Casey-Anthony Jury should Bury Their Head in SHAME!!!
- Thread starter GNBRETT
- Start date
Do you really believe that? If she was found guilty would you still have that opinion? I seriously doubt it. Circumstantial evidence convicts more people then physical evidence does. Always has and always will. Nothing new there.
I have never heard a case with more circumstantial evidence then I did in this case. its a common sense verdict based on the circumstances surrounding the case.
Sorry, but when ur two old drowns in the pool (which is complete BS!) you dont put duct tape around here mouth and and nose to bury her in the woods. BS!!!!
Well lets break it down......
1.) Casey Anthony was the last person to see Caylee alive.
2.) The trunk of her car smelled of a decaying body by a retired police officer corroborated by several witness and canines to be that of a dead body.
3.) The 31 days gives a murderer plenty of opportunity to commit and cover up the crime.
4.) She got a tattoo saying “Bella Vita” (Beautiful Life) AFTER her daughter was murdered. who gets a fuken tattoo a few weeks after ur daughter drowns in a pool.
5.) Partying, Drinking, Stripping, Stealing, fuking and Tattoos. That's not how a GRIEVING mother acts when her own daughter is dead. No way, no how.
6.) Howbout the chloroform searches on the internet. like 80 different searches.
7.) Borrowing a shovel from the neighbor.
8.) Again, 31 days before you report ur own child missing. RU fukn serious?
9.) Lied to investigators about everything!
10.) Goes on shopping sprees and buys things for her boyfriend. Is that how an woman acts whos child just drowned in the pool? I think not. That is the way someone acts when they are glad their child isnt around any longer and can now go out and party with no responsibilities.
11.) Has absolutely NO remorse for what happened. Thats because she planned it out and murdering her daughter was exactly what she had planned. Typical actions of a sociopathic narcissist.
12.) Lies to her family about her daughters whereabouts and when her mother visits her in jail her mother tells her that she is now hearing that Caylee drowned in the pool. She laughs and says "what next are they gonna say".
13.) Makes up stories about her own father sexually abusing her to take the spotlight off of her. Like that would justify her murdering her own child or justify her failure to report her daughter drowning in the pool. Give me a break!
14.) I could go on for hours....
She is an evil bitch that will burn in hell for what she did.
There was no direct evidence proving Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife but I dont see anyone complaining about that verdict. Is this really any different? That was a CIRCUMSTANTIAL case. Just like this one.
Id say there is 10x more circumstantial evidence here then there was with Scott Peterson case so to say the decision is correct due to lack of evidence is a shame. You mean lack of PHYSICAL evidence. Well, PHYSICAL evidence is one way to convict someone and the less common way to do so.
Nothing from that list is hard evidence to prove anything imo, and I guess the jury's too. I think she did it, but you have to trust our judicial system on this. We were not there for the trial. I think it proves it works since the jury let her off with reasonable doubt. The media marked her as guilty from day one, yet the system did not cave into the media for once.
"It's not what you know, it's what you can prove"
-Training Day
Brett, you should know better.........with all these bleeding heart liberals and the direction society is going, all are going to be let off.
I was not following the case closely but I think the DA did not have all their evidence, they rushed the case. Their evidence was all circumstantial. You can't win a criminal case with circumstantial evidence. How many times do you see the Federal Gov't loose cases.....hardly ever. They wait for years before they have their evidence and then they go for the kill.
Just on Sunday, I stopped a 21 yr old guy with a 15 yr old girl coming out of a room at one of our sleeze motels. I knew what they did but I couldn't do a damn thing because I need the girl to testify against the guy which wasn't going to happen. Here in NJ, the age of consent is 16 yrs old and what happened was statutory rape. I arrested the guy on other things and called CPS for the girl.
Billy T.
gnxtc2@aol.com
-Training Day
Brett, you should know better.........with all these bleeding heart liberals and the direction society is going, all are going to be let off.
I was not following the case closely but I think the DA did not have all their evidence, they rushed the case. Their evidence was all circumstantial. You can't win a criminal case with circumstantial evidence. How many times do you see the Federal Gov't loose cases.....hardly ever. They wait for years before they have their evidence and then they go for the kill.
Just on Sunday, I stopped a 21 yr old guy with a 15 yr old girl coming out of a room at one of our sleeze motels. I knew what they did but I couldn't do a damn thing because I need the girl to testify against the guy which wasn't going to happen. Here in NJ, the age of consent is 16 yrs old and what happened was statutory rape. I arrested the guy on other things and called CPS for the girl.
Billy T.
gnxtc2@aol.com
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2002
Call me a "rural citizen" but sometimes common sense kicks in and 1 + 1 does = 2.
