a sense of confusion based upon the actions such as the duct tape being placed over Cayle's mouth. The result is an emotionally charged courtroom where the jury is fed circumstantial evidence that is twisted into an emotional value to manipulate the jury into finding Casey guilty. Casey then receives the death penantly and is then sentenced to death. Once Calye is dead the family is free of the burden of having to take care of Cayle based upon the irresponsible nature of Casey that has been used as the main method of trying to convince the jury of Casey being the murderer. The prosecution has not presented any tangible evidence that would specifically link Casey to the murder of Cayle. Basically the prosecution and judge are basing their findings on general catch all punishment's that if they don't get Casey with one law they will get her with another. Such a verdict cannot be reached because there have not been any specifics presented that would link Casey to the crime of killing Cayle unequivocably and without a shadow beyond a doubt. The methods that the prosecution is using are the same types of methods used to convict men, women and child during the Salem Witch Trial's where hersey was against the 'witch' to convict them just because the community thought that they were odd and made them feel badly or the locals became sick. Later on it was discovered that the locals had become deranged because of bad wheat that lead them to the murderous acts....a finding that science discovered as true and factual and not the conspired delusional and mantic attempts to convict someone with tangible proof. Which is the same thing that is occuring in the Casey Anthony Case.[/b][/quote]
[QUOTE=BagMinge104;30933085]I don't think she did it though:[/QUOTE] Are you serious? That looks like something Jenkem would have wrote. I mean, the weight of a 2-year-old girl isn't going to make footprints stay in the swamp for 6 months, and shoes can easily be leaned. Then there's a bunch of completely inane speculation that might as well be, "If magic residue as found on her body, then we know it was actually a wizard who killed her."
Does anyone know if her parents allowed her to move back in? If I were them, she can sleep outside.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;30933295]Are you serious? That looks like something Jenkem would have wrote.[/QUOTE] isn't Jenkem the conspiracy theorist? I should clarify. Do I think that this is the definite series of events? Not entirely. But it's an entirely possible series of events, which adds to the notion of reasonable doubt. I should of said, "It's possible she didn't do it" rather than she didn't.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.