CASEY ANTHONY: what do you think will happen.

[Kirk's_Tights]

This bitch would be safer behind bars.

She wants to go out and party but does she honestly think she will be able to do that now? Everyone knows her name, her face, what happened....she is going to WISH she was in jail. Count on her to get beaten to a pulp and hopefully meets the same end she gave her kid.

I saw on TV the other day that she has already been offered MILLIONS to tell her story. That is just sick.

It's this type of attitude that makes me sick to my stomach and so very sad about some of humanity. One woman has already been attacked just because she looked like Anthony.

I don't know how to use the multiple quote, but I did read all the comments throughout this 19 page thread. To those of you who wrote comments about use of your gut feelings or common sense or your feeling of horror at the end result I pose these questions.

Do you really want one of your neighbors to be able to decide you might be guilty of a henious crime and say I feel it in my gut that this guy is guilty of such and such and deserves to die or be beaten up? Or to use his common sense rather than the legal standard of guilt to determine your guilt or innocence?

The justice system is not infallible. Wrongs do get committed, but it's America's chosen system. It's one of ways that separates us from the animals. Innocent until proven guilty.

I would also like to point out because the prosecutor charged Anthony with first degree murder she was held in custody for three years. No bail on that type of charge. And as others in this thread have pointed out that degree of murder was a charge that was very flimsy to begin with what with the elements that had to be proved. The prosecutor has all the power to decide what to charge an individual with.

What the public never focuses on to be outraged about not guilty verdicts in children's death caused by neglect, abuse, carelessness or plain stupidity is no license or training is required to have a child. No parenting classes are required. No nutrition classes are required.

I mean come on you have to have a license to drive a car, you have to have a license to own a gun, you even have to have a license to fish. Anybody can make a baby, but not all can be a good parent.

Bottom line: A small child is still dead whoever killed her. A horrible end for anybody so instead of focusing your outrage on a not guilty verdict, focus it on what we can do to help the children of the here and now and the future.

I find it even more sickening that people out there would stick up for this scum of society.

The evidence clearly pointed to her. THIS is why people are so angry over the verdict. I believe it was the missing link of fingerprints/DNA on the girl's remains that made the jury not able to say 'guilty', I get that part, but look at the case as a whole. The justice system failed.

Perhaps I am a 'sad' part of humanity, whatever you would like to call me, but I have a hard time finding any sympathy for a mother who killed her own child because she 'wanted to party and spend time with her boyfriend' instead of take care of her kid. It's disgusting in every single way and I wouldn't shed a tear if she got her face punched in. Some people deserve things, some people don't. This disgrace of a human deserves whatever negativity that comes her way.

I am not saying YAY, I HOPE SOMEONE GOES OUT AND KILLS HER, but if it happens, I wont feel bad. She doesn't deserve to go out there and enjoy her life.

Just my opinion.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to say you are defending her, I am just talking about people in general.

 

[PurpleLady]

EDIT: Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to say you are defending her, I am just talking about people in general.

I realize you aren't directing your comments toward me specifically, and no I'm definitely not defending Anthony in any shape or form.

It's just that because this case has been so sensationalized when there are ALOT of cases just as horrible around the USA and if people took what they perceived to be justice into their own hands life would be unbearable. No matter what I personally think of her she was found not guilty.

 

[sidious618]

The evidence clearly pointed to her. THIS is why people are so angry over the verdict. I believe it was the missing link of fingerprints/DNA on the girl's remains that made the jury not able to say 'guilty', I get that part, but look at the case as a whole. The justice system failed.

No, it didn't. There was not evidence clearly pointing to Casey and this idea that she murdered her child just so she could go out and party is one that has been floating around but there's zero evidence for that. The jury made the right choice and had I been on it I would've voted not guilty as well.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The evidence clearly pointed to her. THIS is why people are so angry over the verdict. I believe it was the missing link of fingerprints/DNA on the girl's remains that made the jury not able to say 'guilty', I get that part, but look at the case as a whole. The justice system failed.

No, it didn't. There was not evidence clearly pointing to Casey and this idea that she murdered her child just so she could go out and party is one that has been floating around but there's zero evidence for that. The jury made the right choice and had I been on it I would've voted not guilty as well.

Exactly so. I think Casey was involved in Caylee's death, but based on the evidence presented I'd have voted Not Guilty as well.