Karma is a beotch and she will get hers someday.
Karma is a beotch and she will get hers someday.
But you need some evidence.
RobsIron
Silent but Violent
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2003
She should have been at least convicted of aggravated child abuse. 31 days pass without reporting your 2 year old missing and then she is found dead? 31 minutes being missing would freak out any responsible caring parent.
Video has made it too easy nowadays. Thats what you need to get a conviction nowadays. People are lazy. The good ole days of pure common sense are gone. Are the police going to look for the killer now? No. The system isn't the system anymore.
She'll make millions on her new book tour.
Video has made it too easy nowadays. Thats what you need to get a conviction nowadays. People are lazy. The good ole days of pure common sense are gone. Are the police going to look for the killer now? No. The system isn't the system anymore.
She'll make millions on her new book tour.
tomcatturbo
Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2005
Very well said, and I live here in Central Florida and wish I could have been on that Jury! I would of told them all, bite me- this girl is GUILTY, and maybe not necessarily the Death penalty, but we just cant let this girl get totally away from killing her child and not facing Felony Manslaughter to say the least!!!
Great job Florida!!!
Great job Florida!!!
Do you really believe that? If she was found guilty would you still have that opinion? I seriously doubt it. Circumstantial evidence convicts more people then physical evidence does. Always has and always will. Nothing new there.
I have never heard a case with more circumstantial evidence then I did in this case. its a common sense verdict based on the circumstances surrounding the case.
Sorry, but when ur two old drowns in the pool (which is complete BS!) you dont put duct tape around here mouth and and nose to bury her in the woods. BS!!!!
Well lets break it down......
1.) Casey Anthony was the last person to see Caylee alive.
2.) The trunk of her car smelled of a decaying body by a retired police officer corroborated by several witness and canines to be that of a dead body.
3.) The 31 days gives a murderer plenty of opportunity to commit and cover up the crime.
4.) She got a tattoo saying “Bella Vita” (Beautiful Life) AFTER her daughter was murdered. who gets a fuken tattoo a few weeks after ur daughter drowns in a pool.
5.) Partying, Drinking, Stripping, Stealing, fuking and Tattoos. That's not how a GRIEVING mother acts when her own daughter is dead. No way, no how.
6.) Howbout the chloroform searches on the internet. like 80 different searches.
7.) Borrowing a shovel from the neighbor.
8.) Again, 31 days before you report ur own child missing. RU fukn serious?
9.) Lied to investigators about everything!
10.) Goes on shopping sprees and buys things for her boyfriend. Is that how an woman acts whos child just drowned in the pool? I think not. That is the way someone acts when they are glad their child isnt around any longer and can now go out and party with no responsibilities.
11.) Has absolutely NO remorse for what happened. Thats because she planned it out and murdering her daughter was exactly what she had planned. Typical actions of a sociopathic narcissist.
12.) Lies to her family about her daughters whereabouts and when her mother visits her in jail her mother tells her that she is now hearing that Caylee drowned in the pool. She laughs and says "what next are they gonna say".
13.) Makes up stories about her own father sexually abusing her to take the spotlight off of her. Like that would justify her murdering her own child or justify her failure to report her daughter drowning in the pool. Give me a break!
14.) I could go on for hours....
She is an evil bitch that will burn in hell for what she did.
There was no direct evidence proving Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife but I dont see anyone complaining about that verdict. Is this really any different? That was a CIRCUMSTANTIAL case. Just like this one.
Id say there is 10x more circumstantial evidence here then there was with Scott Peterson case so to say the decision is correct due to lack of evidence is a shame. You mean lack of PHYSICAL evidence. Well, PHYSICAL evidence is one way to convict someone and the less common way to do so.
GNBRETT
Pelennor Fields
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2004
if u have ever smelled a rotting body I can assure you there is absolutely no confusing it with any other smell on earth. and certainly not rotting garbage. not even close.
GNBRETT
Pelennor Fields
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2004
ok, ask urself this question then.... if she was found guilty would you have questioned the verdict? Yes or No? there's ur answer....
and as far as hard evidence. was there any hard evidence in the scott peterson case? no there wasnt was there.
GNBRETT
Pelennor Fields
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2004
What? where ru getting that from? The majority of criminal cases cases are won based on circumstantial evidence not direct or physical evidence. That is absolutely wrong Billy.
Im really surprised to hear you say that especially since you are a fellow LE officer.
Ill say this again. MOST convictions are won on circumstantial evidence. The
law says it carries the same weight as direct eyewitness testimony.
Both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are acceptable means of proof in every state. Neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other.
Circumstantial evidence is not evidence that comes directly from an eyewitness or a participant. With direct evidence, jurors don’t have to draw any sort of inferences.
