Casey Anthony Contempt

Kaos · « **Reply #20 on:** July 06, 2011, 10:35:25 AM »

Quote from: JR4AU on July 06, 2011, 10:29:20 AM

Whatever...

Which part do you disagree with?

Did the mother party like a rock star in the days after her daughter's death (a death she was clearly aware of)?

Did her greaseball mother and father both have knowledge of the death of the child?

Did they all lie to the police?

Did they all conspire to cover up the murder?

Did the parents stand quietly by while their daughter fed misinformation to the police and media?

Which of that is untrue? Which is the behavior to be commended? Who won?

I'd like to kill a lot of people. They just moved up the list. I'd laugh if they died in a burning building. I'd be happy if a mountain lion got in their house and mauled them to death. I'd snicker of a swarm of african bees stung them all to death.

JR4AU · « **Reply #21 on:** July 06, 2011, 10:49:43 AM »

Quote from: Kaos on July 06, 2011, 10:35:25 AM

Which part do you disagree with?

Did the mother party like a rock star in the days after her daughter's death (a death she was clearly aware of)?

Did her greaseball mother and father both have knowledge of the death of the child?

Did they all lie to the police?

Did they all conspire to cover up the murder?

Did the parents stand quietly by while their daughter fed misinformation to the police and media?

Which of that is untrue? Which is the behavior to be commended? Who won?

I'd like to kill a lot of people. They just moved up the list. I'd laugh if they died in a burning building. I'd be happy if a mountain lion got in their house and mauled them to death. I'd snicker of a swarm of african bees stung them all to death.

Sitting in a capital murder seminar posting from my phone...too much detail to type now.

Kaos · « **Reply #22 on:** July 06, 2011, 10:51:49 AM »

Quote from: JR4AU on July 06, 2011, 10:49:43 AM

Sitting in a capital murder seminar posting from my phone...too much detail to type now.

Irony.

JR4AU · « **Reply #23 on:** July 06, 2011, 11:17:47 AM »

Quote from: Kaos on July 06, 2011, 10:51:49 AM

Irony.

Between the conference, and the weather here in Orange Beach, I doubt I'll take much more time to hash this out. You can read my previous posts and figure out where I stand. Short version...they proved she's a first class, lying, skank, narcisist. They proved to my satisfaction, and the jury's, a coverup. They didn't have one shred of proof of murder, other than the inferences (see case against Cam Newton already referenced) back from her behavior post missing/dead. That doesn't prove murder, and no way in hell you can KNOW she murdered her. If you believe you KNOW that...more power to you. Everybody has an opinion. Can't disagree with your take on the family as a whole either. All of them big time fucked up.

AWK · « **Reply #24 on:** July 06, 2011, 12:03:33 PM »

Quote from: GarMan on July 06, 2011, 10:00:55 AM

I remember hearing that as well, but it still seems that she could have been charged with even lessor crimes that the evidence more directly supported. It was clear from what little I heard that she was involved in the mischief, especially the cover-up of a death. I do understand the reasonable doubt assocated with charges of murder, child abuse or manslaughter.

Um...they did charge and convict here of a misdemeanor... What's left...charge her with a traffic violation?

Also, Kaos, I find it funny how you know without a shadow of a doubt that she did this...without seeing all the evidence or actually being there. If the prosecution did their job and the case was as open and shit as you think it is, then we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

GarMan · « **Reply #25 on:** July 06, 2011, 12:11:40 PM »

Quote from: AWK on July 06, 2011, 12:03:33 PM

Um...they did charge and convict here of a misdemeanor... What's left...charge her with a traffic violation?

That was four misdemeanors for providing false information, but who's counting... So, if I hide your body for a month before reporting you missing to the police, what sort of charges should I be concerned about?

AWK · « **Reply #26 on:** July 06, 2011, 12:14:21 PM »

Quote from: GarMan on July 06, 2011, 12:11:40 PM

That was four misdemeanors for providing false information, but who's counting... So, if I hide your body for a month before reporting you missing to the police, what sort of charges should I be concerned about?

Well, knowing you, sodomy and rape would be two felonies I'd worry about.

Vandy Vol · « **Reply #27 on:** July 06, 2011, 12:15:49 PM »

Quote from: AWK on July 06, 2011, 12:14:21 PM

Well, knowing you, sodomy and rape would be two felonies I'd worry about.

Can you have the requisite intent to sodomize and rape someone if you're asleep?

GarMan · « **Reply #28 on:** July 06, 2011, 12:18:06 PM »

Quote from: AWK on July 06, 2011, 12:14:21 PM

Well, knowing you, sodomy and rape would be two felonies I'd worry about.

Is that all? Any evidence of that would be long gone by the time they found you.

AWK · « **Reply #29 on:** July 06, 2011, 12:20:10 PM »

Quote from: GarMan on July 06, 2011, 12:18:06 PM

Is that all? Any evidence of that would be long gone by the time they found you.

That's why I like you, you clean up.

Quote from: Vandy Vol on July 06, 2011, 12:15:49 PM

Can you have the requisite intent to sodomize and rape someone if you're asleep?

Sleep rape, the new Goat AIDS.

GarMan · « **Reply #30 on:** July 06, 2011, 12:26:26 PM »

Quote from: AWK on July 06, 2011, 12:20:10 PM

That's why I like you, you clean up.

That... And, the fact that I keep 7-8 bags of lime in reserve. You never know when you'll need it.

Godfather · « **Reply #31 on:** July 06, 2011, 12:46:56 PM »

Quote from: AWK on July 06, 2011, 12:20:10 PM

Sleep rape, the new Goat AIDS.

