Casey Anthony Guilty of... lying... watching live The trial

Originally posted by Jools
EVIDENCE=LIES
EVIDENCE=DUCT TAPE

"Lies" are testimony, not "evidence".

The duct tape is evidence, but of what? How do you connect that specifically to Ms. Anthony? Is she the only person to ever have accessed that garage?

Is that ALL the evidence you have? If so, it's surely a thin basis to build a case upon against a specific individual!

Just not enough to convict....Please stop ripping posts apart as you are so Childish.

Childish? let's compare Birth Certificates!

If a post CAN BE ripped apart, it really OUGHT to be! How do they arrive at the Truth in YOUR neck of the woods? OR DO they... ever? Sounds to me like they just pick a name at random and lay the sins of the world on that person once a year, and probably burn 'em in a big wicker effigy!

Childish? Let's go with the "God thing" one more time: "suffer the little children to come unto me."

Yeah, I might be "childish" after all!

She is as GUILTY as hell and you know it!...everyone knows it...

I KNOW no such thing, and neither do you! IF you've got the goods to prove your assertion, why didn't you take it to court so that the prosecution would have SOME evidence? Since you obviously have such proof, and utterly FAILED to present it to the court, you are guilty of obstruction of justice!

THERE! I've convicted YOU now, based upon your OWN testimony!

That's what this threads about...read the OP title of the thread....Maybe you should start up your own thread about your own personal opinion as you think your GOD actually. Your factually wrong and really CHILDISH.

If I'm "factually wrong", I openly invite to to point out which facts I am WRONG about! I'll wait, while you gather your notes... it should be a simple task, since you've somehow gotten the proof that the court never had.

See above for assement of my "childishness".

You seem rather preturbed. Does losing an argument you should never have started to begin with really affect you so much? Next time, line up your facts before jumping to conclusions if it does.

This woman stands to not only walk free knowing what happened but also to make a substantial amount of money out of it all... If you think that's morally right be my guest...

I don't see a problem with that, no. She'll pay the price for the lies, and as for the rest she's NOT GUILTY. The court has determined that.

BTW, if it wasn't for folks such as yourself engaging in this feeding frenzy demanding her blood, her "story" wouldn't sell to begin with! Now you want to condemn her on the possibility that she might provide a "fix" for you?

and as for media and comparing me...How dare you?...you have no right...I am far from media savvy...I just happen to know the difference between right and wrong. I happen to have been following this case really closely...which is something i do not normally do as it's out of my interest/comfort zone normally...HOW DARE YOU JUDGE ME!!!

You have judged HER, and without evidence! I claim the same authority to judge as you do.

Feels funny, don't it?

I'm not going to reply to any more of your trolling post you are rude, out of touch and very judgemental of people.

Good. run along now!

/sarcasm

I'm glad you've learned to recognize "judgmental" when you see it now! Thank your god that YOU aren't so judgmental! Here's a suggested prayer for you: "Lord, I thank the that I am not like these other men..." you probably know the rest already...

/sarcasm

learn to be magnanimous!

Accept the fact that life isn't always fair, justice is not always served, and that sometimes people really do get away with murder.

Originally posted by Jools
LOL i'm Canadian and I'm female...(Try reading where I am based at least)..I had to laugh...sorry...No I'm not an armchair verdict person...seems I am being ripped apart on this thread when others have given the same opinions and not been...
I'll keep my mouth shut now...However, I do think I'm entitled to my opinion and I suggest you read others opinions above as I feel like I am being got at by you and an above poster....
Normally I'm interested in History and Space and other stuff and don't post on such matters ...seems I am not allowed to have my own opinion on here!!!!
Last time I post on threads like this!

Oh and by the way Jools can be male or female name

Peace!

Of course you're entitled to an opinion! What you have done here, though, is to present that opinion as accomplished fact, which it is not.

It's opinion, and a life potentially hung in the balance over it. An "afterlife", if your consignment of Ms. Anthony to "rot in hell" is to be taken as a serious opinion. With that sort of results, an opinion should not be formed lightly or without evidence to back it up, but it IS permissible.

Presenting said opinion as accomplished FACT is not.

The upside is, you now may have an inkling of how SHE felt, on trial for something she may not have done at all.

Originally posted by DarthPhobos
Being from Ireland I have little idea as to who or what Casey Anthony did or who the person is.

Just curious, is this some kind of reality tv show designed to dumb the american population down further

This might sound crazy (but this is ATS), but I think cases like this and OJ are designed to make people want to do away with civil right protections.

There has been a big push recently to overturn rights and I think the MSN does a good job of turning people against the protections. Sure sometimes they will have a few stories about people wrongly convicted but I bet if you added up the time it would be about 1% of the Anthony case alone.

Originally posted by DarthPhobos
Being from Ireland I have little idea as to who or what Casey Anthony did or who the person is.

