paniuroczy said:

KingBAD said:

if the jury came back in three minutes with a guilty on murder 1 they would have been genius in action... and a miscarriage of justice. is this the justice system you want in this country? sinsationalism makes lynchings justifiable as well as any reason for lynching.

You know, I'd rather live in a country where the justice system is innocent until proven guilty and there is a trial that you have to go through instead of one where people jump to conclusions. People aren't perfect, therefore nothing created by humans are not perfect either. There would be no such thing as a justice system that is perfect and therefore there will be some [truly] guilty people that are acquitted and some innocent people who are deemed guilty. I'd rather have this justice system than most justice systems out there, although I'm no expert.

There will always be imperfections in this world, and it's about how you deal with them as it comes your way as opposed to trying to fix and change them all.

I believe in God.. if she truly killed her child (as I don't know what happened personally, although I think that she more likely did it), then it will boomerang back at her. One way or another. We can't dwell on this or blame the jury or blame the prosecution because I am sure that they had the best intentions in mind. All we can do is move on and know that God and the Universe will deal with her. It's not our responsibility, all we can do is speculate and have opinions and theorize. This is all.

me too. Look at the Amanda Knox case. Seems the evidence was very weak against her. But in France you have to disprove the evidence against you. In the anthony case the state did not prove beyond a resalable doubt.

What I am amused over is how people are now worried she might be treated poorly by people. LOL well yeah.

Serena said:

I'm trying to get ready for a trip, so I haven't had much time to be posting and will try and catch up when I can, especially since the jurors are now asking for blood money and blabbing everywhere they can.

Anyway, I think it was SUPRman(?) that asked for 10 evidentiary items proving her guilt, so here ya go:

10 points of evidence presented in court:


1) Human decomposition in her trunk and cadaver dog alerts in the back yard and on the car. Multiple experts on both sides verified the compounds found in the trunk were consistent with human decomposition, along with expert testimony about the actual smell, which remained for at least 2 years. There's NO other explanation for that certain smell to be there. It wasn't the smell of garbage nor were there any foodstuffs in the trash bag, only food type objects were an empty salami wrapper and an empty Velvetta wrapper. Also, when the bag was removed, the odor stayed in the trunk, it did not follow the bag. SHE was the only person in control of the car until it was impounded.


2) Death-banded, decomposed hair consistent with Caylee's found in trunk.


3) Henkel brand duct tape stuck in her hair with part of it holding her mandible in place.


4) Casey not reporting her child missing for 31 days and the only reason that even happened was because *Cindy* called the police. Cindy had to go searching for her, pulled her out of her boyfriend's apt and demanded she take her to Caylee, which she couldn't do. She begged her mom for 'one more day', then she'd come back home. During those 31 days, Cindy kept asking to see Caylee and Casey made up story after story as to where she was. You can listen for yourself to that call (linked earlier) and see who knew what.


5) Casey partying like there was no tomorrow during those days, the night of the 16th, she went to Blockbuster(security videos introduced) with her then boyfriend and spent the entire next day in bed with him, he even played hooky because he was enjoying himself too much to leave (testified to by the bf). (this next part wasn't evidence but here's an interesting anecdote:

"Casey Anthony, mother of Caylee Anthony, was seen on video surveillance at a Blockbuster Video on June 16, 2008, with a boyfriend, Anthony “Tony” Lazzaro,

renting two movies — “Untraceable” and “Jumper,” according to ABC Action News.

“Untraceable” a 2008 film by Gregory Hoblit, stars Diane Lane, Billy Burke and Colin Hanks. Lane’s character, Jennifer Marsh, must track down a cyber-kidnapper and killer who uses the Internet.

“Jumper,” a 2008 film by Doug Liman, also stars Diane Lane, with Hayden Christensen, Rachel Bilson, Samuel L. Jackson and Jamie Bell. Lane plays Mary Rice, a mother who abandons her 5-year-old son David Rice (Christensen), who later realizes the power to jump anywhere he wants."

