• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why is the Casey Anthony trial a national story?

Page 16 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
guyver01 said:
That wasnt the diary entry... or not all of it. here is the whole thing:

The bolded part is the most damning.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I still don't see how this would prove that she did it. Could she be talking about murdering her child? Most certainly, but I don't think it's definitive enough to outright state that the entry is "damning." At least to me, the entry is no different than her going out and partying... it shows that she's relatively carefree even after something potentially horrible happened. Being an irresponsible and overall awful mother (and probably even human being in general) doesn't necessarily make her a killer.
 
Aikouka said:
I'm sorry, but I still don't see how this would prove that she did it. Could she be talking about murdering her child? Most certainly, but I don't think it's definitive enough to outright state that the entry is "damning." At least to me, the entry is no different than her going out and partying... it shows that she's relatively carefree even after something potentially horrible happened. Being an irresponsible and overall awful mother (and probably even human being in general) doesn't necessarily make her a killer.
Click to expand...

:hmm:

Well, what else are you aware of, that she is accused of happening, that she would need to say I have no regrets about and what else did she do that she would say I completely trust my own judgement & know that I made the right decision. I just hope that the end justifies the means. Why would her lawyer fight so hard to keep it out of evidence, if it can be explained away by saying "She was talking about that night she went clubbing".. Who the fuck says "i hope the ends justifies the means" .. when they talk about going to a bar???
 
guyver01 said:
At that point, the "tip line" was probably getting 1,000 calls an hour with people who 'found the body' .. or spotted her somewhere.

As the defense asked, Why wouldn't he drive 2 minutes up the road to the 50 reporters and say.. hey.. i found the body... who wants a pulitzer?
Click to expand...

and so what if they were getting thousands of calls a day. how many were in teh neibhorhood? how much time would it have cost to go out and walk around?

there is no excuse for the police to NOT do this. no matter how people try to spin it.

I do wonder why he didn't go to a reporter and say i think i seen a body over ther and the police refuse to go look...
 
waggy said:
and so what if they were getting thousands of calls a day. how many were in teh neibhorhood? how much time would it have cost to go out and walk around?

there is no excuse for the police to NOT do this. no matter how people try to spin it.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying there's an excuse... in fact if he is telling the truth... that could be where the prosecution lost the case, too... police misconduct with regards to potential evidence is always a big issue.

But where he lost all credibility to me, was when he says "i showed my friends the body... and then we found a dead snake.. and that took up the rest of the day" ...

wtf?? all your friends decided to play with a fucking dead snake??? instead of dealing with a human corpse??
 
guyver01 said:
:hmm:

Well, what else are you aware of, that she is accused of happening, that she would need to say I have no regrets about and what else did she do that she would say I completely trust my own judgement & know that I made the right decision. I just hope that the end justifies the means. Why would her lawyer fight so hard to keep it out of evidence, if it can be explained away by saying "She was talking about that night she went clubbing".. Who the fuck says "i hope the ends justifies the means" .. when they talk about going to a bar???
Click to expand...

All I'm seeing in your post is that you're still making an assumption as to what the completely vague entry was about. Am I saying that it cannot mean that, of course not. Am I saying that I doubt that it means that, of course not. I'm simply stating that you cannot prove that's what she's talking about. Your proof in your post is, "well... it simply has to mean that!"

It seems like the prosecution messed up by presenting a "finished puzzle" with a few key pieces still missing, or maybe they realized that their puzzle box was missing a few pieces and didn't think anyone would notice. 😛 It's a real shame, because either a killer just went free or the killer is still out there.
 
Aikouka said:
All I'm seeing in your post is that you're still making an assumption as to what the completely vague entry was about. Am I saying that it cannot mean that, of course not. Am I saying that I doubt that it means that, of course not. I'm simply stating that you cannot prove that's what she's talking about. Your proof in your post is, "well... it simply has to mean that!"
Click to expand...

If you take it together with all the other evidence, its pretty damning.
That's what a trial is all about.. looking at ALL the evidence.