The prosecutors failed by bringing the most serious charge under the law with no evidence to support it. Good prosecutors sometimes take years to bring a case, working to gather evidence and build a good one. Read the jurors remarks - there wasn't a single "missing link" - the prosecution didn't present a persuasive case built on evidence, period. They apparently hoped public outrage would somehow lead to a groundless conviction, but the jury did its duty instead.

 

[sidious618]

Just today the NYT reported that there was a mistake with the evidence. Casey Anthony only searched for the word cholorform once, NOT 80 times.

 

[Kirk's_Tights]

No, it didn't. There was not evidence clearly pointing to Casey and this idea that she murdered her child just so she could go out and party is one that has been floating around but there's zero evidence for that. The jury made the right choice and had I been on it I would've voted not guilty as well.

You're right, googling a way to kill someone, making up a non-existent nanny named 'Zanny', partying a day or two after your kid has died, getting a tattoo with 'a beautiful life' or whatever it said, wanting to be able to party and spend time with your boyfriend and not having to worry about a kid....she is totally innocent.

=)

 

[Trekker4747]

No, it didn't. There was not evidence clearly pointing to Casey and this idea that she murdered her child just so she could go out and party is one that has been floating around but there's zero evidence for that. The jury made the right choice and had I been on it I would've voted not guilty as well.

You're right, googling a way to kill someone, making up a non-existent nanny named 'Zanny', partying a day or two after your kid has died, getting a tattoo with 'a beautiful life' or whatever it said, wanting to be able to party and spend time with your boyfriend and not having to worry about a kid....she is totally innocent.

=)

None of that links her to crime or says she did anything it's all circumstantial bullshit that makes her look like a piece of shit, none of it says she pulled the proverbial trigger.

 

[boobatuba]

Just today the NYT reported that there was a mistake with the evidence. Casey Anthony only searched for the word cholorform once, NOT 80 times.

That was covered by the defense. Too bad almost no one heard that part.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

No, it didn't. There was not evidence clearly pointing to Casey and this idea that she murdered her child just so she could go out and party is one that has been floating around but there's zero evidence for that. The jury made the right choice and had I been on it I would've voted not guilty as well.

You're right, googling a way to kill someone, making up a non-existent nanny named 'Zanny', partying a day or two after your kid has died, getting a tattoo with 'a beautiful life' or whatever it said, wanting to be able to party and spend time with your boyfriend and not having to worry about a kid....she is totally innocent.

=)

The jury rightly found her guilty of lying to police because that's the only thing the evidence proved.

There was no evidence pointing to cause of death or even motive, and no evidence linking her to the crime.

"I think she did it" with no evidence to back it up is far too flimsy a basis for a first-degree murder conviction. If you feel otherwise, then I sure hope you are never accused of anything serious because apparently you'd like a jury to convict you with little more than a "gut feeling."

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

No, it didn't. There was not evidence clearly pointing to Casey and this idea that she murdered her child just so she could go out and party is one that has been floating around but there's zero evidence for that. The jury made the right choice and had I been on it I would've voted not guilty as well.

You're right, googling a way to kill someone, making up a non-existent nanny named 'Zanny', partying a day or two after your kid has died, getting a tattoo with 'a beautiful life' or whatever it said, wanting to be able to party and spend time with your boyfriend and not having to worry about a kid....she is totally innocent.

=)

Only one thing on that familiar little list constitutes evidence of the crime with which she was charged, and that evidence was effectively disputed in court.

Other than that, you've repeated stories indicating that Casey Anthony is a pathologically self-centered person, and there's a good amount of supposition and gossip mixed in with the facts even there.

When the legal system is working as it should, we don't convict people of felonies based on such rubbish.

Just today the NYT reported that there was a mistake with the evidence. Casey Anthony only searched for the word cholorform once, NOT 80 times.

ORLANDO, Fla. -- A software designer says its inaccurate data may have led to false assertions made by prosecutors about key evidence in the Casey Anthony trial, according to the New York Times.

The newspaper reports that software designer John Bradley said data about extensive computer searches on the word “chloroform” is misleading. Prosecutors claimed Anthony used the word 84 times in searches on the Anthony family computer, but Bradley now says the website in question was visited only one time.

Bradley, who designed the software CacheBack, said he immediately informed prosecutors and the police about the software's inaccurate data.

Link

Wow - if that last sentence is true the prosecutors have more explaining to do.

Casey Anthony lies. Her mother lies. Her father lies. The people prosecuting her lie. Gods bless the folks who served on this jury and who slogged through all of this shit.

That was covered by the defense. Too bad almost no one heard that part.

What's most important, of course, is that the jury heard it and took it into account.

