Casey Anthony trial- Not guilty

[Leon]

Casey Anthony trial- Not guilty- Put that one right next to the OJ trial. Absurd....I guess there was enough doubt that what she probably did couldn't stick in court. A real shame.

[Matthew H]

Originally Posted by Leon

Casey Anthony trial- Not guilty- Put that one right next to the OJ trial. Absurd....I guess there was enough doubt that what she probably did couldn't stick in court. A real shame.

A real shame... Her life is over IMO. People wont forget this. Where will she live? Where will she work??? Can you imagine her even just trying to apply for an apartment? She's done.

[vintagetoppsguy]

I hope Casey goes missing and her skeletal remains are found in a swamp six months later with duct tape on her mouth.

[Ease]

Totally disagree with you guys, they had no concrete evidence, barely any motive. Some pix of a hot body contest at a club? cmon. Thats what makes this country so great, folks died to protect our right to a fair trial; a person must be proven guilty, not just assumed guilty. I think the $ from her book/movie/tv deals will be more than enough to support her...

[Scott T]

Coming soon to your local bookstore...

"Casey Anthony: If I Did It"


I fear a Playboy spread it also in the works.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Ease

Totally disagree with you guys, they had no concrete evidence, barely any motive. Some pix of a hot body contest at a club? cmon. Thats what makes this country so great, folks died to protect our right to a fair trial; a person must be proven guilty, not just assumed guilty. I think the $ from her book/movie/tv deals will be more than enough to support her...

Her daughter goes missing (or drowned, depending on what story you want to believe) and she doesn't report it for over a month?

Instead of reporting the disappearance (or drowning) to the authorities, she's out partying and enters a "hard body contest" 4 days after Caylee was last seen alive. Whichever story you want to believe, is that a typical grieving mother's reaction?

When she is finally questioned by the authorities, she lies to mislead them. Why lie if you have nothing to hide?

If her daughter really drowned as she suggested, why put duct tape over a dead body?

No, there wasn't a video tape proof of her killing her daughter, but there was enough circumstantial evidence that any reasonable person can connect the dots and she should have been convicted.

Edited to add: There have been plenty of convictions in high profile murder cases based solely on circumstantial evidence. Look at the Scott Peterson case. Where was the "concrete evidence" there? There was none. What was the cause of death? The medical examiner could not determine one based on decomposition. What was the motive? We can only speculate. All this sound familar? Yet he was convicted and sentenced to death. So your "they had no concrete evidence, barely any motive" doesn't mean anything.

[Ease]

Must not have been any "reasonable people who can connect the dots" on that jury, doggone juries. All those pictures from the club should have been more than enough to put her to death.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Ease

Must not have been any "reasonable people who can connect the dots" on that jury, doggone juries.

Ok, I’ll play along. Did you hear what Russell Hueckler (an alternate juror) said about Casey Anthony after the trial? He called her a “good mother” during the Good Morning America interview. Good mother? Seriously? She’s out partying 4 days after her daughter disappeared and she’s a good mother? No matter what you believe happened to that little girl, the evidence showed that she was far from a “good mother.” How ridiculous is that statement? My point is, if that is also what the other jurors thought about Casey, no wonder she was acquitted - 12 stupid people. No, calling Casey Anthony a good mother isn't very reasonable.

Originally Posted by Ease

All those pictures from the club should have been more than enough to put her to death.

This is the second time you’ve mentioned the photos. Those were only part of the circumstantial evidence against her. However, you failed to address any of my questions. I’ll ask them again.

Why didn’t Casey ever report that her daughter was missing?

Caylee was last seen alive on June 16th. The photos that you keep reffering to were taken on June 20th – 4 days later. Two weeks after her daughter’s death, she got a tattoo that says “Bella Vita” or “The Beautiful Life.” Two questions. First, whether you believe she killed her daughter or it was an accident, is this the typical grieving mother's reaction? Second, what was so “beautiful” about her life 2 weeks after her daughter died?

When she was questioned by the authorities, she lied purposely trying to mislead them. Why lie if you have nothing to hide? Do you lie when you have nothing to hide?

If her daughter really drowned as she suggested, why put duct tape over her dead daughter’s mouth?

Last, please humor me and explain to me how you believe Caylee died if her mother didn't kill her?