Just curious, is this some kind of reality tv show designed to dumb the american population down further

Kinda hard to get much lower down on the dumb scale than we already are there mate.
2nd line

Originally posted by maybee
They did agree that she lied to the police. That's the puzzling part. Why? Why would she lie when so many where trying to help find this child in the beginning. I didn't have a perfect childhood as did many others, so the "she was abused" defense taken by so many just doesn't add up to me, at least. If she lied, she has to know something whether it was accidental or on purpose. I just don't see how she could have been a "party girl" during that time and not been frantic about her child. I just honestly don't see how a mother could act that way with a little child missing or harmed.

I had a less than optimal childhood, too, but it was rough in a different way than hers was alleged to have been rough. My childhood tended to produce an adult that was less... compliant than normal (or "more contrary", if you're a "glass half empty" sort of person )

Because of that, I can't presume to either justify or condemn her reactions. I wasn't there, I didn't live it, and I have no conception at a gut level of how that may make one think or act, or how it may cause one to follow blindly directions given by a perceived "authority" figure, particularly if that figure has been the same one dominating me my entire life.

"partying" is often an attempt to escape a reality, and what I can say is that if my reality were hers, I might want to escape it, too!

Our lives have been different from hers, and tends to produce a different sort of adult, with different "built in" reactions to external problems. I know in my case I tend to not react outwardly at all, to much of anything, and people perceive me as being cold, unfeeling, and uncaring of much of anything. that's not the case at all, but I have to admit that IS the outward appearance.

It's NOT, however, the inner man. he just never gets to come out to play, and the world is probably a better place for it!

If I were to go on trial for a murder, and they based the decisions on my outward reactions, I'd be hung for sure, whether I did it or not.

reply to post by biosphere


Who is "RS", who is "F", and who is "R", and why do they talk funny, as if English is somewhat foreign to them, yet they try to use the idioms?

I don't get the bit about the tape....
the body was badly decomposed, down to skeleton level...
okay, so, as the body decomposed wouldn't the tape have just kind of fell off, in other words, once the skin was gone from the face, the tape wouldn't have adhered to anything, and fallen off, which one story I heard stated just that, the tape wasn't laying across the mouth, it was laying beside the body, or something like that.
then you have the defense saying something about the skull being in alignment with the spinal cord, and that could only have happened if it was held in place by tape, but then again, the tape would have lost it's adherance (it seems it would have anyways) as the skin decomposed..

Originally posted by kingofmd

Originally posted by nenothtu
Absolutely she lied, and she WAS CONVICTED FOR THAT LYING. It doesn't warrant a death penalty, nor does it warrant consignment to hell.

Not to nit pick, but actually it does.

Revelation 21: 7-8

He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death

Then we are all doomed. There is not a person yet drawing breath, who is old enough to speak, who has NEVER told a lie. That's sort of what the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" speech was all about.

Your God is a pretty harsh guy.

I'm glad mine makes certain allowances and provisions for human frailties.

Guess I just don't buy the "reasonable doubt" angle. Many cases come up where the same methods are employed to sway a jury. I'm inclined to think that jury had a "reason to doubt" and used this as "reasonable doubt".

Would it be reasonable for Casey to have killed her daughter? Yes
Was there reasonable evidence to support a murder by Casey? Yes
Was there reasonable motive for her to have killed Caylee? Yes

Now, the defense's job is to get the jury to doubt each and every piece of evidence presented by the prosecution.

So, all a jury member needs to do is have a reason to doubt the evidence and they conclude that they have not met "resonable doubt". If it were me, I would have voted guilty based on what was presented.

Before DNA evidence, Casey would have been found guilty. As I've stated before, the sad fact is that someone in the Anthony family KNOWS what happened. This was not a random murder and the fact that we may never know the truth about what happened to Caylee is a travesty of the criminal justice system. So, let the lawyer for the defense give the middle finger all he wants. What that really represents is that he could care less what happened to a little girl who was horribly murdered and forgotten for a month. All he cares about is the publicity and the high fives he can give to his colleagues as if this were an occasion to celebrate.

Lawyers make me

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by ofhumandescent

 

I just starred your post, and I share same questions:

a) chloroform inside the car?????? Why on Earth? It's about as exotic as uranium in our normal lives. If this isn't a smoking gun, I don't know what is.

b) partying... Much to celebrate? Really?

I mean please... Scott Peterson went to the death row on less circumstantial evidence.

If you have a new house, or even just new carpet, it's shot full of formaldehyde.

Does it naturally follow, then, that you MUST have a pickled body hidden in there somewhere?

I personally believe Mr Peterson was wrongly convicted on at least one count of murder as well. Doesn't much matter what I think now though, does it?

reply to post by Freenrgy2

Agreed entirely

Either Casey, her mom Cindy, or her dad George know what happened and who murdered Caylee. George Anthony was a HOMICIDE DETECTIVE with the Trumbell County Sheriff's Office in Ohio before he retired and moved to Florida. I think he would know more then a thing or two about how to cover up a murder and get away with it.

Originally posted by JRCrowley

Originally posted by Anttyk47
She's not guilty by the courts ruling.
Don't be mad at her. Be mad at the court room.

