NEWS OF THE WORLD - Current Events (May Be Disturbing, No Politics Please)

[Halloween Jeff]

Anthony found not guilty of murder....

was she guilty or not guilty?  I'm curious about your opinions....

Bizarro Jeff

[Wicked Lester]

Anthony found not guilty of murder....

was she guilty or not guilty?  I'm curious about your opinions....

Bizarro Jeff

I don't know what the hell the jury was thinking on this one.  I don't know anyone that thought it would have ended this way.
There are too many things on this one to let her off the hook. Oh,sure she may spend a couple years in prison for lying to the cops. Then when she gets out she can go back to partying.

[urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/05/casey-anthony-verdict-not-guilty-murder][/url]

[monsterphile]

Anthony found not guilty of murder....

was she guilty or not guilty?  I'm curious about your opinions....

Bizarro Jeff

I personally think she probably was guilty, but I can understand how the physical evidence wasn't strong enough to prove it.  There just wasn't enough of a "smoking gun" in this case.  There was a ton of suspicious behavior and it certainly points to her being involved with the dumping of her daughter's body, but due to the decomposition of the body, the forensics couldnt make that final link.  AT the very least she is a horrible person (can't even call her a human being).

I hope the court gets her on every other crime they can and that she gets the maximum on each one.  I hope she never gets a chance to have a child again.



Rob

[Wicked Lester]

To our dismay they are actually talking about possibly letting her walk in a couple/few days for time served.
I don't want to start a thread that WILL get heated but our judicial system all around pretty much SUX!

She WILL get hers somewhere sometime la de da de da...

[Scatter]

She's as guilty as OJ was, but unlike the OJ case there simply wasn't enough direct evidence to convict her. The OJ jury was populated by some of the most ignorant booger-eaters imaginable, and the prosecution wasn't much better. But in this case I saw the specter of "reasonable doubt' hovering over the proceedings quite early on. I told Nancy a few days ago that she would likely walk.

How do you prove someone murdered another person when you can't even determine the method of the killing?? Was that precious baby strangled?? Drowned?? Asphyxiated?? Drugged?? The prosecution had no idea. Nancy believes that she chloroformed the bay to ensure that she would remain asleep and without the need of a sitter while mommy went out and partied. I tend to agree with her. I have no doubt she killed that baby, but the legal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" simply could not be met when the decomposition of the body left the means and method of the murder impossible to determine, and the identity of the killer impossible to prove.

There was none of the prosecutorial incompetence that marred what SHOULD have been a slam-dunk 1st degree murder conviction in the OJ trial. The State here did an admirable job with the purely circumstantial case they were given. But it's a sad sign of the ultimate weakness of their case when even so feckless and feeble a legal presence as Baez couldn't bumble and fumble enough to get his client the nearest lethal needle. If even as massive a boob as Baez couldn't manage to get Ms. Anthony convicted, that says far less about his skill as a lawyer than it says about the insurmountable hurdle the lack of direct evidence was for the State.

As for Ms. Anthony, she may have slipped through the greasy cracks of our shattered legal system, but to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, "I tremble for Ms. Anthony when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

[Sean]

It is a fact that people have been found guilty of murder on LESS evidence.

My gut from the outset was that Casey Anthony did NOT pre-meditate murder, but rather wanted to knock out her kid so she could go out and party... so she tried chloroform instead of dropping the kid off at her folks' house.

Who would do this, you ask?  A sociopath.  A psychopath.  Casey Anthony is one of these.  My gut tells me that the child died unintentionally---------yet as a direct result from what Casey negligently did.  It should have been manslaughter plus all of the lying to authorities she was tried on.

Manslaughter was one of the lesser charges that the jury had as an option.  Problem was, the prosecution argued Murder One and nothing else.  Instead of ever establishing a firm bridge between 'not guilty' and 'manslaughter'---------they tried to build a bridge between 'manslaughter' and 'Murder One'...   They were building a skyscraper by starting at the observation deck and building to the radio tower.  They neglected to establish a foundation. 