[tiger8mush]

I do "think" she is guilty, but I don't "know" she is. To get the death penalty, you (should) have to KNOW someone is guilty, beyond a doubt. Its possible (even if only slightly) that Caylee drowned and the mom freaked and tried to hide it or whatever the counter argument is. Certainly not the correct thing to do, and her actions following aren't signs of a grieving mother but you can't force a parent to love its child, it has to come naturally.

I am hoping Caylee's death was accidental and not due to neglegence on behalf of the mother nor due to homicide. I hope she didn't suffer and is in a better place. However Caylee died, may she RIP, poor girl. May she be remembered by those that did know her and love her.

p.s. some politician is trying to exploit this by creating "Caylee's law". IMO he is just trying to get re-elected or something. We need more common sense in America not more laws.

[Ease]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Ok, I’ll play along. Did you hear what Russell Hueckler (an alternate juror) said about Casey Anthony after the trial? He called her a “good mother” during the Good Morning America interview. Good mother? Seriously? She’s out partying 4 days after her daughter disappeared and she’s a good mother? No matter what you believe happened to that little girl, the evidence showed that she was far from a “good mother.” How ridiculous is that statement? My point is, if that is also what the other jurors thought about Casey, no wonder she was acquitted - 12 stupid people. No, calling Casey Anthony a good mother isn't very reasonable.

Cool. Yeah, if he said that he's an idiot. Thing is, the jury's duty is to weigh the evidence presented, not think independently.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

This is the second time you’ve mentioned the photos. Those were only part of the circumstantial evidence against her. However, you failed to address any of my questions. I’ll ask them again.

Why didn’t Casey ever report that her daughter was missing?

Don't know, but she was convicted on 4 counts of lying to police, etc.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Caylee was last seen alive on June 16th. The photos that you keep reffering to were taken on June 20th – 4 days later. Two weeks after her daughter’s death, she got a tattoo that says “Bella Vita” or “The Beautiful Life.” Two questions. First, whether you believe she killed her daughter or it was an accident, is this the typical grieving mother's reaction? Second, what was so “beautiful” about her life 2 weeks after her daughter died?

Well she wasn't grieving, you can't assume that she is a typical person. Very troubled family.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

When she was questioned by the authorities, she lied purposely trying to mislead them. Why lie if you have nothing to hide? Do you lie when you have nothing to hide?

If her daughter really drowned as she suggested, why put duct tape over her dead daughter’s mouth?

Last, please humor me and explain to me how you believe Caylee died if her mother didn't kill her?

I don't know man, nobody but her knows that. I definitely think she and her father were involved, who did the actual killing, or if it was an accident/coverup is still a mystery. Hard to sentence someone to death or even life in prison with so much mystery.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

p.s. some politician is trying to exploit this by creating "Caylee's law". IMO he is just trying to get re-elected or something. We need more common sense in America not more laws.

"Caylee's Law" would make it a felony for parents or caregivers to not report the death of a child to authorities - accidental or otherwise - within one hour.

I'm not sure how that's trying to exploit the situation. That's a good thing whether he's trying to get re-elected or not.

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

"Caylee's Law" would make it a felony for parents or caregivers to not report the death of a child to authorities - accidental or otherwise - within one hour.

I'm not sure how that's trying to exploit the situation. That's a good thing whether he's trying to get re-elected or not.

What if the child died at night after being put to bed and wasn't discovered till the next day? What if the parent/caregiver said she went in to check on the kid in the middle of night and thought the kid was sleeping even though it was determined the child died several hours before? Its just another law. I understand it has good intentions, but it has to be proven that the parent knew of the death and didn't report it. Just like in this case, could the mother be proved to show (beyond all reasonable doubt) that she knew of the daughters death? I thought she claimed she thought she was missing? I understand that the law has a good intention but its a common sense law. It'll go thru a million people to sign off on and debate on and more tax dollars and chances are that if the death went unreported then there was malicious intent anyway and we don't have to worry about that law.

What if some people who decide to live in the woods (they exist) have a child that dies for whatever sudden reason and they don't have access to a phone within an hour and they have a burial etc and the next day they go to town and report it? BAM! felony! go to jail!

I dunno, i guess i just hate more laws haha. Maybe its a good one and i'm looking at it from the wrong angle. If so, my apologies.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

What if the child died at night after being put to bed and wasn't discovered till the next day? What if the parent/caregiver said she went in to check on the kid in the middle of night and thought the kid was sleeping even though it was determined the child died several hours before?

