Casey Anthony

[🪦 puckface ●]

she's guilty. fancy wording won't convince my otherwise..lol

[🪦 IbDaToNeGuY ●]

Well she is guilty for the lying part and is serving 1 year per lie . So it's going to work the same way as if the man rapes or sexually abuses any child , when they go to jail then word will spread very quickly that the reason they are there is because of a young child . I will be shocked if she makes it out of jail alive . Some people that are in jail know that they aren't getting out so why not get rid of that trash while she's there ? Man or woman , bottom line is that if you do anything to a child , those prisoners will have their way with you and the guards will gladly turn their heads .

[🪦 mybankey ●]

I do not know what happened, never will. That being said if she accidentley killed her, she should have told someone and not went out partying and getting tattooed. May be im wrong.
Tom

[🪦 Darth Veach ●]

And bottom line, even if they found her not guilty of the charges, that doesn't mean she is innocent. Just means they didn't have enough to get her on. I really think she should've at the very least gotten convicted of child abuse or endangerment. She clearly had something to do with this and a 2 year old defenseless child is dead because of her. If they couldn't prove murder or manslaughter, abuse should've been obvious. Neglect at the very least. Plain and simple, regardless she is a scumbag who, in some way, direct or indirect, is responsible for her little girl being dead. Since our justice system can't do anything about it, I pray Karma will.

[🪦 mybankey ●]

Sorry guys, my wife wants to vent...this is her, welcome to my nightmare.

First let me start by saying that I am not a nightmare Anyway, for those who want to believe the Defense, that she drowned, here's my question...why is she not guilty of manslaughter? She did nothing help save her daughter, scare of her father or not, she has the duty as her mother to help her. She can say she did CPR or whatever crap lie she wants to invent but by not trying to save her life, she allowed her death and is guilty...whatcha think?

Thanks,
Cheri
(The person who buys all of his masks! :p)

[🪦 stainboy ●]

I personally think they will only find more charges to press against her, take her to court on those things and find her guilty. That is the same thing that was done to O.J. Simpson. He was found "Not Guilty" on criminal counts of murder...........but later was found "Guilty" in the civil case. It makes no difference to them how they get you to prison..............if they really want you in prison, one day you will go.

[color="#FFFF00"]You're right, they cannot find more "charges" against her in a criminal court. That would be double jeopardy.

However, as for going to prison from a civil court - that's an impossibility. You just lose your case and have to pay reparations or damages. Even OJ didn't serve time for the Nicole Simpson case. He was convicted civilly and just paid one helluva bill.[/color]

Sorry guys, my wife wants to vent...this is her, welcome to my nightmare.

First let me start by saying that I am not a nightmare Anyway, for those who want to believe the Defense, that she drowned, here's my question...why is she not guilty of manslaughter? She did nothing help save her daughter, scare of her father or not, she has the duty as her mother to help her. She can say she did CPR or whatever crap lie she wants to invent but by not trying to save her life, she allowed her death and is guilty...whatcha think?

Thanks,
Cheri

[color="#FFFF00"]First of all - Welcome to the board, Cheri! I'm sure you and my own wife would have much to complain about in terms of both her and your respective husband's mask-collecting habits!

As to why Anthony was not found guilty on manslaughter (as you're right - it is a mothers legal obligation to save her child from a "peril" provided that she herself was not in danger....) was because the prosecution never successfully proved HOW Kaylee died. Unfortunately no one will ever know. To prove the manslaughter charge for refusing to save your own child would rest on the fact that she did - indeed - drown. No one in the trial ever established this. The defense did NOT have to prove that Casey "allowed" her child to drown and did not administer CPR, as the burden of proof rested on the prosecution. The investigative team apparently was not successful in proving any of this. Anthony's father even denied the drowning story. All the defense had to do was cast doubt into how the prosecution claimed Kaylee was killed. This "burden of proof" was not ever convincingly demonstrated in this case....hence, the "not guilty" verdict.[/color]

she's guilty. fancy wording won't convince my otherwise..lol

[color="#FFFF00"]By no way am I saying that she wasn't guilty. I'm just saying one of the pillars of greatness which the United States rests upon is the due process clause of the 6th Amendment. She was given a fair trial with her own peers judging her guilt or innocence. Her own peers have emotions and feelings just like all of us, however, they still chose to judge her as "not guilty" due to their own legal obligation to administer fair justice. I just feel who are "we" to claim that the jurors were wrong in their opinion? They represent a fairly even cross-section of the U.S. (or at least of Florida) and I'm sure their decision was based on sound evidence, or lack thereof.

However, if we were all willing to convict Casey Anthony without a fair trial, then why even have a judicial system in the United States?

The old legal adage goes, "It is better to allow 100 guilty men to go free, than to have one innocent man serve time."

