Why casey anthony?

reply to post by wildtimes


Thanks for your thoughts on this!

Unfortunately, George, the family and witness are not on trial for the murder. They are simply witnesses. And if they perjured themselves, they will be held accountable for it. That is why there are depositions, interviews galore, etc. The family is absolutely screwed up beyond belief....but they are not responsible for the death of little Caylee. And they should not be victimized for any of this.

Fact is, all evidence and testimony is pointing towards Casey being 100% at fault for murdering her child. Regardless of her family dynamics.....she is responsible for the well being and life of her daughter. She is the one on trial for the murder and there is absolutely nothing that points to anyone else.

With that said....she displays every single behavior trait of a psychopath.....

Facts are: the defense claims that Caylee died in the pool and the father and Casey helped covered it up. Yet there are absolutely no evidence to back this up. Then the defense tried to say that Casey's father and brother sexually absused her - yet there is NO evidence for this and he denies it. So, Casey will now have to take the stand and testify.

The defense has no defense for her. None. Zero. Their defense is to find a wild theory, throw it, see if it sticks. If not, find another.

reply to post by greeneyedleo


I respectfully submit that the evidence has NOT factually proven her guilt. Yes, her behavior is bizarre, psychopathic. But being an adolescent pathological liar who wants to party, doesn't get along with her mom, and wants to move out of their house doesn't prove she's a killer.

Every bit of evidence is circumstantial. They were unable to determine CAUSE of death. The defense has established that the pool ladder was attached. Now George is being grilled about his suicide intention. He, also, has classic behavior of a psychopath...and a liar (excessive blinking, accusing council of "trying to trick" him, of "badgering him", of "trying to confuse him,"...)

In particular, WHY is he so hostile to the defense? They said at the get-go that they would never imply he killed the baby. One would think that he would WANT the defense to succeed. Why does he - an ex-cop - behave like a hostile witness?

I want to extend my thanks to you for exploring this topic with me, friend.

Right, the family is not on trial. ... and in my opinion, the best justice for little Caylee would be for the judge to declare a mistrial, dismiss all the charges (except maybe false information), and in the interest of stopping this huge expense of time and money and energy and emotion for something that can't be undone -- order the entire family into therapy.

It is vital to remember that Casey is a product of this family. The system in which she was raised created her personality dysfunctions. George has said he was suicidal and felt "he failed Caylee." Well, he failed Casey, too...IMO.

Guess we'll see what happens. It IS fascinating, though, agreed??

The MSM needs a top story like this to keep the general public distracted/confused.
The fact that she's white, and its a white girl she murdered.. allegedly. Sparks interest in the white community who hold the edge in the population in America, is only my guess why they decide to make it a big issue and never make it a big issue when its a person of color. If i'm not mistaken isn't nancy grace watched predominantly by middle aged to elderly white women?

Why was the Arnold scandal the top news story for several weeks?
Why was charlie sheen the top news story for several weeks?
Why was Anthony wiener the top news story for several weeks?

If the MSM didn't have these types of stories on, the dumbed down americans would have something else to look for in the NEWS.

reply to post by wildtimes


Yes indeed....and while I may not agree with your entire stance....it is always good to get another person's viewpoint...gives one something to chew on

I would love to join in on the discussion once again...but we can pretty well agree that my opinion has been stated clearly and from the looks of the last few post, nothing has change since my last visit to this thread.

How unfortunate that evidence to prove her innocence is being called for, when the evidence to prove her guilt has yet to be produced...innocent until proven guilty...where? Not happening here in this thread...I saw a conviction before the defense had even uttered a word...ready to prosecute and sentence her to death without anymore than the prosecutions case opened up.

God forbid we give her the opportunity to defend herself...I mean that is what the defense is for right?

Given the one sided forensic evidence...yes by all means fry her...but should not we consider the defenses dispute of the forensic evidence? Or have we heard enough out of them already?

Same thread...same supposed semi-expert opinions...and from a very biased, one sided view.