Maybe I should have been clearer. I left my statement open. I said within 1 hour, but I didn't mean within 1 hour of death, I meant within 1 hour of discovery.

As far as your example above, time of death can be proven by the coroner. So if a child died in their sleep and is found at 9:00 in the morning (which is reasonable), the coroner can prove how long the child has been dead (along with the cause of death). So if the coroner says the child has been dead for 8 hours, we could assume the child died at approx 1:00am. If the coroner says the child has been dead for 36 hours, then there is a problem.

I think you're examples are a little far fetched. The law is intended to prevent cover-ups as in the Caylee case, not to punish the parents/care givers of a child that dies of natural death.

I agree...it should just be common sense to report a child's death within one hour of discovery. But it wasn't in this case.

Edited to add: I guess the whole point behind this is that the prosecution couldn't prove how Caylee died. Had the authorities been notified right away (as the intentions of this law), cause of death wouldn't have been an issue. Whether she was murdered or it was an accident, it was definitley covered up. This law can't prevent cover ups, but it can certainly make them punishable by not reporting the death right away.

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

This law can't prevent cover ups, but it can certainly make them punishable by not reporting the death right away.

well put. I hope it does punish those trying to cover up a death. I just hope that it doesn't punish someone who's intent wasn't ill-conceived.

[Leon]

Unfortunately, after more thought on my part, and watching what has gone on, I think the jury got it right. I still think she is guilty but there were just too many loose ends to have a "beyond all reasonable doubt" guilty verdict. The law has to be that way....now, maybe if they could have tried her civilly then that would be another story. Also, the judge should have fined here 2 million dollars on her offenses of lieing so she couldn't prosper from the little girls death. Maybe he thought that would be a punitive action and didn't want to do it though?

Regardless of anything, I can't imagine a parent partying like she did only days after the death of their child. I still think a child abuse case almost could have been made.....at any rate, such is life. When OJ walked from trial I lost faith in the system. This case, the right decision was probably made, unfortunately. And I still think she did it, it just couldn't be proven.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Maybe I should have been clearer. I left my statement open. I said within 1 hour, but I didn't mean within 1 hour of death, I meant within 1 hour of discovery.

As far as your example above, time of death can be proven by the coroner. So if a child died in their sleep and is found at 9:00 in the morning (which is reasonable), the coroner can prove how long the child has been dead (along with the cause of death). So if the coroner says the child has been dead for 8 hours, we could assume the child died at approx 1:00am. If the coroner says the child has been dead for 36 hours, then there is a problem.

I think you're examples are a little far fetched. The law is intended to prevent cover-ups as in the Caylee case, not to punish the parents/care givers of a child that dies of natural death.

I agree...it should just be common sense to report a child's death within one hour of discovery. But it wasn't in this case.

Edited to add: I guess the whole point behind this is that the prosecution couldn't prove how Caylee died. Had the authorities been notified right away (as the intentions of this law), cause of death wouldn't have been an issue. Whether she was murdered or it was an accident, it was definitley covered up. This law can't prevent cover ups, but it can certainly make them punishable by not reporting the death right away.

I can see that the proposed law covers some circumstances that probably should be covered.

But the problem with it is the same as with many new laws. They're proposed as a knee jerk reaction to a bad situation. And passed with little thought to the details.

In an urban area or even most suburban areas yes, an hour is plenty of time after discovery to report a death. But there are situations where it's unrealistic. And there's the problem. Most laws eventually get enforced literally or not at all. Any slack in charging is up to a DA, who may be up for reelection or just has a "tough on crime" stance.

So if someone goes hiking with their teenage kid and something bad happens?
sure, many people have cell phones, but some don't. And there are areas where there's poor coverage. My cell phone won't recieve calls in the stamp shop I go to, in Connecticut. And the appalachian trail is fairly close to that. As a scout I went on many overnight hikes, and if you're 5 miles into the woods with no phone, contacting anyone within an hour just isn't happening.

And the concept of someone living in a very rural area and deciding not to have a phone isn't uncommon.

A reasonable person wouldn't press a charge under that sort of circumstance, but if someone has reason to take it literally or if the law requires a charge be filed it's just adding one injury to another if the person isn't the cause of the death.

Steve B

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

"Caylee's Law" would make it a felony for parents or caregivers to not report the death of a child to authorities - accidental or otherwise - within one hour.

