Casey Anthony found not guilty of her murder charge - Page 11

Steinhauer · 07-07-2011, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

Also, it apparently was put there after she died.

No, it was put there (according to forensic experts) while she was alive and was the murder weapon.

Remember, these experts included FBI forensic analysts and medical doctors.

StSapphire · 07-08-2011, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

Also, it apparently was put there after she died.

Hey!

That's Spitz, he testified at another murder trial I closely followed, too. (Ryan Widmer) That's interesting, I didn't know he testified for the defense.

**Beowulf** · 07-08-2011, 08:17 AM

I feel like duct-taping this thread and locking it in a trunk.

Tousi · 07-08-2011, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beowulf

I feel like duct-taping this thread and locking it in a trunk.

I'll spring for the chloroform.

**Beowulf** · 07-08-2011, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tousi

I'll spring for the chloroform.

Good. The thread will use it on itself to prevent further pain.

AlleyCat · 07-08-2011, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beowulf

I feel like duct-taping this thread and locking it in a trunk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tousi

I'll spring for the chloroform.

Steel X · 07-08-2011, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

Yes, every child deserves to have a father and mother listed, even if the parents don't like it. However, not all states require it. Some states want the father to be named before the mother can get welfare.

Yeah that way it'll help the law enforcement know who's the father and who's the mother of the child, etc. I'm sorry if anyone don't like it and it violates their rights, it's all part of keeping up with who is who than guessing who is who, as that would give a waste of time finding out who.

**deafskeptic** · 07-08-2011, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beowulf

I feel like duct-taping this thread and locking it in a trunk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tousi

I'll spring for the chloroform.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beowulf

Good. The thread will use it on itself to prevent further pain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlleyCat

rolling7 · 07-08-2011, 01:02 PM

I say this. If a mother comes to the government (any level) for public assistance, she should be told, "Go ask the Daddy first." If the daddy is not known, "YOU GO FIND HIM, it's not our problem." For those whom use a donor, it is safe to say if they did not need the donor's support then they certainly don't need the government's.

If you can not feed them, don't breed them.

TheOracle · 07-08-2011, 01:03 PM

The world wanted to convict Anthony because they thought she was a bad mother.

Yet no one was paying attention to Anthony before her daughter died, so again, I say: I'm glad that the American justice system does not favor lynch mob mentality.

rolling7 · 07-08-2011, 01:06 PM

I'll also say this.

The DA is not finish with this. There are charges that the DA can, and probably will, bring against individual members of this family based on their testimonies

TheOracle · 07-08-2011, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

I say this. If a mother comes to the government (any level) for public assistance, she should be told, "Go ask the Daddy first." If the daddy is not known, "YOU GO FIND HIM, it's not our problem." For those whom use a donor, it is safe to say if they did not need the donor's support then they certainly don't need the government's.

If you can not feed them, don't breed them.

Most states do this, but there are plenty (myself included) who aren't getting any public assistance and think it is very backwards and rude people have issues with not having my son's father on his b/c.

I'm thinking of all the things I've done in his life that would've required his signature:

1. School Enrollment.
2. Daycare enrollment.
3. Passport.
4. Name change issue (middle).
5. Travel.
6. Medical.
7. et freakin' cetera...

If the father doesn't want to be a father, then he shouldn't get those rights. By not having his name on there, I bypass 1000 steps when I handle these things. *shrug* Not going to apologize because some people on a message board think that their opinions of what is proper override my right to parent.

TheOracle · 07-08-2011, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

I'll also say this.

The DA is not finish with this. There are charges that the DA can, and probably will, bring against individual members of this family based on their testimonies

They won't. There's no evidence that supports their testimony well enough to do so. The DA is done.

**deafskeptic** · 07-08-2011, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

No, it was put there (according to forensic experts) while she was alive and was the murder weapon.

Remember, these experts included FBI forensic analysts and medical doctors.

Yet the prosecution was unable to prove what and who did this beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is upon them and they failed to provide it.

jillio · 07-08-2011, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

There is more evidence pointing towards smothering (duct tape) or chloroform (trace and internet search) than there is for drowning (no evidence), yet people keep mentioning the drowning scenario as though it were on a par with the murder scenario.

Still not enough evidence to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

jillio · 07-08-2011, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

The only evidence was a dead body with a skull covered with duct tape that had a heart shaped sticker and Casey Anthony's fingerprints on the tape (according to Leonard Padilla).

That all changed when the defense got ahold of the files .....

Also, the smell of a dead body from Casey Anthony's trunk as well as DNA evidence from Caylee.

What the hell was a child ever doing inside the trunk of a car?

And that was not enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. No matter how you try to twist it.

Smell does not prove murder, nor does the DNA. She was the child's mother. That DNA could have gotten there in any number of ways.

jillio · 07-08-2011, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

Yet the prosecution was unable to prove what and who did this beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is upon them and they failed to provide it.

Exactly. This was the prosecution's ball game, and they didn't hit a home run.

jillio · 07-08-2011, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

I say this. If a mother comes to the government (any level) for public assistance, she should be told, "Go ask the Daddy first." If the daddy is not known, "YOU GO FIND HIM, it's not our problem." For those whom use a donor, it is safe to say if they did not need the donor's support then they certainly don't need the government's.

If you can not feed them, don't breed them.