And yes, damning is the correct word.

damn·ing/ˈdamiNG/Adjective
Strongly suggesting guilt.
 
guyver01 said:
If you take it together with all the other evidence, its pretty damning.
That's what a trial is all about.. looking at ALL the evidence.
Click to expand...

Unless I'm missing something based off of reading the last few pages of this thread, I still don't see how this entry combined with everything else is enough to convict her. As I mentioned earlier, I think the journal entry would possibly work well at bumping a 2nd-degree murder charge to 1st-degree, but as supporting evidence in manslaughter/murder? I don't think it works in that regard.

But hell... I'm not a lawyer. I'm just trying to look at this from a logical standpoint and trying to connect the dots. Maybe I'm missing a few dots.

guyver01 said:
And yes, damning is the correct word.
Click to expand...

😕

Was this directed at me? I recall putting "damning" in quotes above, but that is not because I wish to state that it is an improper usage or anything like that. I'll usually quote or italicize something (typically the prior) to infer that it's the exact wording used, and that may be used to show how the content doesn't match (i.e. in this case, I don't think the evidence is nearly as "damning").
 
Aikouka said:
Unless I'm missing something based off of reading the last few pages of this thread, I still don't see how this entry combined with everything else is enough to convict her.
Click to expand...

Then... you're missing the smell of a dead body in her car... all the lies told to police (which she WAS found guilty of) .. the made up people who she said took her daughter... her 'strange behavior' for 31 days when her daughter was missing/dead... the cadaver dog hits...
 
guyver01 said:
Then... you're missing the smell of a dead body in her car... all the lies told to police (which she WAS found guilty of) .. the made up people who she said took her daughter... her 'strange behavior' for 31 days when her daughter was missing/dead... the cadaver dog hits...
Click to expand...

and which one of these is PROOF BEYOND UNREASONABLE DOUBT that she murdered her daughter?

not a damn one, which is what Aikouka is getting at.

this is ALL 100^% circumstancial evidence.
 
purbeast0 said:
and which one of these is PROOF BEYOND UNREASONABLE DOUBT that she murdered her daughter?

not a damn one, which is what Aikouka is getting at.

this is ALL 100^% circumstancial evidence.
Click to expand...

That doesn't stop lots of people from getting convicted of lots of things. Reasonable doubt isn't very specific when most people don't have a reasonable bone in their body. If she wasn't a young white female she would have been guilty. Change any of those factors and a jury find her guilty
 
purbeast0 said:
and which one of these is PROOF BEYOND UNREASONABLE DOUBT that she murdered her daughter?

not a damn one, which is what Aikouka is getting at.

this is ALL 100^% circumstancial evidence.
Click to expand...

circumstancial evidence itself is not a disqualifier. most murder cases are circumstancial evidence.

and i never said ONE PIECE of evidence alone is enough.. it never is.
take all the evidence together.

perhaps that was the prosecutions mistake.

they made their case around logic and scientific evidence.. and discounted the idiots in the world who dont understand science or computers.
 
spacejamz said:
I will tell what you what is really sad here (in addition to the death of Kaylee) is that you know all of these details about this one case because Nancy Grace chose this murder to increase her TV ratings (and then other media and people like you swallowed it whole)...
<snip?
Click to expand...
I knew every detail you lambasted Linflas for and I didn't even know who Nancy Grace was until I saw her mentioned here and Googled her. You won't believe me, but I picked it all up without even following the case. When a case takes three years to come to trial it's fairly easy to pick up on the details.
 
guyver01 said:
circumstancial evidence itself is not a disqualifier. most murder cases are circumstancial evidence.

and i never said ONE PIECE of evidence alone is enough.. it never is.
take all the evidence together.

perhaps that was the prosecutions mistake.

they made their case around logic and scientific evidence.. and discounted the idiots in the world who dont understand science or computers.
Click to expand...

well apparently the members of the jury who have shitloads more information about this case than anybody else does, didn't think there was enough of it to be proof beyond any reasonable doubt.

and like you said, that is pretty much on the prosecution team if that is the case ... if there was enough evidence.
 
purbeast0 said:
and like you said, that is pretty much on the prosecution team if that is the case ... if there was enough evidence.
Click to expand...