I'm not sure how that's trying to exploit the situation. That's a good thing whether he's trying to get re-elected or not.

It seems like this "Caylee's Law" is just a bunch of crap from people who are too ignorant to understand that without solid proof she cannot be convicted. And too ignorant to see that in some cases "Caylee's Law" cannot be enforced.

It amazes me why people are so angry about the verdict. I hate a little kid dying just as much as anyone, but why would I want that to happen to another person as well?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Brendan

It seems like this "Caylee's Law" is just a bunch of crap from people who are too ignorant to understand that without solid proof she cannot be convicted. And too ignorant to see that in some cases "Caylee's Law" cannot be enforced.

It amazes me why people are so angry about the verdict. I hate a little kid dying just as much as anyone, but why would I want that to happen to another person as well?

What's so ignorant about a law that would require a parent/caregiver to report a missing child within 48 hours, or a dead child within 2 hours? I think you're missing the point of the law. It's not to punish good people, it's to prevent cover ups. Again, whether you believe Caylee's death was a homicide or some tragic accident, it was definitely covered up. Caylee's Law is gaining a lot of momentum and will be passed whether you think it is ignorant or not. I suppose you also think Jessica's Law (another Florida law) is ignorant too?

[Leon]

Brendan, it's only fair, and is in the rules, that if you want to argue you will have to put your full name in your sig line...nothing personal...thanks

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

What's so ignorant about a law that would require a parent/caregiver to report a missing child within 48 hours, or a dead child within 2 hours? I think you're missing the point of the law. It's not to punish good people, it's to prevent cover ups. Again, whether you believe Caylee's death was a homicide or some tragic accident, it was definitely covered up. Caylee's Law is gaining a lot of momentum and will be passed whether you think it is ignorant or not. I suppose you also think Jessica's Law (another Florida law) is ignorant too?

Isn't it 1 hour and 24 hours?

I never said that it was to punish good people.

My whole view on this is that there are already laws preventing cover ups. A stricter law is not needed.

I'd rather just keep my full name off the forum, so I won't be continuing this argument.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Brendan

Isn't it 1 hour and 24 hours?

I never said that it was to punish good people.

My whole view on this is that there are already laws preventing cover ups. Another law is not needed.

I'd rather just keep my full name off the forum, so I won't be continuing this argument.

Everything is just proposed legislation at this point. I've heard 1 hour and 24 hours, but I've also heard 2 hours and 48 hours. It would also depend on the child's age. Sure, there are details to work out. Another part of the proposal would make it so that no parent (or family member) of a missing or murdered child can profit in any form - no tv interviews, movie deals, book deals, etc. - but I guess that part is ignorant too, huh?

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Everything is just proposed legislation at this point. I've heard 1 hour and 24 hours, but I've also heard 2 hours and 48 hours. It would also depend on the child's age. Sure, there are details to work out. Another part of the proposal would make it so that no parent (or family member) of a missing or murdered child can profit in any form - no tv interviews, movie deals, book deals, etc. - but I guess that part is ignorant too, huh?

Please refer back to my original post. I didn't say the law was ignorant. Who knows, maybe the law will be passed. With just about anything, there will be people that agree and people who disagree. Nothing wrong with that.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Brendan

Please refer back to my original post. I didn't say the law was ignorant.

You're right. My mistake. You said it was a "bunch of crap." So, let me rephrase my question. Is a law that is intended to protect children by requiring that their parent / caregiver notify the authorities of a child’s death or disappearance in a timely manner really a bunch of crap? Is a law that prohibits a parent or family member from profiting from their child’s death really a bunch of crap?

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

You're right. My mistake. You said it was a "bunch of crap." So, let me rephrase my question. Is a law that is intended to protect children by requiring that their parent / caregiver notify the authorities of a child’s death or disappearance in a timely manner really a bunch of crap? Is a law that prohibits a parent or family member from profiting from their child’s death really a bunch of crap?

Nice

Maybe I spend too much time reading comments on Yahoo News. That's the first place I heard about it, so it was only natural.

Whatever, I said I wouldn't argue. At least in my opinion, the law has been propelled by people who do not agree with the verdict. My point is that there are already laws for this. They may not be as to the point or as strict, but they are laws. So if I disagree with the law, the only possible opinion I can have is it's a "bunch of crap" from people who are....

