Casey ****ing Anthony

[-DR3W-]

Link to original post: [drupal=4428]Casey ****ing Anthony[/drupal]



I call ****ing bull****.

 

[Glöwworm]

rofl pretty random verdict

 

[Wrath`]

America: Present enough evidence to at least be able to convict of Child abuse, give not guilty verdict.

I watched the trial, I don't get people.

 

[tirkaro]

Doesn't matter the verdict really. Yeah, she got off a possible death sentence, but she'll have to live all her life as "that chick who killed that kid and got off the hook." Either way, that's one bad burden to deal with, no matter what the justice system says about it. But whatev.

 

[Savon]

True stuff. I wonder what the jury was thinking.......either way she will be totally hated and ostracized by pretty much eveybody ever

 

[Super_Sonic8677]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYQzQAmX1Xo

This song so much right now. The Jury wasn't thinking imo.

 

[Patinator]

I concur... I wonder if somebody didn't pull something.

Oh well... nothing anybody can do, sadly. :/

 

[Falconv1.0]

America: Guilty until proven innocent. Then still probably guilty if the person on trial is a piece of ****.

 

[theunabletable]

I'm sure the jury was thinking.

12 different people with no agendas got to the same conclusion without any outside influence?

I'd bet a large part of why so many people are so convinced that she did it is because of the biased media opinions thrown about that shape their opinion.

There simply wasn't enough evidence to convict her of 3rd degree murder.

 

[Zajice]

Oh hey, it's THIS ****ING THREAD again.

 

[Spelt]

Oh hey, it's THIS ****ING POST again.

 

[Man of Popsicle]

The glove didn't fit.

 

[El Nino]

America: Guilty until proven innocent. Then still probably guilty if the person on trial is a piece of ****.

This.

In a criminal trial in the U.S., the burden of proof rests on the prosecution. Murder one was a tall order for the amount of physical evidence that they had in this case.

The general public is quick to condemn probably because people don't like to see children get hurt. But public opinion on a suspect's character has nothing to do with a person's guilt or innocence.

I understand if people are suspicious of a jury's decision, but a lot of people are running it off as if they were there when the crime itself took place. I didn't follow the case really, but it played on the TVs at the gym. I am confident in saying that I have no clue whether she killed her child or not, but from what I've seen, the prosecution didn't present enough physical evidence to support their claims, not enough for a murder one conviction. Wrongful death of a child through negligence, maybe.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Casey Anthony's trial is evidence the system works. Maybe she did do it. But there isn't enough evidence that she did. Convicting her on anything else is a conviction based on a gut feeling and is wrong. A jury of her peers determined there was no hard evidence. If you had some, the Orlando Crime Tip Line was 1-800-423-TIPS.

Can we talk about something else now?

 

[Wrath`]

Well yes there probably was not enough evidence to show that she, herself murdered her daughter, there was overwhelming evidence to show child abuse.

 

[M@v]

I didn't watch the trial, so I really can't put any insight on this.

Just remember American law goes, as others have stated:

1.innocent until proven guilty

2.Must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty.

 

[Savon]

We all KNOW she did it, but yeah not enough to convict her beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is a *****

 

[Laem]

I didn't follow this (at all, didn't know Casey before a recent mention on sxephil) but saw the verdict on youtube.
I'm guessing prosecution messed up by not charging the right crimes, and if the vid encompassed all charges all she got in the end was lying to an officer or something like that. trololololololololo
She got lucky. (Did she do it? Idk, but I'll trust you people's word on it XD)

oh and my approval towards that song

 

[Alien Vision]

When you put pieces together, you tend to get more frustrated with the results.

Piece No.1: Her crying isn't convincing.

Piece No.2: The evidence was all negative. Even though it didn't fully justify her as guilty.

Piece No.3: She ''lied'' to an officer.

Piece No.4: Didn't seem at all her child's death was on her mind, but the entire atmosphere that she was dealing with.