When the jury couldn't find her guilty of pre-meditated murder in a death penalty case-----------they had nowhere to go because the prosecution didn't even TRY to prove anything else.  The only thing left was to say she was guilty of the lying, which WAS proven.

A dead girl has recieved no justice.  Someone is responsible for her dying and for her being thrown in a swamp.  The strongest thing the prosecuton said was 'somebody's life got BETTER' with the death of Caylee.  All of the evidence points to the Anthony home.  Did Cindy Anthony's life get better?  No.  Listen to the 911 call.  Did George's life get better?  No.  Look at the suicide note.  The person who's life got better got a 'beautiful life' tattoo.  It was Casey.  Still not enough to prove pre-meditation or intent..... but it was, IMO criminally negligent.  Some one died.  Casey is responsible.  The defense's opening statement should have hurt them.  They became accusers and proved nothing themselves.  It's not reasonable to think George, an ex-cop was unwilling to call authorities in an accidental  drowning case or do CPR until the ambulance got there.  It's not reasonable to think George (who buries his pets) would throw his granddaughter in a swamp and make an innicent drowning look like murder.  There's is NOTHING reasonable about the defense's story.  All reasonable theories point to Casey.

There's a lot we don't know about this case.  They family is ODD as a group.

[Fester]

She was tried repeatedly and convicted repeatedly by the news media.  That there was insufficient evidence never occurred to the pundits. 

Now everyone is outraged that she did it and got off.  The whole trial was a high tech lynching thanks to cable news needing something to fill up the 24/7 news shows.

Did she do it?  Apparently, to the jury, there was reasonable doubt.

At least that part of the system worked.

[Halloween Jeff]

I don't know that I'd agree she's a sociopath or psychopath (remember, they aren't the same thing....).

But I'm betting this is the single event she'll be remembered for the remainder of her life....however long THAT is.


Bizarro Jeff

[Moonshadow]

Much like Gary and Nancy, my husband and I discussed the case on Friday and I suggested that she might walk due to the lack of evidence. I don't disrespect the jurors one bit; they did what they were supposed to do, consider the case as it was presented to them, not as the media presented it.

That being said, I have no doubt the mother was involved in the child's death. But there simply isn't enough evidence to convict her of that. And common sense or a gut feeling doesn't cut it in the court of law.

But no doubt, she will get pay back at some point, in this world or the next.

[Scatter]

It is a fact that people have been found guilty of murder on LESS evidence.

My gut from the outset was that Casey Anthony did NOT pre-meditate murder, but rather wanted to knock out her kid so she could go out and party... so she tried chloroform instead of dropping the kid off at her folks' house.

Who would do this, you ask?  A sociopath.  A psychopath.  Casey Anthony is one of these.  My gut tells me that the child died unintentionally---------yet as a direct result from what Casey negligently did.  It should have been manslaughter plus all of the lying to authorities she was tried on.

Manslaughter was one of the lesser charges that the jury had as an option.  Problem was, the prosecution argued Murder One and nothing else.  Instead of ever establishing a firm bridge between 'not guilty' and 'manslaughter'---------they tried to build a bridge between 'manslaughter' and 'Murder One'...   They were building a skyscraper by starting at the observation deck and building to the radio tower.  They neglected to establish a foundation. 

When the jury couldn't find her guilty of pre-meditated murder in a death penalty case-----------they had nowhere to go because the prosecution didn't even TRY to prove anything else.  The only thing left was to say she was guilty of the lying, which WAS proven.