EVERYTHING else is circumstantial evidence, which is simply anything that
allows a jury to reach a conclusion by reasoning, as long as it is relevant to the case being tried.
Almost all witness testimony is circumstantial, since most witnesses relate not that they saw the defendant actually commit the crime but instead that they saw or knew something else that might lead a reasonable person to conclude that the defendant indeed committed said crime. That also applies to expert witnesses as well.
Legal experts will all agree that circumstantial evidence makes up the largest percentage of criminal conviction.
Not only can circumstantial evidence be extraordinarily persuasive, but it can often be stronger than direct evidence and stronger than eyewitness testimony or even, sometimes, a confession.
Cmon Billy, you know better then that. Or at least you should.
I also think she is guilty and should rot in hell
I think your a partially correct, but the problem is in a murder case is "reasonable doubt/without a shadow of a doubt" jurors see a white mother/daughter/sister who made a "mistake", now if there was a weapon found with the victims blood and the suspects prints, I think it would have ended differently.
just like OJ the Prosecutor allowed that mother fer to try on the gloves and when they didn't fit there came in "without a shadow of a doubt" even thought 99% of evidence showed him guilty that 1% is the reason he walked.
We will all meet our maker in the end, no one gets away with anything LiveLeak.com - Nancy Grace Explosive Reaction to Casey Anthony Verdict
GNBRETT
Pelennor Fields
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2004
some say the prosectors overtired the case. I say BS! there isnt a single person in this country that would have attempted to refute the verdict if it came back guilty. its never without any doubt. the human factor is always there. nothing is 100%. maybe 99% here. thats more then enough to convict.
the indisputable facts are more then enough to be without a shadow of a doubt. she killed that kid plain and simple. how it happened is more evident of murder then manslaughter.
a murderer tries to hide his or HER tracks and lie to the police and change their story and so on. an accidental death would mean the person would morn. not go out and party. get tattoos. get fuked. that aint mourning.
juries are just unreliable and this is a perfect example of how our system is flawed. our system completely broke down today and failed to bring justice to that little girl who was brutally murdered by her own mother.
the only reason the defense came up with that ridiculous story about the child drowning is merely because it was obvious that the mother was the last to see her alive so they had to come up with something.
go back and look at the tapes in prison when her mother brings the reported story of Calee drowning in the pool to her attention. watch it and tell me if her child drowned in the pool or not.
nothing adds up. nothing at all. if the child drowned and u got scared and buried her then why the fuk is duct tape on her mouth and nose. that is MURDER. nothing else. the defense is establishing that her mother was the last to see her alive. 2+2=4
we have so many protections instilled that the guilty are going free cause juries take the reasonable doubt too far and abandon their common sense.
some say the system worked perfectly as it should today. I say BS. the system is there is seek justice. the system completely broke down today just as it did in the OJ case.
its not a competition to see who wins or looses. a trial is there to seek the truth. nothing else. the circumstances prove she murdered that little girl. why she did it? that is not for the prosecution to prove. the prosecution cannot get inside the head of someone. people commit murder all the time for the simplest reasons. good or bad reasons are irrevlant.
the jury is not there to decide why she would do it. just IF she did it. that too is another problem with juries these days. sometimes they need to have a plausible reason why someone murders another human being. especially their own child. the fact is she did. and that is what their decision should have been based on.
chloroform makes it all the more heinous. it likely means that she put chloroform over the child's face and then duct taped the nose and mouth so when the child wakes up under 3 feet of dirt in a ditch she cannot breath and suffocates to death. nice huh?
there's gonna be a special place in hell for that cunt.
Pronto
Believe nothing you hear and half of what you see.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2002
Haha, that's the funniest thing I've hear all day! Science gives you truth. Courts give state and private attorneys a job.
Opps that one slipped by the 5 second delay.
TR Custom Parts
Mark Hueffman - Owner
- Joined
- May 25, 2001
:biggrin:Think that is the first time that word has been used on here.
Totally appropriate too. Her picture should appear next to that word in the dictionary.
Totally appropriate too. Her picture should appear next to that word in the dictionary.
TURBOPOWERED68
David
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2006
circumstantial evidence What exactly is this?
A very well told story that sounds like it could be true.
Would i take some ones freedom based on a story, would you take someones freedom based on a story? i wouldn't
A very well told story that sounds like it could be true.
Would i take some ones freedom based on a story, would you take someones freedom based on a story? i wouldn't
^^^ that right there is the answer. i used to do crime scene clean up and nothing is even close to that smell. my brother is a cop and he said the same thing when i spoke with him.
that right there and 31 days with out reporting is enough for me of some type of guilt.