Piece No.5: Lawyers are paid to prove someone innocent, even when they are guilty as ****.

When you put the pieces together, it cries BS. When you understand that these pieces will never shed light if they did it or not, that is when you understand that life is built on flawed systems. ^^

I agree with mostly everyone regardless of the verdict chosen by the judge. This woman killed her child. I choose to make this decision. My gut says something is fishy.

 

[Falconv1.0]

I agree with mostly everyone, irregardless.

Irregardless essentially means not regardless, what the **** are you doing.

I love this idea that we 'know' she did it because she's a piece of **** and the media blows everything out of proportion. Get a ****ing grip and stop pretending you're smarter than the legal system.

 

[Alien Vision]

Irregardless essentially means not regardless, what the **** are you doing.

I really don't know. I guess I didn't understand what it meant. Lol.

 

[Lore]

My opinion? I have no clue whether she did or not, and the whole thing is a farce that didn't deserve the publicity.

Moving on... This should be fun.

When you put pieces together, you tend to get more frustrated with the results.

Piece No.1: Her crying isn't convincing.

Piece No.2: The evidence was all negative. Even though it didn't fully justify her as guilty.

Piece No.3: She ''lied'' to an officer.

Piece No.4: Didn't seem at all her child's death was on her mind, but the entire atmosphere that she was dealing with.

Piece No.5: Lawyers are paid to prove someone innocent, even when they are guilty as ****.

When you put the pieces together, it cries BS. When you understand that these pieces will never shed light if they did it or not, that is when you understand that life is built on flawed systems. ^^

I agree with mostly everyone, irregardless. This woman killed her child. I choose to make this decision. My gut says something is fishy.

1. Crying being convincing or not is not solid evidence, and it's purely subjective anyway.

2. There wasn't any real evidence presented on either side. Almost every single piece of it was pure speculative inference, which is in no way solid evidence. I can infer that you're ******** from this post (and I'm not, before you get offended), but does that make it true? In order to convince people of this "fact," I would need to pull up specific examples of your retardedness.

3. Lying to an officer was stupid, but it's hardly proof of anything. All it proves is that the statement is false; the prosecution needed to have solid proof of what actually happened for the fact that she lied to be any useful.

4. And you've been with her, personally, for any long period of time? Seeing someone on tv does not equal knowing what their personal life is, and if she "partied" (which I remember hearing from somewhere) while her baby was missing, maybe that was her way of dealing with it. Or maybe she didn't want the baby and saw this uncaused-by-her death as a blessing. All the "partying" fact leads to is more inference with no way of proving anything.

5. What the hell are you even saying here? Just because someone is paid to defend someone doesn't mean that they falsify evidence, if that's what you meant. I honestly don't see what this point has to do with anything at all.

I don't even understand the next line. Are you saying here that your points are invalid, and because of this fact, you're right? I dunno.

 

[Alien Vision]

My opinion? I have no clue whether she did or not, and the whole thing is a farce that didn't deserve the publicity.

Moving on... This should be fun.



1. Crying being convincing or not is not solid evidence, and it's purely subjective anyway.

2. There wasn't any real evidence presented on either side. Almost every single piece of it was pure speculative inference, which is in no way solid evidence. I can infer that you're ******** from this post (and I'm not, before you get offended), but does that make it true? In order to convince people of this "fact," I would need to pull up specific examples of your retardedness.

3. Lying to an officer was stupid, but it's hardly proof of anything. All it proves is that the statement is false; the prosecution needed to have solid proof of what actually happened for the fact that she lied to be any useful.

4. And you've been with her, personally, for any long period of time? Seeing someone on tv does not equal knowing what their personal life is, and if she "partied" (which I remember hearing from somewhere) while her baby was missing, maybe that was her way of dealing with it. Or maybe she didn't want the baby and saw this uncaused-by-her death as a blessing. All the "partying" fact leads to is more inference with no way of proving anything.

