• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

CASEY ANTHONY: what do you think will happen.

She's as guilty as sin, makes me wish back for the days of gunsmoke justice...

This makes me glad to live in a nation not ruled by the prejudices of uninformed teenagers.


If you actually think she is innocent, you are the uninformed one.


I don't think she's "innocent," just not proven guilty of the specific charge - premeditated murder.

Child, you keep right on demonstrating that you don't know the facts of this case and in truth appear uninterested in them.

And do drop by our charming TNZ forum sometime. It's a good fit for you. :cool:
 
All the partying, showing no concern or care for her child, decay in her vehicle, thats all they needed I feel...
There was no decay in the vehicle at all. The defense proved that without a shadow of a doubt. Did you even watch the trial?

How much partying did she do between June 16th and July 15th? Do you even know? I'll give you a clue...testimony from witnesses described two nights out at a club. One was the evening of June 16th when it's pretty easy to think Casey may not have even known there was a problem.

No concern or care for her child? You're assuming she knew the child was dead and didn't report it. I can think of a dozen reasons why she might not have reported it.

That's why circumstantial evidence (even good circumstantial evidence relevant to the crime unlike what you've presented) isn't used to put people to death in this country.

All the defense proved was the jury was dumb enough to believe in the "my daddy touched me " defense...even if he did, does not excuse killing your own child...
 
This makes me glad to live in a nation not ruled by the prejudices of uninformed teenagers.


If you actually think she is innocent, you are the uninformed one.


I don't think she's "innocent," just not proven guilty of the specific charge - premeditated murder.

Child, you keep right on demonstrating that you don't know the facts of this case and in truth appear uninterested in them.

And do drop by our charming TNZ forum sometime. It's a good fit for you. :cool:


Grrrr...the facts are just smoke and mirrors meant to hide the truth that she is a murderer...
 
This makes me glad to live in a nation not ruled by the prejudices of uninformed teenagers.


If you actually think she is innocent, you are the uninformed one.


I don't think she's "innocent," just not proven guilty of the specific charge - premeditated murder.

Why do people have so much trouble getting this?

It's not like there are a ton of people out there proclaiming the innocence of Casey Anthony. The prosecution failed to make their case--period. We live under the rule of law, and our justice system has standards of evidence. No, we should not convict peopled based on "gut feelings" and "common sense," and certainly not sentence people to death on that basis.

I think some people are cool with pushing that idea until they're the one sitting behind the defendant's table. Then, all of a sudden they really care about the rule of law, fair trials, and rules of evidence.
 
All the defense proved was the jury was dumb enough to believe in the "my daddy touched me " defense...even if he did, does not excuse killing your own child...


So far, you're not even demonstrating that you know anything at all about the trial.

I know enough to know she got free due to a sleazy lawyer, the fact that you defending a mother who killed her child is sickening to me.
 
Grrrr...the facts are just smoke and mirrors...

:guffaw: :guffaw:

Please, you're a TNZ natural. "One of us, one of us..."


you don't get it the whole the prosecutors didn't prove their case, word of law argrument is a crock, these jurors should of had the common sense to see beyond the law and see she is guilty, everyone else did...

Sorry, but you're wrong, or at least deeply, deeply misguided.
 
:guffaw: :guffaw:

Please, you're a TNZ natural. "One of us, one of us..."


you don't get it the whole the prosecutors didn't prove their case, word of law argrument is a crock, these jurors should of had the common sense to see beyond the law and see she is guilty, everyone else did...

Sorry, but you're wrong, or at least deeply, deeply misguided.

Justice must have a human element, cold rules of law just make it into an unfeeling machine that can be manipulated, so I am not wrong or misguided.
 
you don't get it the whole the prosecutors didn't prove their case, word of law argrument is a crock, these jurors should of had the common sense to see beyond the law and see she is guilty, everyone else did...

It's hard for a statement to be more wholly mistaken than this one.
 
you don't get it the whole the prosecutors didn't prove their case, word of law argrument is a crock, these jurors should of had the common sense to see beyond the law and see she is guilty, everyone else did...

Sorry, but you're wrong, or at least deeply, deeply misguided.

Justice must have a human element, cold rules of law just make it into an unfeeling machine that can be manipulated, so I am not wrong or misguided.

If the "human element" means "damn the evidence, I say she's guilty guilty guilty!" then I am perfectly happy with keeping that out of the justice system.
 
you don't get it the whole the prosecutors didn't prove their case, word of law argrument is a crock, these jurors should of had the common sense to see beyond the law and see she is guilty, everyone else did...