Then there was also a computer search done by her for the 100th episode of One Tree Hill, which dealt with a nanny kidnapping a child.)



6) Google search for 'how to make chloroform' which were made when only Casey was home (work records entered for Cindy and George), also were made using Google, where Cindy & George used a different account and Yahoo for their searches. (all cell records and ping location reports were entered into evidence, which also proved where she was and when. this info was collated into the timeline I posted earlier)


7) HIGH levels of chloroform in trunk, even higher than 'normal minimal trace' amounts on the trunk carpeting after being aired out for 4 days. (Defense witness testified to that and couldn't explain why those types of levels would be found unless extremely high amounts of chloroform and human decomposition were present at one time (related to #1) The combinations could not have come from household cleaners or other substances.

8) Laundry bag, garbage bags, Winnie the Pooh blanket, duct tape all from the Anthony's garage, which Casey backed her car into 2 days in a row when no one else was home. She also borrowed a shovel from the neighbor one of the days to supposedly dig out a bamboo shoot then returned it within 45 mins or so.

9) All of the lies she told the police while they were trying to help her find her child the first day and thereafter, while denying that ANY accident happened.

10) Caylee was found close to home, which is right where she told her brother 'she felt' she was and that he should look around there. (jailhouse tapes)

11) And I'll include here ALL of her jailhouse calls/videos that were admitted, her statements and demeanor were very damning.

I appreciate all the effort that went into posting this - some of which (the Blockbuster information) was news to me. I also think she is guilty as sin -- HOWEVER, nothing you wrote here is "proof" that she murdered her daughter. Legally speaking, it's not "proof".

Human decomposition in the trunk . . . well, they finally claimed she drowned but never really explained the disposal process. Why on Earth there was no charge for negligence or criminal child abuse (in the disposal stage) is beyond me. That's part of the reason Casey Anthony didn't testify, since the question of "who dumped the body" would come up. I don't think to this day they know which family member dumped the body - regardless of whether it was murder or not.

I still can't believe she is not only "not guilty", but was not charged with ANYTHING other than lying.

Faux News says Anthony might get in upwards of $1,000,000 for a live interview. Who would pay?

CNN is reporting that she may be entering the Witness Protection Services. Which is understandable.

lazycrockett said:

CNN is reporting that she may be entering the Witness Protection Services. Which is understandable.

Everyone is complaining that she didn't get put in jail, but at least she got her life taken away from her somehow. She now has no friends, no family, everyone knows that she's a monster. It would be hard for her to survive in this society.

paniuroczy said:

lazycrockett said:

CNN is reporting that she may be entering the Witness Protection Services. Which is understandable.

Everyone is complaining that she didn't get put in jail, but at least she got her life taken away from her somehow. She now has no friends, no family, everyone knows that she's a monster. It would be hard for her to survive in this society.

I'm sure some men would find a woman that committed to not having children attractive.

SUPRMAN said:

SUPRMAN said:

paniuroczy said:

Everyone is complaining that she didn't get put in jail, but at least she got her life taken away from her somehow. She now has no friends, no family, everyone knows that she's a monster. It would be hard for her to survive in this society.

I'm sure some men would find a woman that committed to not having children attractive.

Really? I mean, seriously? You really think there are men out there who will be attracted to her because she's a child killer? If there is, its LITERALLY a handful, which is definitely not "some". And that handful, unless they're bug-fucking crazy, is not going to be publicizing that fetish as the rest of the sane world would find them despicable.

I hate kids. I have never once hidden the fact that I hate kids. I want nothing more than to meet a woman who REALLY doesn't want children (preferably one who just can't have them) that I would otherwise enjoy spending a good deal of time with. But I would never wish death upon a child and I would have ZERO interest in being with a woman who did. LESS than zero with one who had actually done something so vile.

Cerebus said:

SUPRMAN said:

I'm sure some men would find a woman that committed to not having children attractive.

