[QUOTE=BagMinge104;30933384]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.[/QUOTE]
Except that alternate theory would make Occam spin in his grave.
ITT: Armchair lawyers.
You were not in the courtroom. You did not hear all the evidence. You were not on the jury. The 10 minute news piece you watched does not make you an expert in this case. She was found innocent. She is innocent. She did not murder her child.
[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;30933492]ITT: Armchair lawyers.
You were not in the courtroom. You did not hear all the evidence. You were not on the jury. The 10 minute news piece you watched does not make you an expert in this case. She was found innocent. She is innocent. She did not murder her child.[/QUOTE]
Just like people who were exonerated post-execution were actually murders?
[QUOTE=Mingebox;30933535]Just like people who were exonerated post-execution were actually murders?[/QUOTE]
If there was evidence that proves her guilt, then yes, she would be guilty. However, there is no such , so she is innocent.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;30933295]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."[/QUOTE]
I guess that does make some sense.
Nancy Grace said something about the devil dancing and little angels in heaven. I think she's losing it. Or already did, whichever is better.
[QUOTE=Doneeh;30933977]Nancy Grace said something about the devil dancing and little angels in heaven. I think she's losing it. Or already did, whichever is better.[/QUOTE]
I think nancy grace being homeless is better
[QUOTE=Reactors;30919537]So let me get this right, I just want an opinion on this.
If I were to kill someone, or do any crime, and there wasn't strict evidence saying I did it, could I just have my lawyer put emphasis on reasonable doubt, and possibly get away with it?[/QUOTE]
judicial system 101
Is it bad that the thread in GD about the guy accidently killing his own dog upsets me more than this?
[QUOTE=Jmir 54;30934903]Is it bad that the thread in GD about the guy accidently killing his own dog upsets me more than this?[/QUOTE]
This thread shouldn't upset you at all
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30935008]This thread shouldn't upset you at all[/QUOTE]
I just don't care because theres a shitload more bad things going on out in the world.
Why do they feel a need to report trials.
Reporting rather large crimes and trials often makes the situation worse if it is done nationally/internationally on a massive scale all the damn time.
[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;30933577]If there was evidence that proves her guilt, then yes, she would be guilty. However, there is no such , so she is innocent.[/QUOTE]
I'm glad you have some bizarre one-way faith in the entirely fallible justice system and have never heard of the appeal to authority fallacy. "Armchair Lawyer" isn't an argument, it's an admission of stupidity.
[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]
Also, on the OJ note, it was the civil suits that eventually ruined him, and while this isn't really analogous, she still has room to get fucked for her other actions.
Not that I endorse fucking anybody here, I'm not really interested in the details of this garbage and the media coverage is too spotty for me to make an opinion off of.
[QUOTE=BagMinge104;30933085]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.
[B]Nope for matching (You can't prove it was a certain person by shoeprint: I've seen some cases where criminals wore shoes several sizes bigger than what they normally wore), and I don't really see the prints being in any readable state anyways after 6 months, if only due to other animal traffic and weather. Speaking of there, there was a hurricane in that area and flooding. Still think you can prove it?[/B]
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.
[B]It was dry in that area till about August so she could have been dumped there before it WAS swampy.[/B]
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.
[B]If I were going to buy some shoes that I was going to throw away after a crime, I would get it somewhere where there would be as little a paper trail as possible. Like some second hand store or something, preferably a decent distance away and while disguised. See above for getting wrong size shoes as well, to throw it off a bit more. She was even buying things with stolen money.[/B]
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.
[B]That's still, by definition, suffocation.[/B]
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.
[B]No issues here but either way it is felony murder because the action could cause harm.[/B]
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.
[B]Gloves? Every criminal knows that. Even then, insect and animal activity had eaten at the sticky residue. Getting wet and then baking in the Florida heat would change the consistency of those indentations and the fingerprints would deteriorate, too. Oh, and 3 pieces of duct tape were used and her nose was covered according to the prosecutor. One across the mouth and a Cris cross that ran from the mouth to the nostrils.[/B]
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.
[B]Above.[/B]
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.
[B]At least for hair, hair net or shower cap. Not sure where you are going with this. And it's possible that none came off: It's not like Cayle was grabbing at her hair. As well the only hairs found stuck in the duct tape and were Caylee's during testimony. Aforementioned hurricane and flooding would remove any stray hairs they may have landing on the ground.[/B]
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.