5. What the hell are you even saying here? Just because someone is paid to defend someone doesn't mean that they falsify evidence, if that's what you meant. I honestly don't see what this point has to do with anything at all.

I don't even understand the next line. Are you saying here that your points are invalid, and because of this fact, you're right? I dunno.

Lol. I never stated any of that as fact. I was just putting down pieces of information that can show some doubt in her innocence. I chose to disagree with her being innocent. (As somebody mentioned already, things tend to get blown out of proportion by the media.) I only stated my choice by what I see.

Please, until you understand something. Don't even IMPLY somebody is ********. You misunderstood the entire point of my post. ^^

 

[§witch]

We all KNOW she did it, but yeah not enough to convict her beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is a *****

Yeah, **** actually having to prove someone's guilty. Robespierre had a great system.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

Even if she didn't do it she's guilty for child abuse. Her child is dead and that's her responsibility.

 

[Lore]

Lol. I never stated any of that as fact. I was just putting down pieces of information that can show some doubt in her innocence. I chose to disagree with her being innocent. (As somebody mentioned already, things tend to get blown out of proportion by the media.) I only stated my choice by what I see.

Please, until you understand something. Don't even IMPLY somebody is ********. You misunderstood the entire point of my post. ^^

And I was just stating the things that I believed to be terribly wrong with your points. The fact that you just threw away my counterpoints because "I wasn't stating facts lololol" makes me dislike your reasoning even more.

By the way, I never implied that you were ********. Hell, I even went out of my way to say that you weren't.

And I misunderstood the point of your post? I never stated anything about the point of your post; I was just arguing against your reasoning. The fact that you've thrown out my arguments because I "misunderstood you" makes me dislike your reasoning even more. Again.

However, in your eyes, I must have just misunderstood your all-powerful reasoning because I can't compare with your vast intellect since I haven't had a large, intelligence-boosting head injury

Even if she didn't do it she's guilty for child abuse. Her child is dead and that's her responsibility.

With this logic, I could run to my neighbor's home, stab the kid to death, run away, and get both parents convicted of child abuse.

 

[Alien Vision]

And I was just stating the things that I believed to be terribly wrong with your points. The fact that you just threw away my counterpoints because "I wasn't stating facts lololol" makes me dislike your reasoning even more.

By the way, I never implied that you were ********. Hell, I even went out of my way to say that you weren't.

And I misunderstood the point of your post? I never stated anything about the point of your post; I was just arguing against your reasoning. The fact that you've thrown out my arguments because I "misunderstood you" makes me dislike your reasoning even more. Again.

However, in your eyes, I must have just misunderstood your all-powerful reasoning because I can't compare with your vast intellect since I haven't had a large, intelligence-boosting head injury

k.

Spoiler

My vast intellect is too superior to reply to this petty response.

 

[Spelt]

k.

Spoiler

My vast intellect is too superior to reply to this petty response.

You've got to be kidding me...

Nobody knows how to argue these days.
It's all hypothetical cracks at wit, evasion tactics and superiority claims.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Praxis]

Hey dummies.

"It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, “whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,” and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever."
- John Adams


If it could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I'd rather see a guilty person walk free than an innocent person punished.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

And I was just stating the things that I believed to be terribly wrong with your points. The fact that you just threw away my counterpoints because "I wasn't stating facts lololol" makes me dislike your reasoning even more.

By the way, I never implied that you were ********. Hell, I even went out of my way to say that you weren't.

And I misunderstood the point of your post? I never stated anything about the point of your post; I was just arguing against your reasoning. The fact that you've thrown out my arguments because I "misunderstood you" makes me dislike your reasoning even more. Again.

However, in your eyes, I must have just misunderstood your all-powerful reasoning because I can't compare with your vast intellect since I haven't had a large, intelligence-boosting head injury.

See? I don't even need to be around to "troll" you, Alien Vision/Tamed Shadow. People like Werekill are around to demonstrably renounce your claims to intellect and enlightenment.