A dead girl has recieved no justice.  Someone is responsible for her dying and for her being thrown in a swamp.  The strongest thing the prosecuton said was 'somebody's life got BETTER' with the death of Caylee.  All of the evidence points to the Anthony home.  Did Cindy Anthony's life get better?  No.  Listen to the 911 call.  Did George's life get better?  No.  Look at the suicide note.  The person who's life got better got a 'beautiful life' tattoo.  It was Casey.  Still not enough to prove pre-meditation or intent..... but it was, IMO criminally negligent.  Some one died.  Casey is responsible.  The defense's opening statement should have hurt them.  They became accusers and proved nothing themselves.  It's not reasonable to think George, an ex-cop was unwilling to call authorities in an accidental  drowning case or do CPR until the ambulance got there.  It's not reasonable to think George (who buries his pets) would throw his granddaughter in a swamp and make an innicent drowning look like murder.  There's is NOTHING reasonable about the defense's story.  All reasonable theories point to Casey.

There's a lot we don't know about this case.  They family is ODD as a group.

Agreed on every count.

[Scatter]

She was tried repeatedly and convicted repeatedly by the news media.  That there was insufficient evidence never occurred to the pundits. 

Now everyone is outraged that she did it and got off.  The whole trial was a high tech lynching thanks to cable news needing something to fill up the 24/7 news shows.

Did she do it?  Apparently, to the jury, there was reasonable doubt.

At least that part of the system worked.

Agreed again. The blathering media become less relevant every day. Journalism is dead.

[Scatter]

Much like Gary and Nancy, my husband and I discussed the case on Friday and I suggested that she might walk due to the lack of evidence. I don't disrespect the jurors one bit; they did what they were supposed to do, consider the case as it was presented to them, not as the media presented it.

That being said, I have no doubt the mother was involved in the child's death. But there simply isn't enough evidence to convict her of that. And common sense or a gut feeling doesn't cut it in the court of law.

But no doubt, she will get pay back at some point, in this world or the next.

Again, I'm awfully agreeable today. But I can't help it. When you're right, you're right.

[frankenstein73]

5 July 2011      'Barnes mystery' of Attenborough garden skull solved
Julia Martha Thomas, who was in her 50s, died in south-west London in 1879 but her skull vanished A skull recovered in the back garden of broadcaster Sir David Attenborough in south-west London belonged to a woman murdered in 1879, a coroner has ruled.

Julia Martha Thomas was killed by her maid, Kate Webster, but her head remained missing. The case became known as "the Barnes mystery".

The skull was found during building work in Richmond last October.

The coroner recorded a verdict of unlawful killing and the cause of death as asphyxiation and a head injury.

Alison Thompson said all of the evidence presented to her pointed to the body being that of Mrs Thomas, who was in her 50s.

Census records and radiocarbon testing had been provided to the inquest by the Metropolitan Police.

"This is a fascinating case and a good example of how good old-fashioned detective work, historical records and technological advances came together to solve the 'Barnes mystery'," said Ch Supt Clive Chalk.

[Wicked Lester]

The prosecution is what killed the verdict. There were several verdicts the jury had the option of going with but with the 1st degree PUSHED PUSHED PUSHED That is what got her off. 1st degree P.M murder there was not quite enough to nab her.
Manslaughter (which I cannot believe was turned down),negligent homicide, covering a crime,obstruction of justice , aggravated battery on a child. GUILTY GUILTY....
15 years no parole would have been better than nothing.
Casey,change your hair your name and location. The villagers are lighting their torches and sharpening their pitchforks as I type this.
RUN RABBIT RUUUUUN...

[Sean]

The prosecution is what killed the verdict. There were several verdicts the jury had the option of going with but with the 1st degree PUSHED PUSHED PUSHED That is what got her off. 1st degree P.M murder there was not quite enough to nab her.
Manslaughter (which I cannot believe was turned down),negligent homicide, covering a crime,obstruction of justice , aggravated battery on a child. GUILTY GUILTY....
15 years no parole would have been better than nothing.
Casey,change your hair your name and location. The villagers are lighting their torches and sharpening their pitchforks as I type this.
RUN RABBIT RUUUUUN...

Yes, Wicked.  I believe in Florida, the appropriate charge would have been Involuntary Manslaughter------which carries a maximum of 15 years.