Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => Haley Center Basement => Topic started by: Tiger Wench on July 05, 2011, 02:57:38 PM
-
Thought this waranted a new thread...
She was found not guilty of everything but lying to the cops/filing a false report.
Obviously California does not have a corner on the market on stupid fucktards on juries. I have not been this pissed off since OJ.
UNREAL.
Normal people do not report their baby missing if they died "accidentally". Normal people do not hide their baby's body in a sack in some bushes. Normal people don't go party on South Beach when they lose a child.
-
I guess race can no longer be considered an issue in the OJ trial.
-
I will preface this by saying I have not followed the case at all. I have no knowledge of the events besides what Wench just posted.
However, I will say, while normal people may not do those things...you can't convict someone of murder just because they are looney-toons fucked up. Maybe the kid did die on accident and she's such a weirdo she did do those things? Doesn't make her guilty of murder.
Now...if there was good evidence she killed the child, like there was in the OJ case, then yes by all means the jury is stupid as hell.
-
I will preface this by saying I have not followed the case at all. I have no knowledge of the events besides what Wench just posted.
However, I will say, while normal people may not do those things...you can't convict someone of murder just because they are looney-toons fucked up. Maybe the kid did die on accident and she's such a weirdo she did do those things? Doesn't make her guilty of murder.
Now...if there was good evidence she killed the child, like there was in the OJ case, then yes by all means the jury is stupid as hell.
I haven't really followed the case either.
From all I've read and heard, she's an unconventional human being who partied after thinking her child was dead. You can't sentence someone to life in prison because of that.
I think my Facebook news feed is disgusting right now. I know that much.
"That bitch is going to rot in hell!"
:sad:
-
I will preface this by saying I have not followed the case at all. I have no knowledge of the events besides what Wench just posted.
However, I will say, while normal people may not do those things...you can't convict someone of murder just because they are looney-toons fucked up. Maybe the kid did die on accident and she's such a weirdo she did do those things? Doesn't make her guilty of murder.
Now...if there was good evidence she killed the child, like there was in the OJ case, then yes by all means the jury is stupid as hell.
Would you wrap an accidentally dead child's face in duct tape before you stuffed it in a bag and kept it in your car for a few days before throwing it in some bushes? Just saying... all the crazy in the world does not explain that.
-
I know this will raise the ire of the esteemed juris doctors on this board, but how does that defense attorney deal with the fact that this woman probably killed her baby, and now she is free? Most of the "reasonable doubt" that I saw was pure obsfucation and smoke and mirrors played by the defense. It was not "real" reasonable doubt, at least not to me. Anyone can find a loophole or a twist in any story, but some of the stuff they put out there as an alternate theory was just SO far fetched as to be completely ridiculous.
I get that reasonable doubt is the standard in this country and the basis for our legal system. If I am on trial, I would hope there were some open minded people on my jury. But reasonable doubt and space aliens from Xenu are not the same thing. I am stunned that this jury listened to the fantasy spun by this defense guy and thought "Meh, it could happen..." A BABY DIED. And now no one answers for that.
-
If you're going to go into that area of practice, you know full well that this scenario could come up. I did a couple of years of appointed criminal work when we first opened the doors of our practice. I got out of it first, because it's hard to pay the bills on what the State pays and second, I got real tired of my own clients lying their asses off to me when I'm about the only person on earth who can help them.
Here's the thing, I eventually began telling all my new clients, "I'm going to present your case based on what you tell me. If you're lying, you're going to jail...not me. I'm going home and having supper." We'll never find out the truth but I'm 99.9% certain that Anthony didn't meet with her attorney and say, "Yeah, I killed her...but here's what I want you to say..." She most likely fed him the same drowning story and whether he believed it or not, he had an obligation to present it. If he agrees to take the case, he's going to go with his client's wishes and do the best he can to make it work. It's her ass...not his at the end of the day
-
I know this will raise the ire of the esteemed juris doctors on this board, but how does that defense attorney deal with the fact that this woman probably killed her baby, and now she is free? Most of the "reasonable doubt" that I saw was pure obsfucation and smoke and mirrors played by the defense. It was not "real" reasonable doubt, at least not to me. Anyone can find a loophole or a twist in any story, but some of the stuff they put out there as an alternate theory was just SO far fetched as to be completely ridiculous.
