Casey Anthony Gets To Walk

[DontAskJusTckle]

This is like OJ all over again.

 

[SamuelKhan]

WorstBitchEver is free July 13

Make her wear a picture of Caylee around her neck, as they hurl eggs at her. The question is now, will she truly be free? Good luck going to the convenient store to pick up some booze. Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

Casey Anthony will be released from jail in six days after a judge sentenced her Thursday to one year for each of four counts of lying to investigators, giving her credit for time already served.

Anthony, who was acquitted Tuesday of killing her daughter, can walk free July 13 because she already served nearly three years in jail and has had good behavior, the court ruled.

Now let's see if she weighs less than a duck...
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SfKh80BHSnk?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SfKh80BHSnk?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

 

[maniactickler]

It just boils down to a weak minded, lazy jury who were clueless. using a stupid accident theory thats ridiculous. i guess you need to catch the actual murder on video tape nowadays for a conviction. i think people are watching way too many CSI shows and think they are actually knowledgable. ill still vote for professional juries even though it will never happen.

 

[Bothersome]

It just boils down to a weak minded, lazy jury who were clueless. using a stupid accident theory thats ridiculous. i guess you need to catch the actual murder on video tape nowadays for a conviction. i think people are watching way too many CSI shows and think they are actually knowledgable. ill still vote for professional juries even though it will never happen.

A stupider, unbiased Jury is more fair than a professional, biased one.

 

[cabalist]

It just boils down to a weak minded, lazy jury who were clueless. using a stupid accident theory thats ridiculous. i guess you need to catch the actual murder on video tape nowadays for a conviction. i think people are watching way too many CSI shows and think they are actually knowledgable. ill still vote for professional juries even though it will never happen.

I hafta agree. And if the only alternative to people such as those comprising the jury in this case is professional jurors, yes, I'm strongly inclined to agree that it would be at least the lesser of evils. Personally I'm inclined to think that this particular jury was largely indifferent, if not even hostile to the state in being "required" to serve, and they just wanted out of there. In fact, I don't believe they ever even really seriously deliberated at all in the meager 10 hours they spent supposedly deliberating a case which took weeks to try.

But while I agree with those suggesting that the sensationalism negatively impacted this case, not in the way some here have suggested, as I think the evidence is much better that it helped the defendant, as giving her undeserved celebrity is what helped make this basically the O.J. Simpson case revisited. Can anyone really believe she would have had the defense team she did had her celebrity not attracted them like cockroaches?

A stupider, unbiased Jury is more fair than a professional, biased one.

Except that that's a false dichotomy. Why assume that a professional jury would be biased? If nothing else, they might likely have a better grasp of the law than the one in this case did. A more knowledgeable and sophisticated jury (whether or not professional) would never have fallen for such childishly transparent deceptions as those employed by the defense in this case. (Although some here seem to have been drinking that "kool-aid.")

 

[Bothersome]

Except that that's a false dichotomy. Why assume that a professional jury would be biased? If nothing else, they might likely have a better grasp of the law than the one in this case did. A more knowledgeable and sophisticated jury (whether or not professional) would never have fallen for such childishly transparent deceptions as those employed by the defense in this case. (Although some here seem to have been drinking that "kool-aid.")

Maybe.

And maybe half of the jury were professionals who were part of the feminist movement.

 

[cabalist]

Maybe.

And maybe half of the jury were professionals who were part of the feminist movement.

I'm afraid I don't know what feminism has to do with it. Care to elaborate?

 

[Bothersome]

I'm afraid I don't know what feminism has to do with it. Care to elaborate?

They'd have a bias towards the female in the case. That's essentially the point I was trying to get to, but it was kind of hard to do with this case in particular. That bias would effect their conclusion. An objective conclusion will almost always not be reachable with a biased jury. That's the entire point behind the whole 'random jury duty' thing.

 

[cabalist]

They'd have a bias towards the female in the case. That's essentially the point I was trying to get to, but it was kind of hard to do with this case in particular. That bias would effect their conclusion. An objective conclusion will almost always not be reachable with a biased jury. That's the entire point behind the whole 'random jury duty' thing.

Okay (I think). But the reality is that one isn't likely to find a potential juror (or person) anywhere, professional or otherwise, without biases and I'm not sure one is better off merely guessing at the biases of a "random" jury. But I can imagine a truly innocent person possibly benefiting by a jury more knowledgeable of the law, who might be less likely to be motivated to find an innocent person guilty, while conversely having little to gain in the long run in acquitting the truly guilty. Assuming, of course, that they're not rewarded in any way for either convictions or acquittals.

Obviously, meaningful standards would have to be established which the professional would be expected to understand and adhere to, while whether that's true of any purely random citizen might be expected to be purely the luck of the draw. And as the latter might likely never serve on a jury again, I'm not sure how committed to the task any such "random" person might likely typically be, particularly when many of them might likely much rather not be there at all, as I suspect may actually be true of the majority of those called to serve. That is, how likely is someone who really doesn't even want to be there to be committed to careful deliberation?

 

[maniactickler]

A stupider, unbiased Jury is more fair than a professional, biased one.

And is far more likely to let murderers go free.

 

[Bothersome]

And is far more likely to let murderers go free.

So I guess we have to decide what we want more;

(1) Innocent people potentially getting prison time, and possibly the death sentence over something they have absolutely no control over.
or,

(2) More criminals being convicted.

In either case, we have no guarantee that the innocent will go to prison, or that the murderer will get caught. It'll just happen more than it does now.