(Spelt to a lesser extent. I can never forget about him.)

AKA you are full of **** and you need to grow up.

As far as this case goes? The facts are clear: The prosecution did not have the proverbial "smoking gun" to convict her. It was as simple---and as damning---as that. As SMFP pointed out, you can't just send somebody to the gallows based off of mere intuition. You have to obtain cold, hard facts. There wasn't enough DNA gleaned from a tape sample that they recovered to point fingers anywhere close to the mother. The inquiry about chloroform was highly circumstantial and there were posts on Facebook (you gotta love social media) to validate it as such. None of the other claims (pedophilia accusations towards the Grandfather, molestations and abuse from the Father) were concrete enough.

My personal opinion on the matter...? I don't think the woman killed her daughter outright. I do think there was gross negligence involved that lead to the little girl's demise and a whole helluva lot of guilt weighing in on the mother to keep her death under wraps, but again, this is just my gut talking.

Even I don't think my line of reasoning is all that sound. Far too much grey area to traffic given the information that was handed to us. Most of it, sadly, being sensationalist thanks to the ****ing media.

Edit:

Very nice quote, Praxis. I can't say I'll always agree with a final verdict just based on the very concept of the System however.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Alien Vision]

See? I don't even need to be around to "troll" you, Alien Vision/Tamed Shadow. People like Werekill are around to demonstrably renounce your claims to intellect and enlightenment.

(Spelt to a lesser extent. I can never forget about him.)

AKA you are full of **** and you need to grow up.

Smooth Criminal

k.

Spoiler

My vast intellect is too superior to reply to this petty response aswell.

 

[Lore]

Hahahaha, man, I'm not sure if giving him that phrase for this thread was the right thing to do or not.

 

[Alien Vision]

Werekill, explain to SC that I am not some pickle head that thinks he is some messiah who can reign upon the ''less fortunate''.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Hahahaha, man, I'm not sure if giving him that phrase for this thread was the right thing to do or not.

I'd wager nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooot.



I'm messianic now? Swag.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Gamegenie222]

This Casey Anthony buisness needs a Boondocks clip or video of Uncle Rukus in a courtroom.

 

[Jam Stunna]

This.

In a criminal trial in the U.S., the burden of proof rests on the prosecution. Murder one was a tall order for the amount of physical evidence that they had in this case.

The general public is quick to condemn probably because people don't like to see children get hurt. But public opinion on a suspect's character has nothing to do with a person's guilt or innocence.

I understand if people are suspicious of a jury's decision, but a lot of people are running it off as if they were there when the crime itself took place. I didn't follow the case really, but it played on the TVs at the gym. I am confident in saying that I have no clue whether she killed her child or not, but from what I've seen, the prosecution didn't present enough physical evidence to support their claims, not enough for a murder one conviction. Wrongful death of a child through negligence, maybe.

Hey dummies.

"It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, “whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,” and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever."
- John Adams


If it could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I'd rather see a guilty person walk free than an innocent person punished.

I'm pretty sure this is all that needs to be said on this subject.

 

[Lore]

Werekill, explain to SC that I am not some pickle head who thinks he is some messiah who can reign upon the ''less fortunate''.

Ha, I guess I'll say something to the people who need stuff said to them.

Ok AVg (which I'm calling you from now on), all he was saying was that I was poking all sorts of holes in your reasoning, which would be fine if he didn't word it the way that he did and say that you're full of ****. Either way, just ignore him and everything should be fine.

Smooth Criminal, you really shouldn't come in a random thread and just spout out things like that. It isn't nice! It also makes you look immature, etc etc, but I don't really care.

Teran, I will never sleep with you. Sorry hun. <3

Hylian, Sudai, and Alt4, Namesearch fun time!

Werekill, stop acting like you have a responsibility around here and get out of AVg and Smooth Criminal's argument.

 

[Alien Vision]

I'm pretty sure this is all that needs to be said on this subject.