Now let's get back to listening (or studying...which ever your doing) to the real experts that have already finished school and have been working in the area of forensics for 20+ years...their opinion is important.

reply to post by greeneyedleo


You and I think alike...I find it fascinating to watch her police interrogation videos. She just lied EVEN while the detectives were telling her they know it's not true because they checked into it etc.....she tried to act so "intelligent" in the way she spoke to them, but the more she said , the more she looked like an idiot. That's what drew my attention....the way she lied EVERY time she opened her mouth. Even as far as bringing the detectives to Universal to see her "office"....all the way to the door....then saying "ok guys...I really don't work here" Un freaking believable!

Can we agree on that she is currently guility of:

1.obstruction of justice with the lies that have been proven false.
2.Endangering of a child for not reporting her "missing" for 1 month.(which swings right back around to no# 1 again)

this case is truly facinating. But quite a few posters are right...where's the evidence other than what I typed above.

Your gut may tell you she is guilty.............but your gut isnt factual evidence.


my gut..............she is guilty

Originally posted by StealthyKat
reply to post by greeneyedleo

 

You and I think alike...I find it fascinating to watch her police interrogation videos. She just lied EVEN while the detectives were telling her they know it's not true because they checked into it etc.....she tried to act so "intelligent" in the way she spoke to them, but the more she said , the more she looked like an idiot. That's what drew my attention....the way she lied EVERY time she opened her mouth. Even as far as bringing the detectives to Universal to see her "office"....all the way to the door....then saying "ok guys...I really don't work here" Un freaking believable!

Yeah...classic case of a psychopath.....textbook in fact.
Im very facinated by it all...but not for the entertainment of it....because it comes down to law, science and human nature/behavior...

reply to post by greeneyedleo

I doubt it is because of her looks....if anyone actually thinks that women is attractive

Are you referring to just women in general or Casey Anthony?

I think a lot of women are highly attractive....as for the woman in question she is average.

However, I unlike you do not think she ever thought it would be the perfect crime. I think she just did things on impulse till she got found out. No premeditation just dumbness. Her whole story and the way she acted were at best clumsy and an act of someone just going through the motions.

What I do have a problem with is the American Justice system. It is not about guilt or evidence it seems to be media driven and money orientated. I do not think that SHE is being given a fair trial as people have heard about her alleged crime and already decided her fate.

As you mentioned the OJ case that somewhat revolved around money and celebrity. But now look at OJ....instead of keeping a low profile after his acquittal he decides to kidnap and such without the use of a balaclava or disguise. On the plus side for OJ and the only good piece of news for him since his jailing is that he can not rest easy in the knowledge that his wife's murderer is also in jail!!

reply to post by TheButcher23


Exactly, in this day of 3 TV's in every house, and at least one computer, I don't see how reporting on people "innocent until proven guilty", accused of crimes can be legal. I have been under this axe before, and if it had gone to trial, the way the media spun it, I probably would have been found guilty. I thank my lucky stars it didn't go past grand jury, I would have been TOAST! And for the record I didn't do what I was accused of.

The principle of, "innocent until proven guilty" is a standard for the legal system. This does not apply to the average citizen. We are not expected to suspend our sense of judgement until 12 strangers on a jury or some judge decides for us.
I have no problem with judging for myself if she is innocent or guilty. After all, my judgement holds no consequences for the accused.
If I suspect my creepy Uncle Chester of touching my kids inappropriately, I am not going to consider him innocent until I have definite proof. I judge him to be a potential pedophile and I take the necessary action regardless of proof.

The law really is the same way. They don't really consider Casey innocent do they? It isn't like she is allowed to roam free and go about her normal life until the moment a court makes it's decision. She is treated as if she is guilty, as she should be.

The concept of "Innocent until proven guilty" is like "Liberty & Justice for all". Sounds nice but has no place in reality.

reply to post by demonseed


I can only surmise that you are young, don't have a child/children or you are from a Third World country where death is an every day occurence in your life. For you to even ask the question states volumes to me.

reply to post by Sparky63

The principle of, "innocent until proven guilty" is a standard for the legal system. This does not apply to the average citizen.

You are an average citizen...lets hope that if in the event you are ever accused of a crime and you are presumed innocent at least until your proven guilty...it would be quite the pickle for you if they just arrested you and called you guilty, boosted you through the court system just because it was the standard.