I guess now is the time to ask, do we, as the citizenry of this great country, still believe that?[/color]

[🪦 mybankey ●]

[color="#FFFF00"]You're right, they cannot find more "charges" against her in a criminal court. That would be double jeopardy.

However, as for going to prison from a civil court - that's an impossibility. You just lose your case and have to pay reparations or damages. Even OJ didn't serve time for the Nicole Simpson case. He was convicted civilly and just paid one helluva bill.[/color]



[color="#FFFF00"]First of all - Welcome to the board, Cheri! I'm sure you and my own wife would have much to complain about in terms of both her and your respective husband's mask-collecting habits!

As to why Anthony was not found guilty on manslaughter (as you're right - it is a mothers legal obligation to save her child from a "peril" provided that she herself was not in danger....) was because the prosecution never successfully proved HOW Kaylee died. Unfortunately no one will ever know. To prove the manslaughter charge for refusing to save your own child would rest on the fact that she did - indeed - drown. No one in the trial ever established this. The defense did NOT have to prove that Casey "allowed" her child to drown and did not administer CPR, as the burden of proof rested on the prosecution. The investigative team apparently was not successful in proving any of this. Anthony's father even denied the drowning story. All the defense had to do was cast doubt into how the prosecution claimed Kaylee was killed. This "burden of proof" was not ever convincingly demonstrated in this case....hence, the "not guilty" verdict.[/color]




[color="#FFFF00"]By no way am I saying that she wasn't guilty. I'm just saying one of the pillars of greatness which the United States rests upon is the due process clause of the 6th Amendment. She was given a fair trial with her own peers judging her guilt or innocence. Her own peers have emotions and feelings just like all of us, however, they still chose to judge her as "not guilty" due to their own legal obligation to administer fair justice. I just feel who are "we" to claim that the jurors were wrong in their opinion? They represent a fairly even cross-section of the U.S. (or at least of Florida) and I'm sure their decision was based on sound evidence, or lack thereof.

However, if we were all willing to convict Casey Anthony without a fair trial, then why even have a judicial system in the United States?

The old legal adage goes, "It is better to allow 100 guilty men to go free, than to have one innocent man serve time."

I guess now is the time to ask, do we, as the citizenry of this great country, still believe that?[/color]

Thanks for the welcome...you're wife sounds wonderful I really understand what you are saying...I just can't understand the dismisal of so much evidence. To your proof of drowning; Casey said she drown, that's how she died; regardless of George's denial, she said that's what happened. You can't, and by 'You' I mean the opposition, call Casey a liar but believe Kaylee drown & that Casey has no idea what happened after, how she got into those woods. You can't say George is hiding something but believe him when he says that she didn't drown. It just seems like they picked the areas they wanted to and got home as quickly as they could. There are just too many weird details that don't add up when it comes to Casey. We'll never know and we can all argue this without resolution. It is what it is, I've said my peace & I thank everyone for letting me vent!

Thanks again,
Cheri

PS - My husband says I'm never allowed to talk on here again. I guess this is goodbye forever..lol

[🪦 mybankey ●]

Hell, lets forget about our opinions and remember her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyMjA2XVRH4

[🪦 clownnation ●]

Someone said she will get a year in prison for each count od lying. Sorry but she wont be seeing anymore prison after thursday. Lying to police is a misdomenor. This is 95% of the time handled by probation and sometimes community service. Also keep in mind she has been locked up for 3 years already. thats 3 years of time served already so anything the judge may give her she has already served. She walks on Thursday

[🪦 travsall ●]

As disappointed as I may be with the verdict, I agree with Stain 100% justice was served. The evidence was not there, we can't convict on personal principals, ideas, opinions, or anything but raw evidence. It's a case that will go down in infamy, similar to the OJ case, everyone wanted what wasn't there though, rock solid proof. As much as everyone wanted to see this lying piece of trash go to prison for life, would we want to see that done through a shoddy case, and injustice to the legal system? What's done is done, and no matter how much she deserved to be found guilty, if the evidence is not there, it can't go through, it's the way the system works, and it did in fact work here. It goes to what Stain said, if we wanted to just lock her up despite the outcome, why have the justice system, or for that matter the constitution at all? Due process, and a fair trial, this is as good an example of that as there is. A terrible human being, and I sincerely hope she's haunted the rest of her life by this all, but after a fair and impartial trial, there was found to be that lack of real evidence to solicit a conviction and sentence. The system works, and it works for a reason.
Put this aside for a moment and put yourself in the place of someone who was truly innocent of a heinous crime they were accused of. Which would you prefer, to be judged on your personality, failings and mistakes, the media imposed view of you as a hardened criminal, or the evidence that will exonerate you and prove your innocence? It can't be both ways, you can't want a fair trial for yourself, and then indict on opinion and what you personally feel about someone, as worthless and Sheepty a human being as they may be. That's not justice, and not what the country is founded on and stands for.