enigmaax;824175 wrote:Yeah, well, that is why it was so important that the prosecution come with something other than a theory.

Perhaps, but that shows the weaknesses of juries.

I don't know if it was Juror 3 who said it....but one of them said today that when they first walked into the Jury room.....it was 10-2 in favor of 1st degree Murder and the death penalty...

Wonder what changed

Ty Webb;824192 wrote:I don't know if it was Juror 3 who said it....but one of them said today that when they first walked into the Jury room.....it was 10-2 in favor of 1st degree Murder and the death penalty...

Wonder what changed

Opposite. Two people were ready to go with murder.

My bad....misheard then

ccrunner609;823899 wrote:please......grandpa's dont kill their granddaughters (unless they are molesting them) but crazy ****-hungry chicks do.

I was giving a hypothetical situation to someone claiming it was reasonable to think that maybe the grandfather did it (or at least the cover-up). I was showing how absurd that was based on Casey's actions after her child went missing.

Obviously the jurors didn't think she was innocent they just didn't think they were shown enough evidence.


http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2011/07/07/pkg.mattingly.anthony.juror.speaks.cnn?hpt=hp_c1

Thank God Andy Dufresne didn't have these lawyers...woulda ruined a great movie

SportsAndLady;824455 wrote:Thank God Andy Dufresne didn't have these lawyers...woulda ruined a great movie

lol'd

Manhattan Buckeye;824118 wrote:It is hard to believe because there is a bias towards the idea that a woman would kill her child - it is a fictional novel but Caleb Carr's "Angel of Darkness" touches on the subject. It is an ok book, not great, but worth reading.

SportsAndLady;824455 wrote:Thank God Andy Dufresne didn't have these lawyers...woulda ruined a great movie

The Shawshank reference is great! It's hard to believe that with so much potential evidence pointing to Casey that she could possibly be innocent, but even though it's a fictional novella ("Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption") and movie ("Shawshank Redemption"), it is proven possible for innocent people to look very, very guilty.

enigmaax;823887 wrote:Are you really that ****ing stupid? You keep saying the same thing over and over again without paying any attention to any detail other than what you decided before the trial even started. There was DNA on the tape - at the scene - that did NOT match Casey Anthony. Do you get that? When your little bit of physical evidence doesn't lead to the person you want, you can't just toss it aside and try on her mouth as a punishment or out of annoyance...and then it stayed there too long. miss the part about the testimony, even by prosecution witnesses that Casey was never anything but a loving mother?

apparently, not half as fucking stupid as you are. It not hard to REASONABLY explain the DNA,she wore gloves and someone else handled the tape at some point didn't. But where you show a complete lack of logic is if you want to go another murderer, she never reported the child missing or kidnapped. So rule out foul play, the only options are a drowning or CA murdered her. And, oh by the way, the defense argued she covered up a drowning, so again there are only two options to consider - she killed her or it was a drowning. You can believe little green men did it, th DA didn't prove they didn't, but that's not reasonable doubt.

And, oh, what a loving mother who, at best, ditched her child's body in the woods.

It's increasingly obvious in this thread that 1) peopledont realize beyond reasonable doubt doesn't mean no doubt and 2) the prosecution doesnthave to disprove a baseless defense, the defensedoesnt have to prove it but they do have to establish some merit and credibility.

dwccrew;823935 wrote:She didn't kill her daughter in the eyes of the law.



You keep saying the same thing over and over. Read up on how the justice system works and MAYBE you'll understand why Casey Anthony was found not guilty of murder in the first degree.

I'm pretty confident I have a much better understanding of the justice system than many on this thread. What I understand why she was found not guilty is some juries are dumb. I mean did you just actually try to suggest juries always get it right to prove your point? Logic like that is what leads them to sometimes get it wrong. That jury bought a baseless 11th hour drowning defense that had no merit.

Laley23;823971 wrote:Vivid is retarded. They would make bank.

Maybe some of the gay men porn stars didnt want anything to do with her, I wouldnt

Thinthickbigred;824856 wrote:Maybe some of the gay men porn stars didnt want anything to do with her, I wouldnt

So you're a gay male porn star?

Apparently he is.

ccrunner609;824566 wrote:tehy should of hung, now she cant be retried. I fhtey would of hung they could go back and start over. Boy Juror #3 didnt take long to get her fat ugly face on TV. Some of her comments make her sound galactically stupid

IMO the state should have charged her with something less than first degree murder. Perhaps they could have got the conviction on a lesser charge and if evidence does turn up one day proving or strongly supporting that she did murder her child, she could have been tried on that. Now, as you stated, she can't be retried even if they can prove it.

gut;824728 wrote:I'm pretty confident I have a much better understanding of the justice system than many on this thread. What I understand why she was found not guilty is some juries are dumb. I mean did you just actually try to suggest juries always get it right to prove your point? Logic like that is what leads them to sometimes get it wrong. That jury bought a baseless 11th hour drowning defense that had no merit.

Where did you get that I was saying all juries get it right out of my post? Again, study how the justice system works and maybe you'll understand why she was found not guilty. You claiming you know more about the justice system than most on this thread doesn't prove dick. Maybe she wore gloves when handling the tape? Where are the gloves then? You can't just keep creating stories to try and prove her guilt, you have to have proof. You saying maybe she used gloves is just like someone saying maybe Caylee drowned. There is no proof either way.

dwccrew;824985 wrote:IMO the state should have charged her with something less than first degree murder.

I thought she was charged with something lesser, but they bumped it up to murder once the body was discovered. Could be wrong though, I didn't follow the case.

Not sure if this has been posted yet, as I haven't been online much, but as a Buckeye fan I cringed when I saw this:

BigAppleBuckeye;827137 wrote:as a Buckeye fan I cringed when I saw this:

A Steve Bellisari jersey?

Devier Posey told NCAA investigators he never traded his jersey for a 2 yr old toddler

If I were Casey Anthony, I'd consider spending the rest of my life childless. Kids just aren't for everyone. Look what happened to hers!

SnotBubbles;827255 wrote:If I were Casey Anthony, I'd consider spending the rest of my life childless. Kids just aren't for everyone. Look what happened to hers!

Yeah well too bad because in the prison letters she wrote to another inmate, she was already plotting to have another one. In fact, she would like her prisoner friend to get pregnant at the same time. I would definitely watch if she does pregnant porn.

SnotBubbles;827255 wrote:If I were Casey Anthony, I'd consider spending the rest of my life childless. Kids just aren't for everyone. Look what happened to hers!

You bring up a good point, what if 5-10 years down the road she meets a guy, they marry and she mentions how she wants to have children. That would be an awkward conversation to have.

If I had a kid with Casey Anthony, I'd say "Casey, could you not kill our baby?" Sometimes you just have to ask.

BigAppleBuckeye;827137 wrote:Not sure if this has been posted yet, as I haven't been online much, but as a Buckeye fan I cringed when I saw this:

http://www.ohiochatter.com/forum/threads/26678-Caption-this-pic-Killer-...-err-innocent-...-edition

BigAppleBuckeye;827137 wrote:

O-H!