I have no problem with judging for myself if she is innocent or guilty. After all, my judgment holds no consequences for the accused.

You are absolutely right...your judgment holds no consequences for her...that is why you are not on the jury either...you have already decided that your opinion holds no consequence...now imagine if the jury shared your sentiments...hmmm...but then as you said before it is just a standard of the legal system and does not apply to the average citizen...by the way...what make a person an average citizen?

The law really is the same way. They don't really consider Casey innocent do they?

Let's hope so...otherwise we could consider you guilty of murder yourself. I mean you have not been proven innocent of it have you? I suppose proving guilt has something to do with it...in my opinion.

She is treated as if she is guilty, as she should be.

Do I understand this right...she should be treated guilty because she stands accused...really? Does this law of yours apply to all that stand accused of a crime?

The concept of "Innocent until proven guilty" is like "Liberty & Justice for all". Sounds nice but has no place in reality.

Spoken like a true communist...what reality are you in? I can't believe I even bothered to respond to this...not only is that anti-American...its almost anti-human...fine example of why our country is falling in all around us...things like liberty and justice don't fit into the schedule anymore...I pray nobody takes this last line of your post seriously!

reply to post by jerryznv


You seem to have misunderstood practically every point I made. I didn't think that was possible. I never cease to be amazed by some peoples inability to comprehend the written word.

I was tempted to go line by line and correct you for the way you have "judged" my statements, but it is hardly worth it.

Take the rose colored glasses off and you will see that my statements are based in reality and are correct. If you believe that our legal system provides "Liberty and Justice for all" you are a hopeless romantic. Maybe you are young and naive and I am old and bitter. Believe what you want my friend, but be careful that you don't fall into the trap of judging me. You might just prove my point.

reply to post by Sparky63

You seem to have misunderstood practically every point I made. I didn't think that was possible. I never cease to be amazed by some peoples inability to comprehend the written word.

Well now you know it is possible...it might surprise you to find out I am not the only one to "misunderstand you"...that is funny!

Please don't be amazed at my ability to comprehend the written word. Now that you never cease to be amazed by peoples comprehension...you might try never ceasing to learn to write it as well...then maybe you won't be "misunderstood".

Now back on topic...if you really meant something other than what you wrote...I would be happy to retract my statements and edit my post so I don't appear so naive...if we are talking about the justice system and how a person has a given right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty...then I have terribly mistaken your statements to be not in favor of justice and instead rather for guilt until proven innocent.

As for being young...well I hardly think so...matter of fact I would suppose just the opposite would be more accurate...your assumptions are almost as outrageous as you claim mine are!

Okay now that we have all that cleared up...run along and find another place for your condscending remarks...maybe a different forum. Just a suggestion!

It's to distract you from the 3 wars in the middle east, and who knows how many secret wars are going on.
It's to distract you from Fukushima. It's to distract you from the economy. It's to distract you...

By the way, there isn't any real evidence against her. It's all circumstantial evidence.
"OMG, she googled chloroform."
Who hasn't googled chloroform before?
"A twenty year old that likes to party and is immature, Stop the presses!"

She's probably guilty, but all the evidence against her is circumstantial.

reply to post by jerryznv


let me try to explain this: My first point is that the concept of, "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal principle. A lofty one in fact! I am glad that this legal principle is applied. Judges & Juries would be ineffective if they did not try their best to adhere to this.
However, average citizens, that is, those who are not officers of the court are not compelled to apply this nebulous principle in their daily lives. For example. consider the OJ case. Most people had made up their minds about his innocence or guilt long before the trial was over. Many, like me, judged him to be guilty. Did our opinion suddenly change when he was ruled "not guilty"? Of course not. As human beings we are not compelled to suspend our ability to judge matters.

Normal people tend to make up their minds on matters like this. Go to any blog about Casey Anthony and you will see scores of people condemning her as a stone cold killer, and a few befuddled people declaring her innocence.
This is reality...This is basic, unchangeable human nature.

Neither you nor I am expected to not have an opinion one way or the other about a case like this.
Like I said "Innocent till proven guilty" is a principle that the courts should strive to follow. Don't expect me to suspend my right to judge right or wrong or to assign guilt.