Really? I mean, seriously? You really think there are men out there who will be attracted to her because she's a child killer? If there is, its LITERALLY a handful, which is definitely not "some". And that handful, unless they're bug-fucking crazy, is not going to be publicizing that fetish as the rest of the sane world would find them despicable.

I hate kids. I have never once hidden the fact that I hate kids. I want nothing more than to meet a woman who REALLY doesn't want children (preferably one who just can't have them) that I would otherwise enjoy spending a good deal of time with. But I would never wish death upon a child and I would have ZERO interest in being with a woman who did. LESS than zero with one who had actually done something so vile.

I did not say they would be attracted to her because she is a child killer. . . . . . .

For one she is not that great looking. Average looks at best.

But that is not what I came to say:

I find it funny that she is all scared that her life is in danger. Just like her baby was scared as her MOM was murdering her.

I do not want anyone to get killed but her and her attorneys brought this on themselves. Do not dare cry about it now. To quote Han Solo "Maybe you'd like it back in your cell, your highness..."

OnlyNDaUsa said:

For one she is not that great looking. Average looks at best.

But that is not what I came to say:

I find it funny that she is all scared that her life is in danger. Just like her baby was scared as her MOM was murdering her.

I do not want anyone to get killed but her and her attorneys brought this on themselves. Do not dare cry about it now. To quote Han Solo "Maybe you'd like it back in your cell, your highness..."

Conjecture and speculative.

SUPRMAN said:

SCNDLS said:

HotGritz said:

Ahh but you're forgetting that OJ had those other two higly coveted commodities: celebrity and money.

There are three things that get you buy in life and free you from the stickiest jams: Celebrity, Money and White Privilege/Looks. Now for the latter hyphenated item I have to state that if Caylee were some busted back burner bitch with missing teeth and a weak chin she would have gone to prison in a heart beat.

P.S. OJ could have lived the la vida loca if his ass wasn't constantly out there cheezin, playing golf, cavorting with random beckys and hanging out with third tier mobsters. That fool is right where he belongs. Hopefully Casey will follow in his footsteps and fuck up over the next few years.

How folks LOVE trotting OJ out to say "he's black and got off" as if he is representative of the average black defendant is completely ridiculous.

shorttrini said:

MrSoulpower said:

Pure speculation. They didn't fry O.J.'s ass either, and the case against him was much, much stronger.

This case, was a death penalty case, where O.J.'s wasn't. The mere fact that they were seeking the death penalty played a part in why she got off. This caused them to look at the evidence more carefully because, somebody's life was as stake. When you are forced to look at the evidence that closely, the chances of there being doubt is greater.

minneapolisFunq said:

She (allegedly)killed her own child. She didn't harm anyone else's children.

How is it hard to understand why I think that makes things less of a public dilemma?

You don't have to like it.

It really doesn't matter either way because she is innocent.

Serena said:

SUPRMAN said:

Really? Or just when it's on tv?

Yes, really. Of course I get upset when someone gets away with murdering their ex-wife and friend too. Do I read up on EVERY case in the country? No, but when the trial is broadcast, it's easier to pay attention. I don't watch the 'talking heads' and their take, I watch the actual trial and transcripts, when available. There were only a couple of sidebar transcripts made available from this one though, wish there were more. The OJ ones were the real eye-openers though, from those sidebars it was very apparent that everyone involved knew he was guilty.

Serena said:

babynoz said:

Right. Trying the case in the media isn't the same as inside the courtroom, trust me. In the article you posted for example, how can there be a smell of death in the car trunk and no dna evidence in there? Or how could they not find dna on the duct tape? And what about the experts who disagreed on the way the autopsy was done?

And all of attorneys and judges they have interviewed so far say the same thing. The State Attorney over-charged the case in the first place because they didn't have enough for a first degree case to begin with.

The defense didn't even seem that good but it seems the prosecution wasn't able to close up the gaping holes in their case.