Otherwise, most people are too busy believing what they want to believe to follow up on reporting about the evidence. Legally speaking, BTW, the prosecution was unable to establish who executed even that single search. It probably was Casey - the search was made right after a visit to the Myspace page of her then-boyfriend, who at the time had posted a joke photograph referring to chloroform.

 

[boobatuba]

ORLANDO, Fla. -- A software designer says its inaccurate data may have led to false assertions made by prosecutors about key evidence in the Casey Anthony trial, according to the New York Times.

The newspaper reports that software designer John Bradley said data about extensive computer searches on the word “chloroform” is misleading. Prosecutors claimed Anthony used the word 84 times in searches on the Anthony family computer, but Bradley now says the website in question was visited only one time.

Bradley, who designed the software CacheBack, said he immediately informed prosecutors and the police about the software's inaccurate data.

Link

Wow - if that last sentence is true the prosecutors have more explaining to do.

The defense expert on the computer searches during the trial testified to exactly what is presented here. He also showed the photo she saw on her boyfriend's site which said "Win her over with chloroform" and showed that the one search occurred immediately after that. The prosecution "experts" didn't even show "Myspace" as a site visited. The prosecution knew they were offering false testimony and should themselves be prosecuted for perjury. This was a death penalty case, for crying out loud!

But they won't. Prosecutors are encouraged to lie to juries to get convictions in high-profile cases like this one. Casey Anthony is simply fortunate that her lawyers were competent enough to realize it and fight back.

 

[PurpleLady]

The prosecution knew they were offering false testimony and should themselves be prosecuted for perjury. This was a death penalty case, for crying out loud!

But they won't. Prosecutors are encouraged to lie to juries to get convictions in high-profile cases like this one. Casey Anthony is simply fortunate that her lawyers were competent enough to realize it and fight back.

I think as in any profession there are good and bad. Working in criminal defense, I've met my share of both. I don't, however, think a prosecutor is encouraged to lie just because the evidence doesn't show what they want. It's an individual choice by any lawyer on what lines they cross during prosecution or defense.

What might happen now is a complaint of prosecutorial misconduct either with the Court asking for sanctions or to the Bar Association.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It's also possible that Bradley is being disingenuous about having clearly informed the prosecution of the error. This case represented high-profile industry publicity for his software company.

 

[boobatuba]

It's also possible that Bradley is being disingenuous about having clearly informed the prosecution of the error. This case represented high-profile industry publicity for his software company.

It's possible, but I suppose you'd also have to believe that the prosecution didn't know that there were really only trace amounts of chloroform in the trunk corresponding with a bottle of cleaning fluid, the hair bundling that supposedly linked a hair in the trunk with Caylee was bad science and inconclusive at best, the examinations of the remains showed that suffocation was eliminated as a cause of death even while the prosecution continued to present suffocation with duct tape as a theory, and so on, and so on, and so on...

 

[Ninjacore]

She's as guilty as sin, makes me wish back for the days of gunsmoke justice, they would of strung her up in a tree for the solid circumstantial evidence...CSI and Law and Order have ruined the justice system, to many idiots fail to realize the diff btw tv forensic science and real forensic science...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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.

As far as the other, minimal forensic evidence - chloroform in the trunk, hair samples etc. - AFAIK the prosecution is entitled to present the evidence they actually have along with their interpretation of it (even an expert critic of the hair sample declined to call it "junk science" but characterized it as "cutting edge" or "not-ready-for-prime-time") and let the defense pick apart those interpretations if they can. What I'm pretty sure the state's not allowed to do is present "evidence" that they know doesn't exist.

 

[boobatuba]

She's as guilty as sin, makes me wish back for the days of gunsmoke justice, they would of strung her up in a tree for the solid circumstantial evidence...CSI and Law and Order have ruined the justice system, to many idiots fail to realize the diff btw tv forensic science and real forensic science...

What's this "solid circumstantial evidence" that you think shows that she murdered her child?

 

[Ninjacore]

She's as guilty as sin, makes me wish back for the days of gunsmoke justice, they would of strung her up in a tree for the solid circumstantial evidence...CSI and Law and Order have ruined the justice system, to many idiots fail to realize the diff btw tv forensic science and real forensic science...

What's this "solid circumstantial evidence" that you think shows that she murdered her child?

All the partying, showing no concern or care for her child, decay in her vehicle, thats all they needed I feel...looking up the chloroform online also was a big thing.

 

[Ninjacore]

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.

 

[boobatuba]

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.