It's hard for a statement to be more wholly mistaken than this one.

Justice must have a human element, cold rules of law just make it into an unfeeling machine that can be manipulated, so I am not wrong or misguided...worship the cold dead machine, sacrifice all responsibility of free thought...
 
you don't get it the whole the prosecutors didn't prove their case, word of law argrument is a crock, these jurors should of had the common sense to see beyond the law and see she is guilty, everyone else did...

Sorry, but you're wrong, or at least deeply, deeply misguided.

Justice must have a human element, cold rules of law just make it into an unfeeling machine that can be manipulated, so I am not wrong or misguided.

And the "human element" can't be manipulated? You know, with like feelings... emotions?

Puh-leeze...

The rule of law is an important pillar for our societies because only with it you can have security and at least the best possible parity of treatment (and I'm not saying it's perfect). Because you know... stuff is written down. And not dependent on random emotions.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people join internet forums to debate things they have an opinion on but no idea about.
 
Sorry, but you're wrong, or at least deeply, deeply misguided.

Justice must have a human element, cold rules of law just make it into an unfeeling machine that can be manipulated, so I am not wrong or misguided.

If the "human element" means "damn the evidence, I say she's guilty guilty guilty!" then I am perfectly happy with keeping that out of the justice system.

A machine without a soul is not a proper meter for human grading.
 
On the premise that the subject of gross ignorance is sufficiently off-topic to possibly lead to thread closure, among other things, back on the topic of "what do you think will happen to Casey Anthony?"

"It would be exceptionally difficult for anybody to treat her. There is no magic pill that's a truth serum for a person who's a pathological liar," said Dr. Judy Kuriansky a psychologist from Columbia University, but better known from her radio show as Dr. Judy.

Kuriansky believes that Anthony likely feels that she has been rewarded for her lying with her acquittal and release from jail.

"Why would she want to go to therapy when she basically got what she wanted? There's no motivation for her to seek help," Kuriansky said. "If she had been sent to jail, maybe she would want to see somebody because her style didn't work, but it did."
.
.
.
None of the psychologists who spoke with ABCNews.com have treated Casey Anthony, but spoke from observations and personal experience.

Two of the potential issues Anthony could suffer from are border personality disorder and psychopathology, the experts said. The main thing these issues have in common is a total lack of empathy, according to LeslieBeth Wish, a psychologist and licensed social worker in Sarasota, Fla.

"They can turn a person into a non-person," Wish said. "Borderline personalities have more emotional regulation problem and often use lying to get away from something and not ever feeling like they're responsible."

Wish explains that for people who suffer from these problems, separate lies can quickly become entire narratives that the teller can even come to believe as true.

"A lie begets a lie and it's easy to get trapped in telling lies to protect other lies," Wish said. "Does she believe her lies? She might, but more than likely she believes that she's good enough to make you believe her lies."

Link

Ya think? :lol:

I've known people like Casey - I'd bet that a lot of us have - and dealing with a pathological liar is one of the most frustrating, occasionally entertaining and ultimately tedious kinds of human relation that one can have. Based on watching what we can see of her family interactions I'd guess that it's been an ingrained part of how she learned to cope with life since she was very small - her parents don't appear to have modeled anything much different.
 
Justice must have a human element, cold rules of law just make it into an unfeeling machine that can be manipulated, so I am not wrong or misguided...worship the cold dead machine, sacrifice all responsibility of free thought...
But your "human element" that tells you she's guilty is completely misinformed.

"Decay in the car"...proven untrue

"All the partying"...twice, and proves nothing

"No concern for her child"...people do all sorts of crazy things under severe stress like the death of a child. Is it really so hard to imagine that she would try and hide the death of her child whether she did it or not? That she might rationalize it away in her own mind?

Nope. She's guilty because you "feel" it. Kill her now. :rolleyes:
 
Justice must have a human element, cold rules of law just make it into an unfeeling machine that can be manipulated, so I am not wrong or misguided...worship the cold dead machine, sacrifice all responsibility of free thought...
But your "human element" that tells you she's guilty is completely misinformed.

"Decay in the car"...proven untrue

"All the partying"...twice, and proves nothing

"No concern for her child"...people do all sorts of crazy things under severe stress like the death of a child. Is it really so hard to imagine that she would try and hide the death of her child whether she did it or not? That she might rationalize it away in her own mind?

Nope. She's guilty because you "feel" it. Kill her now. :rolleyes:


No woman with a soul would have dumped her child like that, she is a hearltess monster who deserve to hang, the needle would be to nice.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top