Judge much? Everything is so black and white to you. Real life does not fall so neatly into your dichotomous categorization.

**Reba** · 07-08-2011, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Still not enough evidence to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

I never said that it was.

I simply said that there was more evidence to support a murder rather than an accidental drowning yet people give credence to the drowning theory.

jillio · 07-08-2011, 02:35 PM

You guys go ahead with your judgement and your arm chair quarterbacking. Fact: there was reasonable doubt and Anthony was not convicted as a result. Live with it.

whatdidyousay! · 07-08-2011, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOracle

Bad idea. Then the father would be obligated to pay child support even if he is not the father!

My son's birth certificate doesn't have his father's name on it. I know exactly who it is and he pays child support. I'm keeping his name off, though, since we decided that he's Dad in DNA Only.

PS What would you do about lesbians who artificially inseminate??

Or rape victims ? Women would not know the guy was if they raped by stranger.

StSapphire · 07-08-2011, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Still not enough evidence to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

To you. And the jurors. However, different people do have different definitions of what doubts are "reasonable" or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

And that was not enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. No matter how you try to twist it.

Smell does not prove murder, nor does the DNA. She was the child's mother. That DNA could have gotten there in any number of ways.

With this jury, at least. There may well have been enough evidence to convict if the jury was totally impartial (or not!) or if they were more educated on scientific processes and terms and the like (or less evidence in that case).

whatdidyousay! · 07-08-2011, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlleyCat

In that case (the bolded), why were you so ready to convict her ?? You've said it over and over and over.

Because of her not reporting that her baby was missing for 31 days!And Casey did not want to keep her baby! Casey acted like someone trying to hide a crime, and if she did not kill her child there would had been no reason for Casey to behaved the way she did!

jillio · 07-08-2011, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StSapphire

To you. And the jurors. However, different people do have different definitions of what doubts are "reasonable" or not.

With this jury, at least. There may well have been enough evidence to convict if the jury was totally impartial (or not!) or if they were more educated on scientific processes and terms and the like (or less evidence in that case).

Speculation.

Fact: reasonable doubt came into play and she was not convicted.

**Banjo** · 07-08-2011, 03:05 PM

She was acquitted. She cannot be tried on the same charges. Period.

jillio · 07-08-2011, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatdidyousay!

Because of her not reporting that her baby was missing for 31 days!And Casey did not want to keep her baby! Casey acted like someone trying to hide a crime, and if she did not kill her child there would had been no reason for Casey to behaved the way she did!

None of that proves murder. You want to convict her of murder because you don't like something she did.

jillio · 07-08-2011, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banjo

She was acquitted. She cannot be tried on the same charges. Period.

Bingo. No double jeopardy.

StSapphire · 07-08-2011, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Speculation.

Fact: reasonable doubt came into play and she was not convicted.

Of course it's speculation, I'm just pointing out that "reasonable doubt" isn't an objective measurement or anything like that, it's extremely subjective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banjo

She was acquitted. She cannot be tried on the same charges. Period.

Oh, certainly. But it is certainly still possible that the jury was mistaken. There's just nothing that can be done about it if they were.

**Banjo** · 07-08-2011, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StSapphire

Oh, certainly. But it is certainly still possible that the jury was mistaken. There's just nothing that can be done about it if they were.

Bingo. There is nothing we can do about it. So there's no point in arguing over it.

StSapphire · 07-08-2011, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banjo

Bingo. There is nothing we can do about it. So there's no point in arguing over it.

Whaaaat!? You mean it's pointless to argue about most things on the internet, because all it does is make us feel like we've actually done something when all we've really done is sit around wanking the whole time?

But that's one of my forms of entertainment...

07-08-2011, 08:17 AM	#303 (permalink)
Beowulf Premium Member Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 10,516	I feel like duct-taping this thread and locking it in a trunk. Oceanbreeze, jillio, deafskeptic and 2 others like this.

07-08-2011, 01:03 PM	#310 (permalink)
TheOracle Registered User Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Denver Posts: 1,491	The world wanted to convict Anthony because they thought she was a bad mother. Yet no one was paying attention to Anthony before her daughter died, so again, I say: I'm glad that the American justice system does not favor lynch mob mentality. Oceanbreeze, jillio and deafskeptic like this. __________________ In the confusion we stay with each other, happy to be together, speaking without uttering a single word. Question everyone. This is the Internet.

07-08-2011, 03:05 PM	#325 (permalink)
Banjo Expelled Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 11,650	She was acquitted. She cannot be tried on the same charges. Period. jillio and KristinaB like this.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

07-08-2011, 01:02 PM	#309 (permalink)
rolling7 Banned Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,340	I say this. If a mother comes to the government (any level) for public assistance, she should be told, "Go ask the Daddy first." If the daddy is not known, "YOU GO FIND HIM, it's not our problem." For those whom use a donor, it is safe to say if they did not need the donor's support then they certainly don't need the government's. If you can not feed them, don't breed them.

07-08-2011, 01:06 PM	#311 (permalink)
rolling7 Banned Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,340	I'll also say this. The DA is not finish with this. There are charges that the DA can, and probably will, bring against individual members of this family based on their testimonies

07-08-2011, 02:35 PM	#320 (permalink)
jillio Banned Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 60,296	You guys go ahead with your judgement and your arm chair quarterbacking. Fact: there was reasonable doubt and Anthony was not convicted as a result. Live with it.