Hey let's call it what it is....surprise sex.

GarMan · « **Reply #32 on:** July 06, 2011, 12:54:27 PM »

Quote from: Vandy Vol on July 06, 2011, 12:15:49 PM

Can you have the requisite intent to sodomize and rape someone if you're asleep?

You can't respond with "No" when you're asleep, and the duct tape will keep you from talking when/if you wake up. So, it's not rape.

Saniflush · « **Reply #33 on:** July 06, 2011, 01:01:49 PM »

Quote from: GarMan on July 06, 2011, 12:54:27 PM

You can't respond with "No" when you're asleep, and the duct tape will keep you from talking when/if you wake up. So, it's not rape.

Especially if it's your dog.

Snaggletiger · « **Reply #34 on:** July 06, 2011, 01:03:18 PM »

Quote from: Saniflush on July 06, 2011, 01:01:49 PM

Especially if it's your dog.

Or goat

Kaos · « **Reply #35 on:** July 06, 2011, 01:11:02 PM »

I don't know if she killed the kid or didn't. My opinion based on her response is that she is a sociopath and has no feeling for anything or anyone other than herself. The rest of the world is judged and used/discarded based solely on it's benefit to her at that moment. Incapable of remorse.

The desire to see her exterminated stems from that.

She knew her child was dead. At best she was complicit in the cover up.

Prosecution fouled up by not getting the evidence down

Vandy Vol · « **Reply #36 on:** July 06, 2011, 01:25:36 PM »

Quote from: GarMan on July 06, 2011, 12:54:27 PM

You can't respond with "No" when you're asleep, and the duct tape will keep you from talking when/if you wake up. So, it's not rape.

No, not the rape victim...the rapist. We were talking about you sodomizing AWK, afterall...

GarMan · « **Reply #37 on:** July 06, 2011, 01:33:40 PM »

Quote from: Vandy Vol on July 06, 2011, 01:25:36 PM

No, not the rape victim...the rapist. We were talking about you sodomizing AWK, afterall...

Oh... Well since we're talking AWK, there's little chance that he'd ever be a victim in that situation. A willing participant... but, not a victim.

JR4AU · « **Reply #38 on:** July 06, 2011, 01:59:58 PM »

Quote from: Kaos on July 06, 2011, 01:11:02 PM

I don't know if she killed the kid or didn't. My opinion based on her response is that she is a sociopath and has no feeling for anything or anyone other than herself. The rest of the world is judged and used/discarded based solely on it's benefit to her at that moment. Incapable of remorse.

The desire to see her exterminated stems from that.

She knew her child was dead. At best she was complicit in the cover up.

Prosecution fouled up by not getting the evidence down

I knew you really got it. That said, sometimes there's just not any evidence, but you got it.

War Eagle!!! · « **Reply #39 on:** July 06, 2011, 02:02:58 PM »

Quote from: JR4AU on July 06, 2011, 01:59:58 PM

I knew you really got it. That said, sometimes there's just not any evidence, but you got it.

A guy on the Bunker that posts as Eagle5 really nailed how I feel about it:

Quote

I guess I'm too much of a "lay person" as the Boonker lawyers (whom I respect as it's clear most are very accomplished at their craft) dub us commoners. I possess the same qualifications as jurors (well, ...) who decide the fate of a fellow citizen accused of criminal charges, and it seems to me that "reasonable" has been "dumbed up" about 30-40% too high out of an irrational fear of an innocent being sentenced to life or executed. I'm not so sure it isn't a back door way of ending capital punishment except in the most heinous cases which society won't tolerate.

If abolishing capital punishment would level the field between prosecution and defense in Murder 1 trials, much as it pains me, I'd have to consider it.

It's a powerful argument, guarding against the taking of an innocent life. But when you see guilty murderers walk like O. J. and I believe Casey Anthony, it screams for reappraisal of prosecutors' tactics, risk/reward decisions on which cases or specific charges to bring, rules of evidence, venue of the trial, judges' management of cases, or jurors' competence or manipulability with the modern-day use of juror consultants, for starters.

Yes, I am saying that some jurors may just be too dim-witted, lazy, manipulable, or biased to render verdicts based on complex evidence. And remember - that cuts both ways - if you have a less attractive looking, young defendant than Casey Anthony with her life all before her, jurors may be manipulated the other direction. This jury didn't bother to review scientific evidence, reaching the not-guilty verdict in the time it takes to woof down a Big Mac.

Some here who had no problem with the verdict yesterday based on the standards of proof in a Murder 1 trial argue simply that the prosecution did not prove cause of death, motive, or guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a fair argument, and obviously 12 jurors bought it with the defense's clever mix of sympathy tactics (Casey's Dad and brother touched her as a young girl), mud thrown at the wall to confuse, and lack of CSI level forensics that were just the reality of the prosecution's case.

Yet the same jurors could not toss out the evidence that CA lied and misrepresented facts to the police. Am I the only one who finds that to be jury compartmentalization of facts? And the jury appears to have found as "reasonable" a theory that Caylee died accidentally, drowning in the pool.

So I'm left thinking, in what alternate universe does this jury live in which a supposedly loving Mom binds her accidentally drowned child with masking tape, shoves her in a sack, dumps her in a swamp, and doesn't report it for 30 days? Now where did the notion of "reasonable" go in that assessment?

I could stomach the jury's result far better if they concluded Murder 1 was not proven, but yet found CA "guilty" on the lesser charges of aggravated abuse and aggravated manslaughter. Scratching my head on that one, and reportedly, even the defense expected that sort of outcome.