[B]And if they didn't, it would be because it's a very low traffic area, meaning it would be longer for the body to be found. She also could watch to see if anyone was looking there without bringing any suspicion on herself... she could drive by every so often (until she was incarcerated).[/B]
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]What are you talking about here. Faking computer evidence is easy. If they did contract someone to fake history records (Which is what I'm assuming they use), that person would probably tell the police when they hear about what happened. And even then, It was a boyfriend's MySpace page that had a cartoon with chloroform in the cartoon.[/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.
[B]On this point, do you have ANYTHING to back that deduction up? It's a possible motive, and nothing more.[/B]
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.
[B]No, there's little hard proof to go on for the murder charge. Child abuse however is a different story, just from not reporting her missing.[/B]
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]What? It's not hearsay. She didn't report her 2 year old child missing for over a month. There was circumstantial evidence found pointing to her murdering her child. Even if her family was conspiring against her as you suggested, why didn't she report the missing child? And why was she lying to the police about a nanny? For someone innocent she made it pretty easy to think she would be the killer grasping at straws.[/B][/quote][/QUOTE]
I think I did an ok job of messing up your deductions. I even found where you copy pasted that response from, and a few comments down someone trumped it on other stuff I didn't hear about. I added in some of the points they made as well, of course.
This is crazy, I mean they didn't have enough evidence to prove she undeniably did it, but getting off with no real charges is insane.
She gets away with absolutely no charges?
[QUOTE=Pepin;30929324]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.[/QUOTE]
At least it's actually some kind of news and not "kanye west interruptss taylor swift!!" all day long
If this Casey Anthony didn't kill the 2-year-old, then who did?
[editline]6th July 2011[/editline]
I mean, now that she didn't get convicted it technically means she didn't kill her even if she did.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;30941701]If this Casey Anthony didn't kill the 2-year-old, then who did?
[/QUOTE]
that's literally not the point of anything
[QUOTE=Sanius;30941829]that's literally not the point of anything[/QUOTE]
Yes it is.
Do you realize someone else, prior thought of as completely unconnected, might now be tried?
[QUOTE=Reimu;30942107]Yes it is.
Do you realize someone else, prior thought of as completely unconnected, might now be tried?[/QUOTE]
that has nothing to do with this case
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;30935345]I'm glad you have some bizarre one-way faith in the entirely fallible justice system and have never heard of the appeal to authority fallacy. "Armchair Lawyer" isn't an argument, it's an admission of stupidity.[/QUOTE]
It is not an appeal to authority because I never stated that their authority is what is making their decision correct. I said that they know much more about the case than you do, and they ruled innocent.
[QUOTE=Sanius;30942400]that has nothing to do with this case[/QUOTE]
It's connected to the topic.
Deal w/ it.
[img]http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnx7ltyAV81qmnwr9o1_500.jpg[/img]
Saw this image on Tumblr, my god I can't breath.
They should get together, they'd make a cute couple.
[QUOTE=Reimu;30948791]It's connected to the topic.
Deal w/ it.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter, and it will never happen anyway.
This outcome pleases me to no end. The entire trial was a massive seemingly never-ending clusterfuck that I had to watch every time I passed through my living room, passed a TV in a store, or ate in a restaurant dumb enough to have the TVs set to a news network. The whole thing was a a publicized abomination of concerned soccer moms and judgmental fuck-knobs acting like they had qualifications to decide if another person lived or died. They disregarded the lack of evidence to emotionally and financially destroy a person who hadn't been found guilty of anything.
That the bastards never got the satisfaction of seeing their sense of self-entitled justice and revenge come to fruition is the highlight of my week.
Addendum: The nature of the case was quite tragic, and nobody likes to hear about a dead child. I do have some notion that she was somehow involved in the death, at least in complacency with hiding the body; but that isn't why I'm happy. My opinion is purely one of seeing people who spent years castigating a dead girls mother for a crime she hadn't even been convicted left without their sick gratification in seeing others imprisoned or executed.
[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;30944102]It is not an appeal to authority because I never stated that their authority is what is making their decision correct. I said that they know much more about the case than you do, and they ruled innocent.[/QUOTE]
"Armchair X" has meant "person who attempts to be an X but fails by way of being an amateur" since before WWII. It is an appeal to authority when used as a pejorative in relationship to any issue. What's more, what you just said is actually an appeal to authority anyway.
Might help if you knew [url=https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Argument_from_authority]what shit meant[/url] [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authority"]before you posted.[/URL]
To throw something directly on topic, I heard an interesting tirade from a federal prosecutor who was surprised at the outcome, because they thought the case had extremely strong circumstantial evidence.
From the little I've read about this case, I feel like I should be very happy I haven't followed it very well.
As far as I can tell, the best part about all of this is how spectacularly Jay Leno's Anthony Trial joke [I]bombed [/I]in front of his live audience.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.