Casey Anthony Did Not Kill Her Child and What the Defense Alleges is Entirely True

Maybe she is putting on a display??

 

Yeah, good point. Maybe she's lying. Or maybe she really is telling the truth. Let us pretend she is convicted, and then fast forward 20 years. She dies. A year later "new technology" is used and finds out she really was innocent.

Is it worth convicting her then? decades behind bars and dies in prison, for a crime she didn't commit. Where is the prophetic justice then?

On the other side of the coin, what if she really did do it and is found not guilty? Did you know that in similar cases when the guilty party is released, they slip up. They commi8t another crime. And they are put away. Criminals, real criminals, have shown to be habitual.

So is justice a matter of satisfying the public or in finding the truth? No, I really don't trust the system either because I have seen how screwed up it is. But should we prosecute people of crimes no matter what?

Careful now, because someday YOUR head could be on the chopping block. It really can happen to anyone.

 

I haven't heard of this, even... but,

Oh look, a show trial where they hang someone who "obviously" did something, even if they can't legally prove it, for the sake of setting bad precedent and making everyone look over here while obama illegally blows up fucktons of people in an undeclared war to prop up an evil dictator on the other side of the world, which we all know totally doesn't make anybody hate us or blow our shit up. Also, the fact that even the UN and the people who STARTED it have declared the war on drugs an utter failure and responsible for thousands of lost and millions of destroyed lives is "misguided", according to the white house.

I'll bring the torches, who's got the pitchforks? It's so much easier to string up people who did little bad things that can't even be properly proven, and are not in positions of power, than massively evil corrupt people ordering the murder of a handful of people daily.

 

^ Exactly what I was saying but RooRshack put it considerably more eloquently.

 

I haven't been paying much attention to this so maybe I shouldn't say more, but, wth, I will.

I think the family's finger pointing is just a tactic to put 'reasonable doubt' in the juror's minds. From what I understand, this might make it difficult for them to find her guilty.

Does anyone know anything about this Zanny the Nanny thing?

I was thinking that
Casey was giving Caylee Xanax and started calling it Zanny, as if it was the Nanny.

 

I agree with ^^^
Now with the mom saying she is the one making the searches for chloroform online and that the pool ladder was down the day she went missing is just a way to put doubt in the jury's mind. Protecting their daughter til the bitter end.
Raises the question...would you lie under oath to protect your child?

 

Chloroforms can be found in swimming pools because of the chlorine and but very very little amounts.. also often due to bleed over from industry and in the water supply..

I dont think Florida has a chloroform water contamination problem though.. It would be more geared to manufacturing locations near water supplies. Just thought Id mention that..

 

There's more than a reasonable doubt.

You don't need to provide an explanation to avoid conviction, thanks to that pesky 5th amendment.

It looks like she did it, but there's more than a reasonable doubt, it needs to be PROVEN, and the prosecution is bloody amateurish, unprofessional and unplanned.

By this kind of logic, you can be convicted of any crime you can not prove yourself innocent of. Think about that for a minute, or ten.

Even failing a polygraph test is NOT proof of ANYTHING, and if theorizing about nicknames for drugs makes people guilty or even has any place in this, well fuck, in the words of carl johnson, "I wanna emigrate from here".

 

Kinda, RooR. There are people out there that have been wrongfully convicted, even when everything was in support of them being innocent. In a one case, even when witnesses out the ying yang testified that the defendant was not just a few thousand miles away, but he was in a totally separate country (IIRC somewhere in Europe) at a convention. And he was busted here stateside anyhow. All nonsense, IMO.

 

Even IF she did it, it doesn't matter.

It's got to be proven.

You can't support the rule of law by bending the rules for the sake of law.

 

I understand that. But the system doesn't. What I am trying to say is it doesn't matter who is innocent or guilty, if the system wants them put away they will put them away. Casey included. The state thinks it's above the law.

I honestly don't know what to make of the case.


(And the state's abuse of the rights of Americans is the biggest reason I support a revolution stateside.)

 

Seriously? Even if that were true which I don't buy for a second it would still indicate that she murdered that little girl.If she caused the childs death by neglect it is still murder. What kind of mother would be out partying and getting tattoos right after their child "accidentally" died. Also you scenario means that these obviously very loving grandparents had a pool in there home and did not teach Caylee to stay away from it.Your scenario also requires us to believe these people love Casey enough to help her cover up a death but not enough to keep her from getting the death penalty for this so called accident. I hope you never serve on a jury. You have taken reasonable doubt to stupid levels.

 

To the OP.
Why drive around w/ the dead body in the trunk?
If you're saying that never happened and they just made the trunk smell like death, Why do that?

Wouldn't it be simpler or make more sense to immediately dump the body where it was eventually dumped?

 

Death by neglect is death by neglect, and therefore obviously NOT murder.

It doesn't matter what kind of mother would be out partying or getting tattoos, that's not the question at hand, that would be neglect, again. This is not a trial to convict this woman of neglect, but of murder.

The loving grandparents can have taught a child what they want, if you don't understand that children frequently do not do what they're taught, you're a complete and utter fool, and quite unqualified to speak on this issue.

These people all could have easily gone "oh shit, we're all in trouble" and helped cover up when they had nothing to lose, but when a murder trial's underway, stepping up to the plate and saying you covered up the death of a little girl is NOT such a wise sounding idea, is it?

You are completely legally (and otherwise) incompetent, and a drone of those who would convict people with no proof at all. People convicted WITH "proof" frequently turn out to be innocent (even those who are executed with "proof"), and no matter how you can twist things to look, or even, no matter how they look on their own, you need proper proof to convict, much less KILL somebody.

Furthermore, a prosecution that seeks to kill someone because they killed someone else is wholly hypocritical, and has rather little respect for the state, if they're willing to turn the state into an eye for an eye style henchmen to further their legal/political careers, with OUT even having proof.

 

Except, the court already had an entomologist (a bug doctor, if you will) testify that there was no proof there was a body in the car. Had there been there would have been a large number of blowflies present. And he found no trace of blowflies. So if the girl's body was in the trunk and had started rotting, the blowflies would have showed up. And from what I understand, the body was not found inside the car. Instead a bag of garbage was.

 

I SAY : we should just wait until we hear the verdict from the jury because 1: they havnt been subject to all f the publicity surrounding the case .. propaganda and any thing related to the case outside the courtroom witch i think is crucial in a fair verdict . peace and love everyone lets all just see what they say k?

 

well here comes the verdict you can watch it online here http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...anthony-jury-livestream-2,0,6003068.htmlstory

 

BS

 

Not guilty, though she was found guilty of lying to investigators, a misdemeanor.

 

almost as ridiculous as the OJ verdict