By logical sense yes. (This reminds me of that Bones episode with that psycho lady who was SO obviously guilty, but they still couldn't do a damn thing about it, because they lacked significant evidence. Then she got owned by some sniper) Anthony on the other hand.. it's hard to fully link her to her daughter's death, or even think that she did it, because of things in life seem to always get misconstrued. (Like, how rumors spread across school like wildfire, even when it's bull****.) I only disagree with the verdict, regardless that the evidence doesn't back it up, is because this woman is ONE flaky girl. Something about her makes me, and OTHER people cringe. This thread was made to express our opinions. Not jump to something as if it was true, just because a system said so. As for that quote, I still believe we should be able to express our opinions on what we think about the verdict. .-.

Please tell me I wrote this correctly this time..

Ok AVg (which I'm calling you from now on), all he was saying was that I was poking all sorts of holes in your reasoning, which would be fine if he didn't word it the way that he did and say that you're full of ****. Either way, just ignore him and everything should be fine.

Thankyou. I was joking about that though. I don't think Smooth Criminal will come through. .-.

What does ''g'' in ''AVg'' mean?

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Ha, I guess I'll say something to the people who need stuff said to them.

Ok AVg (which I'm calling you from now on), all he was saying was that I was poking all sorts of holes in your reasoning, which would be fine if he didn't word it the way that he did and say that you're full of ****. Either way, just ignore him and everything should be fine.

Smooth Criminal, you really shouldn't come in a random thread and just spout out things like that. It isn't nice! It also makes you look immature, etc etc, but I don't really care.

Teran, I will never sleep with you. Sorry hun. <3

Hylian, Sudai, and Alt4, Namesearch fun time!

Werekill, stop acting like you have a responsibility around here and get out of AVg and Smooth Criminal's argument.

I lol'd.

I think you know me well enough, Werekill. That's all I need to say on the matter.

Edit: Of course you are entitled to an opinion on the verdict, Alien Vision. Nobody in here said otherwise. We just can't send people to their deaths based on those opinions. That's where the controversy is.

You advocate logic in some your posts. Think about it for a second. Would you persecute somebody just because you thought they did something so heinous? Or would you rather know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they did something to deserve any and all retribution given to them, that there is some sort of tangible proof to what they've done?

Our legal system was founded on that line of thinking. It's fair and (most importantly of all) it's logical. I'm not going to get into the convoluted mess of circumnavigating the law or abusing it outright. I'm just talking about the core principles. It can be exploited, yes, but that's not the point here. The point is that it's the closest thing we have that stops us short of the barbarity inherent to sending them to their deaths based on a simple assumption. I'd rather have that than nothing at all.

It's as Praxis said earlier on. I'd rather let a guilty man walk than not have due process in the court of law.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Alien Vision]

I lol'd.

I think you know me well enough, Werekill. That's all I need to say on the matter.

Smooth Criminal

WHOA! I think my head injury gave me psychic abilities! I swear I predicted your reaction to Werekill's response towards us. I know you too well, SC. Yet we are enemies..

Edit: Of course you are entitled to an opinion on the verdict, Alien Vision. Nobody in here said otherwise. We just can't send people to their deaths based on those opinions. That's where the controversy is.

You advocate logic in some your posts. Think about it for a second. Would you persecute somebody just because you thought they did something so heinous? Or would you rather know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they did something to deserve any and all retribution given to them?

Our legal system was founded on that line of thinking. It's fair and (most importantly of all) it's logical.

I never said I wanted to have her sentenced to death, because my gut thinks she is a very wishy-washy character that is hard to believe. I stated that we should be able to be entitled to our opinions, and be respected to disagree with her innocence. I don't want our ignorance to end up murdering a woman that we can never justify without certainty. I only wish to disagree with the verdict by my own speculation.

Tl;dr: It's not the death sentence and freedom I am looking at. It's the verdict, and her character I am sharing my opinion towards.