The prosecutions biggest mistake was they put all their eggs into the "Murder in the 1st degree - Felony Murder"

The evidence easily supports a theory of Second Degree Murder or even Involuntary Manslaughter.

Easily they could prove unintentional, but reckless or criminally negligent behavior that led to the death of a human being.
 
boomerang said:
I knew every detail you lambasted Linflas for and I didn't even know who Nancy Grace was until I saw her mentioned here and Googled her. You won't believe me, but I picked it all up without even following the case. When a case takes three years to come to trial it's fairly easy to pick up on the details.
Click to expand...

The only reason you know it is because Nancy Grace judged Casey guilty 3 years ago and has been talking about it non-stop since then. I guarantee you that if Nancy chose to exploit another child murder case, you would have never heard of Casey or Kaylee Anthony...

how many other cases where a child was murdered do you know the details of besides this one???
 
guyver01 said:
The prosecutions biggest mistake was they put all their eggs into the "Murder in the 1st degree - Felony Murder"

The evidence easily supports a theory of Second Degree Murder or even Involuntary Manslaughter.

Easily they could prove unintentional, but reckless or criminally negligent behavior that led to the death of a human being.
Click to expand...

Aggravated Child Abuse and Aggravated manslaughter WERE on the table for the jury to consider.
 
spacejamz said:
I will tell what you what is really sad here (in addition to the death of Kaylee) is that you know all of these details about this one case because Nancy Grace chose this murder to increase her TV ratings (and then other media and people like you swallowed it whole)...
Click to expand...

Internet badasses like you really crack me up. This case has been in the news since 2008 and the items I listed should be known to any person that keeps up with the news. If you are saying that I actually retain what I read and watch and can recall them when necessary I plead guilty. Is that the "it" I supposedly "swallowed whole"? For a guy ranting about people jumping to conclusions with little facts or evidence you certainly seem to be one of them since you assume to know exactly what I think about this case based on a reply to you listing the major facts known in this case

How many child murder cases have there been since Kaylee died? I don't know either, but I am pretty sure that number is more than 1. Do you know this level of detail for any other cases where a child was murdered or have this level of emotional attachment?
Click to expand...

I do know that Orange County, Florida has 11 more awaiting trial and over 100 murder cases also awaiting trial. As for my level of emotional attachment to this case once again you leap to a conclusion knowing absolutely nothing about me other than I know the major facts regarding a case that has received ongoing national exposure for 3 years.

How much of your 'evidence' was from the media who had already issued a guilty verdict way before yesterday? All of it perhaps??? These jurors have been INTIMATELY involved with this case alot longer than you, I or even Nancy Grace, OPERATING under the rules of our justice system. Not sure why you cannot see that or maybe you do but just can't stand the fact that the outcome is not what you wanted because of all Nancy's crap you have already swallowed.
Click to expand...

Yet more assumptions from you regarding me and my so called attachment to this case. For the record I have been a juror in both a Federal case and a State case and therefore actually know how a jury works. I respect the decision of the jury in this case, they are the final arbiters of the actual evidence presented in the courtroom. I have never seen the Nancy Grace program and really have no idea what she had to say regarding this case.

It disgusts me to appear as though I sympathize with Casey (who is probably guilty), but at least I know how our judicial system works which is apparently something you do not.
Click to expand...

It disgusts me that you assume I know nothing of how our system works or that I am outraged at the verdict. For the record so you can have some actual facts to rant about:

1. Casey Anthony is not guilty of murder and if you understand our system of justice the way you claim then you understand that not guilty does not equal innocent.

2. It is my opinion that she murdered her child and it is nothing more than an opinion. I am not the least bit outraged by the verdict, the jury obviously felt that the charges had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and delivered a verdict consistent with that belief.
 
After the OJ trial one of the jurors said "we thought he did it, but they couldn't prove it"

I am rather certain we will hear at least on juror say the same thing here.
 
Quotes from one of the jurors in my link:
"I did not say she was innocent," said Ford, who had previously only been identified as juror number 3. "I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top