Good logic.
1. She murders her kid
2. She goes to court
3. She's found not guilty
4. People are stupid to be mad at her, because it was the jury that found her not guilty.

*FACE PALM*

Do you know she murdered her kid? No.

I've been following this story somewhat but I have some questions.

1. Who said she drowned?
2. who said she was murdered?

I didn't watch the entire trial, but I watched some of it on CourtTV, including the verdict. She just looked guilty imo, and I think she was as surprised as everyone else that she was found not guilty of 1st degree murder. Honestly though, it was one of those that could go either way. All of the evidence was circumstantial, yet many people thought she was guilty. However, the jury has to follow the law, and to convict her the prosecution had to provide evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" that she was guilty, and I agree with the jury that it just wasn't there. Despite what they may have thought about her guilt or innocence, the evidence must speak for itself.

Originally posted by FlySolo
I've been following this story somewhat but I have some questions.

1. Who said she drowned?
2. who said she was murdered?

If you had been following this story, then you would know the answers to these questions.

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
I didn't watch the entire trial, but I watched some of it on CourtTV, including the verdict. She just looked guilty imo, and I think she was as surprised as everyone else that she was found not guilty of 1st degree murder. Honestly though, it was one of those that could go either way. All of the evidence was circumstantial, yet many people thought she was guilty. However, the jury has to follow the law, and to convict her the prosecution had to provide evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" that she was guilty, and I agree with the jury that it just wasn't there. Despite what they may have thought about her guilt or innocence, the evidence must speak for itself.

edit on 7/6/11 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)

The prosecution presented evidence. A lot was tossed and all the defense has to do is inject doubt into whatever evidence is presented. The jury is supposed to look at the evidence and decide if it is beyond resonable doubt that the evidence and facts supports the prosecution's case. In my opinion, had some of the tossed evidence been allowed, there might have been a different verdict. It is my opinion that the jury did not decide based on reasonable doubt, but that they were give a reason TO doubt by Casey's attorney's. And it didn't help that her parents testified in favor of the defense. That stinks. It's one thing to protect your daughter, but to protect and allow someone to get away with murder is beyond the pale.

It's a sick game that they played and we still don't know what happened to Caylee.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

Originally posted by FlySolo
I've been following this story somewhat but I have some questions.

1. Who said she drowned?
2. who said she was murdered?

If you had been following this story, then you would know the answers to these questions.

Somewhat I said. I have a life you know. Can you answer my question or not? It's not a tough one.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
Guess I just don't buy the "reasonable doubt" angle. Many cases come up where the same methods are employed to sway a jury. I'm inclined to think that jury had a "reason to doubt" and used this as "reasonable doubt".

Would it be reasonable for Casey to have killed her daughter? Yes
Was there reasonable evidence to support a murder by Casey? Yes
Was there reasonable motive for her to have killed Caylee? Yes

Now, the defense's job is to get the jury to doubt each and every piece of evidence presented by the prosecution.

So, all a jury member needs to do is have a reason to doubt the evidence and they conclude that they have not met "resonable doubt". If it were me, I would have voted guilty based on what was presented.

Before DNA evidence, Casey would have been found guilty. As I've stated before, the sad fact is that someone in the Anthony family KNOWS what happened. This was not a random murder and the fact that we may never know the truth about what happened to Caylee is a travesty of the criminal justice system. So, let the lawyer for the defense give the middle finger all he wants. What that really represents is that he could care less what happened to a little girl who was horribly murdered and forgotten for a month. All he cares about is the publicity and the high fives he can give to his colleagues as if this were an occasion to celebrate.

Lawyers make me

edit on 6-7-2011 by Freenrgy2 because: (no reason given)

With your level of ignorance of the principles that apply you would never have been allowed on that jury.

Before DNA evidence the number of citizens convicted of crimes they were innocent of was much larger than today. Yet, you prefer to go back to a system under which today's vital DNA evidence is not available to the decision makers in criminal cases? Nice thought process there buddy.

Your post displays an appalling lack of understanding of the most fundamental principles of the U.S. Criminal Justice System, the burden of proof, the role of the prosecutor, of the defense attorney, and of the jury, and the obligations imposed on each of the persons who perform those functions.

I don't believe that Casey Anthony murdered her child. The prosecutors certainly didn't come close to proving that she did. All we know about Casey Anthony is that she's a troubled young woman, her child is dead, and that Casey behaved inexplicably badly after her child became missing.

But, what the hell, let's just convict 99 innocent people to make sure that 1 guilty person doesn't go free. Go live in a totalitarian state. You'll fit in very well there.

For now, go join Nancy Grace at her pity party. You'll feel better and likely well justified in clinging to your delusions about what happened in this case.

You are right about one thing: Someone knows what happened and that person has not told the world what he or she knows.

12 People with more information than any of us found that she wasn't guilty. Anyone saying that she looks guilty or that she IS guilty needs to be monitored 24/7 and if they end up looking guilty, we'll take them to court...