I get that reasonable doubt is the standard in this country and the basis for our legal system. If I am on trial, I would hope there were some open minded people on my jury. But reasonable doubt and space aliens from Xenu are not the same thing. I am stunned that this jury listened to the fantasy spun by this defense guy and thought "Meh, it could happen..." A BABY DIED. And now no one answers for that.
I'm not saying it's right, but...
Every defendant is entitled to a competent defense. This is the only way we can have confidence in the legal system. After all, not every accused person is guilty. We need to be as certain as we can.
Also, it's always a travesty until it's someone you know or your family. Great story from one of the best attorneys in Alabama: He started out his practice in small town Alabama and every time he would go to the post office an older man from the community would confront him. The older man would ask, "How can you defend all those criminals?...You should be ashamed to defend those criminals." A few years later, the attorney noticed that the older gentleman's son was arrested for some felony. He saw the old man in the post office shortly thereafter and asked, "How's your criminal son doing?" The man blasted in response, "My son is not a criminal, he is innocent." Irony lost.
-
I know the defense did not have much to work with, and kudos to them for taking that shitastic story and making the jury believe it. But I guess my disconnect is between a competent defense and "trying to get your client off". I DO believe a person is entitled to a competent defense - the prosecution has the burden of proof and that is a good thing. But holy shit! This guy now has to live with the fact that this woman killed her baby and thanks to him, she got away with it. I am not sure how I would be able to sleep at night. You can make sure the prosecution does not railroad your client without creating fantastical scenarios to explain away guilt. (See: Duke Lacrosse Team)
My dad pointed out that once again it was the CSI effect - that since the remains were do decomposed, the prosecution could not prove with absolute 100% certainty that the duct tape was there before the baby died, so that was not good enough. Them fellers on CSI wooda had that figgered out before the first commercial. But again, HOLY SHIT!! What was the baby's face doing with duct tape across the nose and mouth in the first fucking place?!?!?! The jury missed that connection somewhere - and the defense's response was to cross examine the parents on how they had buried family pets over the years!!! Oh, there was duct tape on the baby because that was what the dad did when Lassie died back in 1987! Seriously?!?!?
I still say this was a miscarriage of justice. A baby died. She did it and showed ZERO remorse. But because of a bullshit story and a stupid jury, she is free today. And she will be back out partying on South Beach inside of a month. Yay, justice system.
-
Would you wrap an accidentally dead child's face in duct tape before you stuffed it in a bag and kept it in your car for a few days before throwing it in some bushes? Just saying... all the crazy in the world does not explain that.
I didn't watch the trial like some. I do that shit for a living. I understand from others that did, there was no evidence that showed actual cause of death, or that she killed the child. Was there evidence SHE placed the duct tape there, or that SHE disposed of the body?
-
I know this will raise the ire of the esteemed juris doctors on this board, but how does that defense attorney deal with the fact that this woman probably killed her baby, and now she is free? Most of the "reasonable doubt" that I saw was pure obsfucation and smoke and mirrors played by the defense. It was not "real" reasonable doubt, at least not to me. Anyone can find a loophole or a twist in any story, but some of the stuff they put out there as an alternate theory was just SO far fetched as to be completely ridiculous.
I get that reasonable doubt is the standard in this country and the basis for our legal system. If I am on trial, I would hope there were some open minded people on my jury. But reasonable doubt and space aliens from Xenu are not the same thing. I am stunned that this jury listened to the fantasy spun by this defense guy and thought "Meh, it could happen..." A BABY DIED. And now no one answers for that.
Sorry TW, having no cause of death, and no evidence the child was even murdered is hardly obfuscation. The defense team did their job, and I suspect they're waste deep in Scotch right now. "Probably did it" isn't the standard in this country to sustain a conviction for any crime, let alone capital murder. Casey, as I understand it, was proved a first class skank, liar, and scum, but not a murderer by a long shot. Again, I didn't watch the trial, but many of the folks I talked to that have, said they thought there's a good bet something happened with mom and the child, but there was just no evidence of it.