Originally Posted by Brendan

It seems like this "Caylee's Law" is just a bunch of crap from people who are too ignorant to understand that without solid proof she cannot be convicted. And too ignorant to see that in some cases "Caylee's Law" cannot be enforced.

We're entitled to our opinions. I may think it's a "bunch of crap" and you may agree with it. Is this a problem?

If it is a problem, then you win the argument, okay? I said I'd stop so that's what I will do.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Brendan

My point is that there are already laws for this.

Ummm, no there isn't. Current Florida law makes it a misdemeanor for failing to report a child’s death. The proposed law would change it from a misdemeanor to a felony. However, there is no law against not reporting a missing child. This new law would change that. Still not sure how that's a "bunch of crap."

Originally Posted by Brendan

We're entitled to our opinions.

Yes, we're all entitled to our own opinions, but you don't seem to really know much about the things you are commenting on.

Edited to add: You still didn't answer my question. Is a law that prohibits a parent or family member from profiting from their child’s death really a bunch of crap?

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Ummm, no there isn't. Current Florida law makes it a misdemeanor for failing to report a child’s death. The proposed law would change it from a misdemeanor to a felony. However, there is no law against not reporting a missing child. This new law would change that. Still not sure how that's a "bunch of crap."



Yes, we're all entitled to our own opinions, but you don't seem to really know much about the things you are commenting on.

Edited to add: You still didn't answer my question. Is a law that prohibits a parent or family member from profiting from their child’s death really a bunch of crap?

I don't believe it should be a felony. I don't believe someone should have to report a missing child. I don't believe I have no clue what I'm talking about. Yes, I believe that is really a "bunch of crap."

I have added "I/I don't believe to everything I just said, as everything we are discussing are opinions.

But, as I said, I would stop arguing, so you win the argument. Happy? Good.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Brendan

I don't believe it should be a felony. I don't believe someone should have to report a missing child.

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

If my statement is so false, why hasn't there always been this law?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Brendan

If my statement is so false, why hasn't there always been this law?

If you can't comprehend that not reporting a missing child is a bad thing, then you're way beyond help.

You keep saying that you're done with this, but you want to keep arguing. Like Leon said, put your full name in your signature line if you want to continue.

[Brendan]

I won't be continuing. Was fun talking with you. You made some interesting points. I hope you have a nice day tomorrow.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Ease

Totally disagree with you guys, they had no concrete evidence, barely any motive. Some pix of a hot body contest at a club? cmon. Thats what makes this country so great, folks died to protect our right to a fair trial; a person must be proven guilty, not just assumed guilty. I think the $ from her book/movie/tv deals will be more than enough to support her...

This quote here is the reality of it. The prosecution screwed up by charging her with murder as soon as they found the poor girls remains.....but their case was not solid.

The reality of this mistake is that there is no statute of limitations on murder, so they had all of the time in the world to gather more evidence before charging her with murder. Now, they (the prosecution) are SOL. If she did do it, she can literally admit it and nothing can be done to her.

At the very least, I think there was enough evidence to charge her with child neglect/endangerment for not reporting her daughter missing for a month.

My mom watched this trial daily, and kept me posted, but after the opening presentation from both sides I had enough........the mainstream media was shoving this down our throats and ignoring other major things in this country and the world that, to me at least, they should be spending more time covering and paying attention to. Dumbed down on every news channel by the "Casey Anthony Trial".....

IMO the prosecutors blew it, wasted a bunch of tax payers $$ trying this case with more speculation than fact.

I do not feel she should be able to profit from this, but she probably will.

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Another part of the proposal would make it so that no parent (or family member) of a missing or murdered child can profit in any form - no tv interviews, movie deals, book deals, etc. - but I guess that part is ignorant too, huh?

What if a missing/murdered child came from a poor family and had a sibling and because of the book deal the sibling was able to go to college or something?

I agree, I don't want to see the Caylee's mother profit. But non-fictional tragedies are often written about and profited from; and sometimes the profit is put to good use. While the other part of the proposal is well-intended, I'm just not sure how the law would be written to state what is good vs bad use of profit.

Rob

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

What if the child died at night after being put to bed and wasn't discovered till the next day?

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

What if the parent/caregiver said she went in to check on the kid in the middle of night and thought the kid was sleeping even though it was determined the child died several hours before?

