Guilty. She waited too long to report her daughter missing. If I had kids and one was missing I would be all over the police the minute I knew the kid was missing, not out partying.
CASEY ANTHONY: what do you think will happen.
- Thread starter Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Start date
I hate Nancy Grace as well, she uses the term Tot Mom as if this was some odd brand or trademark.
The jail tapes may be admissale as evidence
The jail tapes may be admissale as evidence
I think there are many similarities between this case and the case of Keli Lane here in Australia. The biggest difference is the fact that Caylee Anthony's body was found but there has never been a trace of Tegan. Also Caylee disappearance was noticed a lot sooner than Tegan's.
However both mothers try to hide the fact that their child had disappeared and told lie after lie. Both mothers claim to have given/left their child with someone else and no proof of the person
s existence has been found.
Keli Lane was found guilty of murder (even without a body) so I think there is a chance that Casey Anthony might be convicted.
However both mothers try to hide the fact that their child had disappeared and told lie after lie. Both mothers claim to have given/left their child with someone else and no proof of the person
s existence has been found.
Keli Lane was found guilty of murder (even without a body) so I think there is a chance that Casey Anthony might be convicted.
I'm convinced that Jose Baez is the epitome of the snotty snarky lawyer. I see him laughing under his breath every moment. I hate him
Yeah I really can't stand him. I went into this trial with a neutral opinion and tried to keep an open mind, but Jose Baez has started to irritate me so much that I can't help but lean towards the other side. He seems like the stereotype of the lying arrogant lawyer. I wonder what the jury thinks about it.
I love the "Operation Mindcrime" lyric bit!
Thanks. My favorite album!
My question is that even if Casey gets off, what is she gonna do with her life. No one is gonna hire her.. everyone thinks she did it?
I guess she'll write a book and make millions from that.
I guess she'll write a book and make millions from that.
We'll wait 15 years for the "How It Could Have Happened" book and watch her squander her undeserved innocence by being brought to prison on lesser criminal charges, I'm guessing some sort of fraud.
She's an attractive and manipulative, troubled young person. She'll marry reasonably well.
She is an awful human being. I despise her.
As for the case itself, Casey is guilty as hell. Her story is completely ridiculous. "She drown, so we hid the body and I went out partying for a month because my dad molested me when I was 8."
I hope she rots in prison.
I'd call Simpson "guilty as hell" myself but the prosecution didn't prove their case against him beyond reasonable doubt...and I'm not sure what's going to happen with Anthony. The jury can convict her on "she acts guilty" if they're so disposed, but the prosecution doesn't have a lot beyond that - it's all circumstantial.
^ I don't necessarily think it was 'reasonable doubt' that got OJ off. I think the defense played upon the feelings and experiences of the jurors.
As far as Casey Anthony and it being all circumstantial, most cases are. Very few have direct evidence like a smoking gun or eye witness. And "reasonable doubt" doesn't quite make it cut and dry because in the judge's instructions they give the 'snow example'. "If you go to bed and there is no snow on the ground and you wake up and there is.....you can reasonably assume it snowed during the night."
Most cases that involve eye witnesses make me more nervous about people getting it wrong, than circumstantial cases, to be honest.
So, i have no problem with "a 2 yr old disappears, the mother doesnt report the disappearance until 31 days later, and ONLY because the grandmother insists it....and the mother parties for 31 days......
if those jurors don't convict i will throw my hands up in the air and go live in a cave.
(now dont beat me up Dennis, please!)
As far as Casey Anthony and it being all circumstantial, most cases are. Very few have direct evidence like a smoking gun or eye witness. And "reasonable doubt" doesn't quite make it cut and dry because in the judge's instructions they give the 'snow example'. "If you go to bed and there is no snow on the ground and you wake up and there is.....you can reasonably assume it snowed during the night."
Most cases that involve eye witnesses make me more nervous about people getting it wrong, than circumstantial cases, to be honest.
So, i have no problem with "a 2 yr old disappears, the mother doesnt report the disappearance until 31 days later, and ONLY because the grandmother insists it....and the mother parties for 31 days......
if those jurors don't convict i will throw my hands up in the air and go live in a cave.
(now dont beat me up Dennis, please!)
There are a lot of reasons OJ got off. None of them involving innocence or reason.
Vincent Bugliosi wrote a great book called Outrage: Five Reasons Why OJ Simpson Got Away with Murder. Anyone interested in the case should read it.
As for Casey, her explanation is simply not reasonable. I cannot fathom how anyone could swallow her version of events. But, like Dennis alluded to, it's nearly impossible to predict what a jury will decide.
There was some of both, but the defense did successfully tear holes in the process of collecting and handling the evidence and that severely undercut the usefulness of the DNA evidence, IMAO. And I don't think that was all just successful sleight-of-hand: does anyone think that Simpson actually lost one glove at the scene of the crime and the other on his own property, yet somehow in the process successfully disposed of all the rest of the bloody clothing and the murder weapon? It's reasonable to suspect that the gloves were found together and one was moved.
Once the handling of evidence is successfully challenged, everything falls apart.
Because of that and several other things I'd have voted to acquit in that case, and I wasn't emotionally predisposed to do so. The prosecution was undercut by the police investigation and then screwed up more than enough on their own.
It's not necessary for the jury to "swallow her version" in order for them to acquit. They simply have to conclude that the prosecutors have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she murdered her daughter. "She's a sociopath who impeded the investigation by lying" is evidence that she's a bad person, but at this point so many of her family members have been so disingenuous at some point or another, for murky reasons, that even this is less persuasive than it might be.
The prosecution basically has to argue that "when Casey lies or is inconsistent it's because she's a murderer, but when her father and mother and brother lie or are inconsistent it's because they're protecting the murderer." That might work and it might not.
I don't know what will happen with Anthony, but I suspect she'll be convicted for emotional reasons - someone has to pay for this, after all - and there will obviously be appeals.
Last edited:
I don't fully agree with that, and here's why: the defense has asserted a "factual" explanation for the child's death. They are not simply saying Casey is not guilty. They are in fact saying "this is what happened".
Therefore, in my mind anyway, any assessment of "reasonable doubt" must necessarily include an assessment of the truth of her version of the story. If the defense hadn't put out that explanation, and simply said "we don't know what happened" it would be a different story.
I understand that the jury could find both versions unpersuasive and acquit, but I think that is very unlikely.
As for OJ, well...that's a different thread entirely....
Similar threads