-
I know the defense did not have much to work with, and kudos to them for taking that shitastic story and making the jury believe it. But I guess my disconnect is between a competent defense and "trying to get your client off". I DO believe a person is entitled to a competent defense - the prosecution has the burden of proof and that is a good thing. But holy shit! This guy now has to live with the fact that this woman killed her baby and thanks to him, she got away with it. I am not sure how I would be able to sleep at night. You can make sure the prosecution does not railroad your client without creating fantastical scenarios to explain away guilt. (See: Duke Lacrosse Team)
My dad pointed out that once again it was the CSI effect - that since the remains were do decomposed, the prosecution could not prove with absolute 100% certainty that the duct tape was there before the baby died, so that was not good enough. Them fellers on CSI wooda had that figgered out before the first commercial. But again, HOLY SHIT!! What was the baby's face doing with duct tape across the nose and mouth in the first fucking place?!?!?! The jury missed that connection somewhere - and the defense's response was to cross examine the parents on how they had buried family pets over the years!!! Oh, there was duct tape on the baby because that was what the dad did when Lassie died back in 1987! Seriously?!?!?
I still say this was a miscarriage of justice. A baby died. She did it and showed ZERO remorse. But because of a bullshit story and a stupid jury, she is free today. And she will be back out partying on South Beach inside of a month. Yay, justice system.
What JR said above.
Also, in reference to the bolded above... How do you know she did it? You don't, and that's the point.
-
For what it's worth, I'd gut the whore like a fish tomorrow and sleep just fine tomorrow night.
-
For what it's worth, I'd gut the whore like a fish tomorrow and sleep just fine tomorrow night.
^This!
-
My esteemed colleagues have covered it all, but indulge me as I reinforce the obvious:
1) There was zero evidence as to cause of death or the identity of the party that disposed of the body.
2) Casey is a lying, whoring sack of shit, but she was not directly linked by evidence to the death of Caylee.
3) Reaction in opposition to the jury's verdict is predicated on emotion due to one or more of the following: (a) parental status; (b) desire to see Casey punished for her behavior in the wake of Caylee's disappearance; or (c) "common sense" (ie- "where there's smoke there's fire"...also known as the Cam Newton prosecution).
4) Everyone deserves a vigorous defense in the face of state prosecution. Allow those prosecutors (sorry JR, present company NOT excluded) to cut corners on obvious cases and they'll take miles and miles on every case. Make them prove each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt or you will not like the police state that you find yourself living in.
-
My esteemed colleagues have covered it all, but indulge me as I reinforce the obvious:
1) There was zero evidence as to cause of death or the identity of the party that disposed of the body.
2) Casey is a lying, whoring sack of shit, but she was not directly linked by evidence to the death of Caylee.
3) Reaction in opposition to the jury's verdict is predicated on emotion due to one or more of the following: (a) parental status; (b) desire to see Casey punished for her behavior in the wake of Caylee's disappearance; or (c) "common sense" (ie- "where there's smoke there's fire"...also known as the Cam Newton prosecution).
4) Everyone deserves a vigorous defense in the face of state prosecution. Allow those prosecutors (sorry JR, present company NOT excluded) to cut corners on obvious cases and they'll take miles and miles on every case. Make them prove each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt or you will not like the police state that you find yourself living in.
I find no quarrel with any of that.
-
I find no quarrel with any of that.
Then I'll hire one of you if I gut her like a fish.
-
My esteemed colleagues have covered it all, but indulge me as I reinforce the obvious:
1) There was zero evidence as to cause of death or the identity of the party that disposed of the body.
2) Casey is a lying, whoring sack of shit, but she was not directly linked by evidence to the death of Caylee.
3) Reaction in opposition to the jury's verdict is predicated on emotion due to one or more of the following: (a) parental status; (b) desire to see Casey punished for her behavior in the wake of Caylee's disappearance; or (c) "common sense" (ie- "where there's smoke there's fire"...also known as the Cam Newton prosecution).
4) Everyone deserves a vigorous defense in the face of state prosecution. Allow those prosecutors (sorry JR, present company NOT excluded) to cut corners on obvious cases and they'll take miles and miles on every case. Make them prove each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt or you will not like the police state that you find yourself living in.
Agreed.
-
My esteemed colleagues have covered it all, but indulge me as I reinforce the obvious:
1) There was zero evidence as to cause of death or the identity of the party that disposed of the body.
2) Casey is a lying, whoring sack of shit, but she was not directly linked by evidence to the death of Caylee.
3) Reaction in opposition to the jury's verdict is predicated on emotion due to one or more of the following: (a) parental status; (b) desire to see Casey punished for her behavior in the wake of Caylee's disappearance; or (c) "common sense" (ie- "where there's smoke there's fire"...also known as the Cam Newton prosecution).
4) Everyone deserves a vigorous defense in the face of state prosecution. Allow those prosecutors (sorry JR, present company NOT excluded) to cut corners on obvious cases and they'll take miles and miles on every case. Make them prove each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt or you will not like the police state that you find yourself living in.