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

What if a missing/murdered child came from a poor family and had a sibling and because of the book deal the sibling was able to go to college or something?

Rob,

This is your third “What if…” example regarding this law. We can “What if…” any law till we’re blue in the face. The bottom line is, the law is intended to protect children that are victims of neglect, abuse or death by a family member or caregiver, and to keep family members or caregivers from profiting from it. If you dislike or don’t agree with laws that are intended to protect children, so be it. I really don’t know why you continue to push it with “What ifs..”

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Rob,

This is your third “What if…” example regarding this law. We can “What if…” any law till we’re blue in the face. The bottom line is, the law is intended to protect children that are victims of neglect, abuse or death by a family member or caregiver, and to keep family members or caregivers from profiting from it. If you dislike or don’t agree with laws that are intended to protect children, so be it. I really don’t know why you continue to push it with “What ifs..”

Just because a law is created for a reason 1) doesn't mean it will actually stop something from happening (like protecting the kid) and 2) doesn't mean it won't be used against someone for another reason.

creating more laws isn't always the answer is all i'm saying

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

Just because a law is created for a reason 1) doesn't mean it will actually stop something from happening

Now you're just spitballing, but nothing is sticking. Do you realize how ridiculous that statement is? You just lost your argument. Please tell me what law DOES prevent things from actually happening?

There are laws against murder. Do they prevent murders? There are laws agains rape. Do they prevent rapes? There are laws agains theft. Do they prevent thefts? Get the idea? So, since we have these laws and they don't stop these things from happening, do we repeal the laws? C'mon! You're missing the point of the law. The law is not to prevent things from happening, it's to punish people when they do happen.

Edited to address your second point: Sometimes innocent people are the victims of well intended laws. Just recently we (Texas) had a guy that was in prison for nearly 30 years for rape and robbery before new DNA testing exonerated him. These kind of things happen all the time. Can you imagine spending 30 years in prison for something you didn't do? But again, does that mean we repeal the laws just because there are a few innocent victims that are convicted?

[tiger8mush]

I don't know what spitballing means, but you can't take 1/2 of a sentence and say its my statement cuz it was only half of my statement. The entire sentence was my statement.

Anyway, I still don't like the law, though I see its merits. Apparently you (and most of the country) do like it, so I'm fine with being in the minority. Perhaps we can agree to disagree? Hopefully I'm not spitballing still

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

I don't know what spitballing means, but you can't take 1/2 of a sentence and say its my statement cuz it was only half of my statement. The entire sentence was my statement.

Anyway, I still don't like the law, though I see its merits. Apparently you (and most of the country) do like it, so I'm fine with being in the minority. Perhaps we can agree to disagree? Hopefully I'm not spitballing still

Rob,

You didn't read my entire post. I edited my post to address the second half of your statment. In short, yes, sometimes there are innocent vicitims (wrongful convictions) of well intended laws. Does that mean we abolish the laws?

Yes, we can agree to disagree. Take care!

[novakjr]

I know that you can't profit from a crime. And the big gripe is that Casey will potentially get rich out of all this. Does anyone else think the laws should be ammended to include not profiting from any crime in which you've been tried for, even if found not guilty, unless a true guilty party is actually found?

Also technically, she WAS found guilty of lying to investigators. That right there is a crime that should disallow her from profiting in any way pertaining to this case..

[tiger8mush]

http://news.yahoo.com/child-dies-cho...000233059.html

I think we need a new law banning electrical cords!!! Or something to give the parents some jail time!!

(i'm just poking the beehive here cuz i have nothing productive to add to the main board and the Bruces have been banned so there is a lull )

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

http://news.yahoo.com/child-dies-cho...000233059.html

I think we need a new law banning electrical cords!!! Or something to give the parents some jail time!!

I don't know all the facts of this particular case, but there ARE NY state laws that would give parents jail time for maltreatment. Then again, I wouldn't expect anyone who dislikes laws intended to protect children to understand that.

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Then again, I wouldn't expect anyone who dislikes laws intended to protect children to understand that.

David, I'm not quite sure that just because a person doesn't agree with passing the proposed Caylee's Law means that they can painted with a broad stroke of disliking laws intended to protect children.

I'm fine with saying that a parent/caregiver should report their child's death in a timely manner, but nailing a specific timeframe on it or suffering consequences of being nailed with a felony and possibility of what, 20 years jailtime? for missing the deadline is just a little overboard. What if they miss the deadline by 2 minutes? If some lawyer wanted to, they could prosecute them and technically it'd hold up cuz hey, its the law!!!