 

[love feet]

So a feeble-minded panel of jurors has decided, at least one of whom has apparently already expressed regret over that decision.

(And how do you like that Kasey Kool-Aid?)

its all about what you can legally prove Not what one thinks!!!!

 

[bftk2005]

its all about what you can legally prove Not what one thinks!!!!

True.

 

[natural tickler]

and the even sadder part about all of this is that she wants another baby...

I guess to finish the job right....


hell has a special place for her

 

[bftk2005]

she should be very careful when she goes out to celebrate the verdict. Alot of people are very angry.

 

[maniactickler]

its all about what you can legally prove Not what one thinks!!!!

This is the problem with the judicial system. any rationally thinking human being knows shes guilty, but because of minor legal loopholes, it offers her, and other criminals a way to stay free.

 

[Em Es]

And now for a non-hysterical take on Casey Anthony . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt8_69u_OHc&feature=share

Sorry about the short ad preceding the commentary.

 

[love feet]

True.

thank you!!!

 

[love feet]

This is the problem with the judicial system. any rationally thinking human being knows shes guilty, but because of minor legal loopholes, it offers her, and other criminals a way to stay free.

its not minor legal loopholes its a balanced system!

 

[rhiannon]

its all about what you can legally prove Not what one thinks!!!!

This! If you can't prove it without a doubt, you can't convict anybody of murder! If you can't even tell how a person died....it's hard to prove anything.

But I am honestly surprised that the jury didn't follow the public pressure! I didn't think that would happen.

Anyways...I don't give Casey Anthony more than a year before a lynchmob gets her.

 

[kis123]

Concrete evidence would have been:

1. A container of chloroform matched chemically to chloroform found in the child's remains with Casey's fingerprints on it.

2. Remains found in Casey's car, rather than reports of a rotten smell in Casey's car.

3. Anything that can solidly declare how the child died, which could then be trace physically, not logically back to Casey.

I believe she did it, but there was just not sufficient evidence to convict her.

This^......

Scott Peterson must be SO pissed.

And this^

And let's add Susan Smith and Andrea Yates to that list while you're at it. Yates had a legitimate medical mental health status and she still went to jail as she should have. I had compassion for her because I know what post partum depression left untreated can do. But she killed her children and is rightfully serving with her life for it.

But this! She's walking out of jail free after all the "circumstantial" evidence? A-friggin'-mazing! Cmon' Florida......really? Seriously? Didn't someone teach you to play "connect the dots" when you were a kid? I didn't even watch the case and figured out either she did it or had something to do with it which warrants more than a three year jail sentence.

I hope she does herself and the world a favor and doesn't have any more children. She doesn't even need a potted plant, a puppy, or anything that sustains life. If left in her care, whatever it is will be in a lot of trouble if she wants to go clubbing or needs to party. She's a disgusting excuse for a woman and really doesn't deserve to be in the free world, IMO.

Hey maniac! Now if you ever had the right to call someone human excrement, here's your chance! And you won't get an argument out of me either.

Oh, and btw, if I ever get into serious trouble, I'm calling her lawyer! Johnnie Cochran must be spinning in his grave right now.

Well she'll be begging for jail in a little while..........wait and see.

 

[bftk2005]

She will be out next Sunday.

 

[The Fallen Angel]

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xWAwPnwrvI4?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xWAwPnwrvI4?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

While I disagree with her not being guilty, this is very true

 

[cabalist]

its all about what you can legally prove Not what one thinks!!!!

It depends on what you mean by "it's." If by "it's" you're referring to the verdict arrived at by the jury, more accurately "it's" "all about" what this particular jury believed was proven, not necessarily what was proven.

So in that sense, you couldn't be more wrong, as the verdict in any case is always based on what the jury thinks. That is, unless you want to argue that the jury in this case didn't think, which in a sense I might be inclined to agree with. But if you're going to argue that what the jury thinks isn't relevant to the verdict, then I'm not sure what you might think that the purpose of a jury is.

And it's pretty clear that reasonable people (which in this case appears to be the majority of those following this case) agree that this particular jury didn't understand proof beyond a reasonable doubt (as you obviously don't either), but instead were duped by the defense's smoke and mirrors tactics, VERY similarly to how the defense duped the jury in the O.J. Simpson case. As a largely circumstantial evidence case, what juries in such cases need to be able to do is to put two and two together, and the jury's "basic math" skills were obviously seriously lacking in these cases

And as I said above, in both cases, the defendents' celebrity gave them a strong advantage, in attracting the most unscrupulous, unconscionable, and conniving of defense attorneys. The only difference is that Anthony wasn't a celebrity before the commission of her crime, but was made into one by the media attention to the case long before the trial ever began. I have little doubt that had this case not received the media attention that it did, she likely would have been convicted in the proverbial heartbeat -- as likely would Simpson have been was it not for his celebrity status. Many people have been convicted of murder in cases where less evidence was offered than in this case and rightfully so. (In some cases even when the victim's body was never found, including one recent case in my local area in which a man murdered his girlfriend's young daughter and probably threw her body out with the trash, which was collected and incinerated before the search for her body even began.)

Otherwise I'll just say that continuing to repeat an unfounded statement while offering nothing of substance to support it won't magically make it true. And you've really offered nothing whatsoever to support the statement which you keep "parroting" here.

 

[maniactickler]

its not minor legal loopholes its a balanced system!

And very flawed.