Casey-Anthony Jury should Bury Their Head in SHAME!!!
- Thread starter GNBRETT
- Start date
IrvJr
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2001
I havent, and i was just referencing what was said on the stand. You can grandstand all you want, but you CANNOT say that the evidence leads to murder not manslaughter. Nobody proved what the chloroform was used for or if it was, and im pretty sure they said the tape was placed after TOD. The jury didnt even find enough evidence of child abuse, and her actions after Caylee is dead had no bearing on child abuse. Pretty sure everyone said she was a loving mom, thus no conviction there.
Now dont get me wrong, if she was found guilty i wouldnt be all up in arms. I would think the same thing i think now, that the jury found enough evidence and convicted her. No one knows and probably will never know, but to infer that you know better than everyone else is laughable.
- Joined
- May 28, 2001
Easy...
answer.
This just up on FOX News..
Casey Anthony Can Earn Millions From Media, Hollywood - FoxNews.com
Take a look at the headline pic of this bitch.. Those eyes look just like the stare we got from Charles Manson.. Chilling to say the least!
With a little luck, she'll have a purse full of blood money and some crack head will off her, in the parking lot of the bars she hangs at..NOW, that's poetic justice!
answer.
This just up on FOX News..
Casey Anthony Can Earn Millions From Media, Hollywood - FoxNews.com
Take a look at the headline pic of this bitch.. Those eyes look just like the stare we got from Charles Manson.. Chilling to say the least!
With a little luck, she'll have a purse full of blood money and some crack head will off her, in the parking lot of the bars she hangs at..NOW, that's poetic justice!
theamcguy
Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2008
"It's not what you know, it's what you can prove"
Your anger should be directed at the prosecutor, not the defense attorney. He failed to prove his case.
The prosecutor came up with a probable scenario of the crime but then failed to prove it. First he said the mother used chloroform to kill her child why not because the Medical Examiner found traces of chloroform in the bloodstream but because the mother looked for chloroform on the Internet. It was admitted in court that the cause of death is not known. Oooops major mistake there. That opened the door for the mother to say the child drowned in a pool.
Prosecution said the mother rode around with the body in the trunk of the car and then proceeded to have the jury sniff a piece of trunk mat that stunk. The Defense' expert witness said the smell was from garbage and as proof killed a pig, put the pig in the trunk of a car, left it in the hot sun and then examined the bugs that were found when the trunk was opened. The bugs found as a result of rotting flesh were not found in the mothers car but the bugs that were found are commonly found as a result of rotting garbage Double Ooops.
See how this is going prosecution came up with a theory of the crime unfortunately the theory was not supported by the physical evidence that was presented. What could the jury do? They did the only thing they could Not Guilty.
Your anger should be directed at the prosecutor, not the defense attorney. He failed to prove his case.
The prosecutor came up with a probable scenario of the crime but then failed to prove it. First he said the mother used chloroform to kill her child why not because the Medical Examiner found traces of chloroform in the bloodstream but because the mother looked for chloroform on the Internet. It was admitted in court that the cause of death is not known. Oooops major mistake there. That opened the door for the mother to say the child drowned in a pool.
Prosecution said the mother rode around with the body in the trunk of the car and then proceeded to have the jury sniff a piece of trunk mat that stunk. The Defense' expert witness said the smell was from garbage and as proof killed a pig, put the pig in the trunk of a car, left it in the hot sun and then examined the bugs that were found when the trunk was opened. The bugs found as a result of rotting flesh were not found in the mothers car but the bugs that were found are commonly found as a result of rotting garbage Double Ooops.
See how this is going prosecution came up with a theory of the crime unfortunately the theory was not supported by the physical evidence that was presented. What could the jury do? They did the only thing they could Not Guilty.
GNBRETT
Pelennor Fields
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2004
oh u would be wrong. the bitch on trial knows exactly what happened. so to say no one knows and probably never will is BS. its funny how people like urself lose sight of that small detail. that small detail isnt very laughable is it.
Who else heard the fact that the parents were the primary caregivers for the girl??? My gut says they all know the truth, the entire family, you may even see the parents now get more of an eye on them. Also saw something about how those famous computer searches were proved done while she was NOT at home. My gut says they're all guilty, take all the BS they all fed us and somewhere in the middle lays the truth. Seems to me she had a pretty easy go of it, lived at home, her parents were the primary caregivers to Callee, sounds like a party family. I've got a son the same age as she would be now and a daughter that is the age she was upon her death, I wouldn't nor would my family allow for that kind of lifestyle, they all are guilty IMO. maybe they'll all have a manslaughter trial!
Bacon curtains sizzlin'
Bacon curtains sizzlin'
+1
Luckily, we still live in a country where a burden of proof must be met before the mob can simply string someone up to the highest limb.
I'm a little disappointed with the prosecution, actually. It's just not right to put a persons life on the line with only circumstantial evidence to present.
GNBRETT
Pelennor Fields
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2004
like the Scott Peterson trial?
no hard evidence. ALL circumstantial. so should we set him free now?I would have to see all the evidence before I decided on that. Not just use what I read on a bulletin board.like the Scott Peterson trial?
Ok, He is what I hope happens... sad but true.. They get home the father kills her because she made up lies about him molesting her.. the wife jumps in try's to save her. she gets killed too.. after a few moments the father realizes what has happened and off's himself. Done deal everyone wins down to the last taxpayer.
theamcguy
Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2008
The difference in the Scott Peterson case is the prosecution constructed a very plausible sequence of events supported by circumstantial evidence that the defense was unable to overcome or explain away.
In this trial the prosecution constructed a sequence of events that was NOT supported by the physical evidence and the defense was able to explain it all away.
The guy at fault is the prosecutor. I'm not saying she is innocent only that they were unable to PROVE that in court. In my mind the prosecutor was hoping the jury would convict her in spite of the physical evidence relying on the fact that the investigation ruled out other suspects so she had to be guilty as a process of elimination.
GNBRETT
Pelennor Fields
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2004
now thats some funny chit. u aint kidden..... if only
GNBRETT
Pelennor Fields
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2004
this coming from the 5 minute man.....
this coming from the 5 minute man.....
Just keep pumping up buddy,just watch those blood vessels!!