The car still stunk 2 years later. There was no DNA found of ANYONE'S, because Mommy Dearest cleaned the fuck out of the car before it was examined by the Police. No prints or anything from the tow yard folks or Dad, who drove the car from the tow yard, nada. They did find a hair of Caylee's in the trunk which had a 'death band', meaning it can ONLY come from a deceased body. That baby was in the trunk, NO QUESTION about that. That's why Casey put a bag of trash in there (to try and excuse the smell), parked the car next to a dumpster when she abandoned it (again to cover the smell), called her friend (this was testified to in court) only to say that something must've died in her car (like a squirrel) because it smelled so bad.

See my other post regarding the (not an) autopsy.

All these facts that the jury ignored or didn't understand the Science involved, is why those of us who paid attention are upset.

Even if the jury didn't think it was 1st Degree, they should have at least charged her with 2nd degree or Aggravated child abuse.

prodigalfan said:

shorttrini said:

This case, was a death penalty case, where O.J.'s wasn't. The mere fact that they were seeking the death penalty played a part in why she got off. This caused them to look at the evidence more carefully because, somebody's life was as stake. When you are forced to look at the evidence that closely, the chances of there being doubt is greater.

I also think if there wasn't a death penalty case, Cindy Anthony would not have lied on the witness stand. After all, SHE is a mother and obviously a better mother than her own daughter... she threw herself on the sword in an effort to save her daughter's life. Caylee is gone and nothing can bring her back... I could see lying to protect your daughter's life. If Casey was going to serve time without the threat of death penalty... I'm convinced that Cindy would have let Casey get her what she deserved. The death penalty just upped the ante so to speak and the prosecution obviously overplayed its hand.

What?

Not buying it.

prodigalfan said:

minneapolisFunq said:

She (allegedly)killed her own child. She didn't harm anyone else's children.

How is it hard to understand why I think that makes things less of a public dilemma?

You don't have to like it.

It really doesn't matter either way because she is innocent.

she was found "not guilty", not INNOCENT. These are not synomonous. Not guilty can mean (and does mean in this case) that the prosecution did not prove the case charged. Innocent means absence of wrong doing in all aspects and you should have not been charged in the first place. The fact that Casey did not report her baby missing, made no attempts to find her, and then lied to delay locating her baby proved that she was NOT INNOCENT.

That does not prove she was not innocent. It proves the same thing it did at trial. Nothing.

The jury did not find her innocent. That wasn't an option. They could only find her guilty or not guilty. Even if you should are found to be asbent of wrongdoing in all aspects and you should not have been charged in the first place, the jury finding will still be 'not guilty,' not 'innocent.'

prodigalfan said:

Serena said:

Yes, really. Of course I get upset when someone gets away with murdering their ex-wife and friend too. Do I read up on EVERY case in the country? No, but when the trial is broadcast, it's easier to pay attention. I don't watch the 'talking heads' and their take, I watch the actual trial and transcripts, when available. There were only a couple of sidebar transcripts made available from this one though, wish there were more. The OJ ones were the real eye-openers though, from those sidebars it was very apparent that everyone involved knew he was guilty.

really? Interesting. It appears our judicial system is set up in such a way that a court case becomes more of a contest or competitive game. Each side knows the truth... it comes down to who came into court with their game ON. Wow, it is what it is.

It is designed as an adversarial system.

It also incentivizes disclosure.

runphilrun said:

Looking at pictures of this woman smiling after the verdict was read made me ill. Whether you did it or not, your fuckin daughter is dead, and you're carrying on like you won the Lotto.

I was listening on the radio this morning, that it appears that some people are supporting her, by putting money on her jail account, offering her a place to stay when she gets how, as well as protection. I guess soon will come the marriage proposals.

morningsong said:

I was listening on the radio this morning, that it appears that some people are supporting her, by putting money on her jail account, offering her a place to stay when she gets how, as well as protection. I guess soon will come the marriage proposals.