There was Caylee's DNA and hair in her trunk. That's definitly a connection, albeit a small one. And I think common sense and seeing the big picture is very important in keeping objectivity. Do I have kids? Sure, but it has nothing to do with the fact that I had no reasonable doubt as a juror when finding a murderer guilty last week OR believing that Casey was guilty this week. It seemed that this jury wanted ALL doubt removed which is not what the judge charges jurors with under our legal system. The only way one can remove ALL doubt is to have witnessed it personally. Just isn't realistic. I honestly think the jurors fudged on this one. The fact that one of the alternates has publically said that the jury thought it was an accident and was covered up by George Anthony, tells me that they were skewed from the beginning by Baez' crazy red herring that he threw out there. When the hounds are heading down the right trail the best thing to do to get them off that trail is to lead them down another trail with another scent. The jury bought it hook, line and sinker.
The fact that they think it was an accident and covered up - which has NO evidence and is purely conjecture - tells me all I need to know about them. It's ironic to me that they found Casey not guilty due to lack of evidence. There is NO evidence to think it was an accident. Makes no sense.
-
My esteemed colleagues have covered it all, but indulge me as I reinforce the obvious:
1) There was zero evidence as to cause of death or the identity of the party that disposed of the body.
2) Casey is a lying, whoring sack of shit, but she was not directly linked by evidence to the death of Caylee.
3) Reaction in opposition to the jury's verdict is predicated on emotion due to one or more of the following: (a) parental status; (b) desire to see Casey punished for her behavior in the wake of Caylee's disappearance; or (c) "common sense" (ie- "where there's smoke there's fire"...also known as the Cam Newton prosecution).
4) Everyone deserves a vigorous defense in the face of state prosecution. Allow those prosecutors (sorry JR, present company NOT excluded) to cut corners on obvious cases and they'll take miles and miles on every case. Make them prove each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt or you will not like the police state that you find yourself living in.
^This^
I know as a parent, I would love to see her fry. However, dumbassedness is not currently an option for prosecution. If it were, the jails would be 10 times more crowded.
The biggest problem I have with her is that it was completely obvious that she didn't want the child because she was slowing down the clubbing lifestyle. OK, great. There are thousands of couples out there that would have loved to adopt her. Hell, the kids own grandparents would have done it, I suspect. Whether Caylee died at the hands of her own mother or accidentally by any other means, it was obvious that she was unwanted at the Anthony homestead. Personally, I think Casey's Mom should have just swallowed her...but that is another discussion for another day.
-
This is typical reaction to the death of a child.
(http://pibillwarner.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/48_121794452311.jpg) (http://www.oneangryman.com/ken/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/casey-anthony-making-out-woman-1.jpg)
(http://www.oneangryman.com/ken/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/casey-anthony-making-out-woman-3.jpg)
Let me know if she slaughters a busload of kindergarten students. I want to be there for the after party.
-
This is typical reaction to the death of a child.
(http://pibillwarner.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/48_121794452311.jpg) (http://www.oneangryman.com/ken/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/casey-anthony-making-out-woman-1.jpg)
(http://www.oneangryman.com/ken/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/casey-anthony-making-out-woman-3.jpg)
Let me know if she slaughters a busload of kindergarten students. I want to be there for the after party.
Proves NOTHING relevant to MURDER.
-
Proves NOTHING relevant to MURDER.
Proves EVERYTHING relevant to STATE OF MIND.
Your child is dead. You KNOW your child is dead. You participated in covering up the death of your child.
Yeah. That's how most people respond to that kind of trauma. They get tattoos and get crunk.
I don't really care if she murdered the child or just covered it up -- but if it were an accident there wouldn't have been a coverup. Either way she should be stoned to death. I'd be happy to throw the first and last stone. And any in between.
-
Proves EVERYTHING relevant to STATE OF MIND.
Your child is dead. You KNOW your child is dead. You participated in covering up the death of your child.
Yeah. That's how most people respond to that kind of trauma. They get tattoos and get crunk.
I don't really care if she murdered the child or just covered it up -- but if it were an accident there wouldn't have been a coverup. Either way she should be stoned to death. I'd be happy to throw the first and last stone. And any in between.
Pfffft
-
Pfffft
Just let me know when she poisons an entire elementary school.
The party after will be EPIC and I want to be there.
-
Pfffft
seriously?