Regarding "Liberty and Justice for all". this too is a noble concept...One that should striven for. However realty proves that it is not possible. Reality proves that Justice is not blind. How I wish it were!

When a person is accused of a crime like the one Casey is accused of she cannot be treated as "innocent until proven guilty" in the full sense of the phrase. Casey is locked up, she is handcuffed when transported, Most of her activities are severely restricted. She is treated as one suspected of being guilty, not as one assumed to be innocent.
My observations were dealing with the cold hard reality of human nature and the justice system.

I hope that this clears some things up. I wouldn't want you jumping to the conclusion that I am a Communist or something worse.

Originally posted by jerryznv
As for being young...well I hardly think so...matter of fact I would suppose just the opposite would be more accurate...your assumptions are almost as outrageous as you claim mine are!

I was making no assumptions. If you go back and look at what I actually said you will see that I said, "maybe".

Maybe you are young and naive and I am old and bitter.

This was idle speculation, but by no means an assumption. It was an attempt on my part to try to understand your reasons for taking offense at my statement that "Liberty and Justice for All" is not based in reality. No one that has been around as long as I have believes that our court system, or any for that matter, can live up to that lofty principle. In reality, innocent people often get the shaft while the guilty go free. That my friend is the reality that I was commenting on.

I thought that this would require no explanation. I think that you and I are not really that far apart in what we want for our justice system.
Please forgive me if I was not clear in my initial post.

reply to post by Sparky63

I thought that this would require no explanation. I think that you and I are not really that far apart in what we want for our justice system.
Please forgive me if I was not clear in my initial post.

There is no reason to apologize for not being clear...that may not have even been the case...my interpretation of what you were saying was as much to blame as anything. I do agree that our expectations of our justice system and what we would hope to see are very much on the same note.

If an apology is due it very well could be necessitated from my end...this thread has been a topic of much speculation and assumption...all of it very disappointing to me...I know that things of this nature bring out the emotional side in almost everyone...and I am no exception.

I do not condone murder...nor do I condone finding guilt in a person that may be innocent...in this case Casey Anthony may be guilty of many horrendous crimes, but murder is yet to be proved or decided in my opinion...at least by the justice system...and if the trial is still on-going...we can decide to personally convict her, but I think it is important to also consider she may not have committed the murder. Many issues in this case...and when a thread starts out on a note of conviction before the defense team has even spoken a word...well it is frustrating to me that people have such quick and certain judgment based on only one side of the story.

This thread has been a weight on my mind from the first word I typed in it...and still is...so my emotional side shines through when better judgment on my part would be better received and less emotionally motivated responses would be more productive.

Either way...I am reserving the right to convict anyone of murder...or any other crime for that matter until I have heard all the evidence from both sides...I make a much better call with all the facts...and as we can see from the above...speculation (either mine or someone else's) does not provide much in the way of proof of anything and only leaves the door open for misinterpretation.

If Casey is guilty of murder and it is proven at the end of the trial, if she is found guilty by the jurors, then I am content to say that justice has been served...but until then...I think she has the right to presumed innocence right up to the minute before the jury hands down their verdict.

So.........
The defense has rested.

How does everyone think overall how they did - the defense that is.

Their opening defense arguments said that part of her defense was that her father and brother sexually abused her. That was never presented nor argued nor proved. It was a HUGE part of their reasoning behind what happened to Caylee. Stupid. Absolutely Stupid to open their defense this way. Casey would have had to get up on that stand and testify to it....and she did not.

Then, their next big defense was that Caylee drowned and Casey and her father helped cover it up by dumping the body in the shed. There was not one shred of testimony or evidence that supported this.

So what is left? Them arguing against the evidence, expert testimony and witness testimony. That failed miserably at this. Baiz was a bumbling bozo who did not know law well and did not know his way around the courtroom.

I personally feel that the juror will find her guilty based on the totality of circumstances presented in that courtroom.

However, my fear is that at some point Casey will claim her defense team was so bad and did such a horrible job representing her, that there will be an appeal for a re-trial....but I do feel confident that the same presentation in the courtroom will result in another guilty verdict. I just feel horrible that the family has to go thru all that again - regardless of how screwed up they all come across as.....