Yeah, I saw that too. They said there were fifteen people who were doing that. It was said that they all believe that she was innocent, and I don't blame people for thinking that because I understand that you can't always help what you feel and there will always be people who believe something different. Crazy to hear, though.

I understand that the intentions of those people are good but it's still like... .

prodigalfan said:

shorttrini said:

This case, was a death penalty case, where O.J.'s wasn't. The mere fact that they were seeking the death penalty played a part in why she got off. This caused them to look at the evidence more carefully because, somebody's life was as stake. When you are forced to look at the evidence that closely, the chances of there being doubt is greater.

I also think if there wasn't a death penalty case, Cindy Anthony would not have lied on the witness stand. After all, SHE is a mother and obviously a better mother than her own daughter... she threw herself on the sword in an effort to save her daughter's life. Caylee is gone and nothing can bring her back... I could see lying to protect your daughter's life. If Casey was going to serve time without the threat of death penalty... I'm convinced that Cindy would have let Casey get her what she deserved. The death penalty just upped the ante so to speak and the prosecution obviously overplayed its hand.

Yep!

morningsong said:

I was listening on the radio this morning, that it appears that some people are supporting her, by putting money on her jail account, offering her a place to stay when she gets how, as well as protection. I guess soon will come the marriage proposals.

She gon' need protecting cuz she gets out on Sunday

SCNDLS said:

morningsong said:

I was listening on the radio this morning, that it appears that some people are supporting her, by putting money on her jail account, offering her a place to stay when she gets how, as well as protection. I guess soon will come the marriage proposals.

She gon' need protecting cuz she gets out on Sunday

SUPRMAN said:

prodigalfan said:

she was found "not guilty", not INNOCENT. These are not synomonous. Not guilty can mean (and does mean in this case) that the prosecution did not prove the case charged. Innocent means absence of wrong doing in all aspects and you should have not been charged in the first place. The fact that Casey did not report her baby missing, made no attempts to find her, and then lied to delay locating her baby proved that she was NOT INNOCENT.

That does not prove she was not innocent. It proves the same thing it did at trial. Nothing.

The jury did not find her innocent. That wasn't an option. They could only find her guilty or not guilty. Even if you should are found to be asbent of wrongdoing in all aspects and you should not have been charged in the first place, the jury finding will still be 'not guilty,' not 'innocent.'

prodigalfan said:

SUPRMAN said:

That does not prove she was not innocent. It proves the same thing it did at trial. Nothing.

The jury did not find her innocent. That wasn't an option. They could only find her guilty or not guilty. Even if you should are found to be asbent of wrongdoing in all aspects and you should not have been charged in the first place, the jury finding will still be 'not guilty,' not 'innocent.'

it seems we are pointing out the same fact. Read the statement above my reply. Someone declared Casey was found INNOCENT... which I have stated is incorrect. Then after researching on the internet... I posted one ATTORNEY'S distinction between innocent and not guilty. The explanation makes sense to me. Not sure what exactly you are disputing here.

Only what I bolded. As far as defining 'innocent,' we are on the same page.

A list of circumstantial suppositions does not mean that she is 'not innocent.'

To wit: "The fact that Casey did not report her baby missing, made no attempts to find her, and then lied to delay locating her baby proved that she was NOT INNOCENT."

None of that proves that she is 'not innocent.'

Short of a killer stepping forward with a confession nothing proves she is guilty or 'innocent.'

The term is being used inaccurately I think to distinguish the fact that even though she was found not guilty, she is still believed to be culpable in her daughter's disappearance and death.

I like Whoopee Goldberg's take on it, that it proves the system can work. The Jury just didn't get enough good evidence to convict her and they did their duty.

Now I'd wish Juries would do the same with black defendents.

2freaky4church1 said:

I like Whoopee Goldberg's take on it, that it proves the system can work. The Jury just didn't get enough good evidence to convict her and they did their duty.

Now I'd wish Juries would do the same with black defendents.