Laws are often good-intentioned when they are created. But if they are too general, then they can be used for purposed other than created. For example, on a less lethal scale, on the main board Barry Sloate mentioned the law about regulating prices on rent for NYC apartments that was created after WW2 or whatever for returning soldiers, but is outdated and causes a lot of headache in the area in today's economy. Just an example is all.

Have a good day,
Rob

[vintagetoppsguy]

Rob,

You are entitled to your opinion. You’re also entitled to express your opinion. However, you can’t back your opinion with a reasonable argument. Other than your made up “What ifs…,” you haven’t given one VALID reason why you think this law is a bad idea. I thought we were going to agree to disagree, but since you wanted to drag it back up, you need to back up your opinion and do so without “What ifs…”

DJ

[GoldenAge50s]

Altho I haven' read this whole thread I just want to say I watched this trial from beginning to end & in my mind there was MORE than enough circumstantial evidence to convict her.

No doubt in MY mind she killed the kid--no doubt at all!

How does one explain that 10 or more people of all walks stated w/out question the trunk had the UNMISTAKABLE smell of a decomposing body? Not trash, not a dead animal---a decomposing human!

I also believe the judge is going to impose some sort of money recovery judgement in 60 days, so that should curtail her profiting to a large extent.

[barrysloate]

The jurors are now receiving death threats, and I heard that one of them had to quit her job and move to a new location. That's taking things a bit too far.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

The jurors are now receiving death threats, and I heard the one of them had to quit her job and move to a new location. That's taking things a bit too far.

Unfortunately I understand.....there are some really pissed off people. I still think the prosecution didn't get to "beyond a reasonable doubt" and that's all the defence needed. It WAS almost as bad as the OJ case though.....she really needs to be in jail. Maybe not the death penalty, but jail for a long, long time.. And I firmly believe in Karma and she will get what's coming to her. Heck, I would have given her at least 30 yrs for being such a dumb ass!!

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Leon

And I firmly believe in Karma and she will get what's coming to her. Heck, I would have given her at least 30 yrs for being such a dumb ass!!

My thoughts exactly.

To address Fred’s comments: Great input! To me the smoking gun was the duct tape on the little girl’s mouth. Why the need for duct tape if she drowned (as the defense suggested)? I said it earlier and I’ll say it again: This case is very similar to the Scott Peterson case in many ways. His wife’s body was also badly decomposed and I don’t think a cause of death was ever determined (although I could be wrong) although it was ruled a homicide as her body was found dismembered. Therefore, the case was mostly circumstantial just as in the Anthony case. I really believe it was Scott’s actions/behavior after his wife went missing that convicted him. Two days after his wife went missing, he was home jerking off to porn – not the typical behavior of a grieving husband. He also disposed of her belongings rather quickly too (making room for the new girlfriend). Casey Anthony’s behavior was eerily similar. She was out partying just days after her daughter disappeared. She even got a tattoo that said (in English) “The Beautiful Life.” What could have been so beautiful about her life just days after her daughter was dead? Again, not the typical behavior of a grieving mother. Yet Scott Peterson was convicted and Casey walks free. Go figure.

To address Barry’s comments: The jury was a complete bunch of idiots. They deserve to have their ass kicked, but death threats are taking it way too far. When I heard one of the jurors say that Casey was a “good mother,” in an interview on Good Morning America, that told me everything I need to know about the intelligence of this jury. They are dumber than a sack of rocks. Again, I believe a good ass kicking is needed, but death threats are taking it to the extreme.

[barrysloate]

The whole thing is just a shame, from the death of an innocent child, to a case poorly put together by the prosecution. Maybe she'll get caught jaywalking, and the judge will throw her sorry ass in the slammer.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

The whole thing is just a shame, from the death of an innocent child, to a case poorly put together by the prosecution. Maybe she'll get caught jaywalking, and the judge will throw her sorry ass in the slammer.

Actually, maybe she will get run over by a car, and become a quadriplegic, while jaywalking.....now that would be fair turnaround.

[barrysloate]

That would be karmic justice...except she may then sue and win a $5 million judgment.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

That would be karmic justice...except she may then sue and win a $5 million judgment.

I don't care if she won a billion dollar judgement if what I say happened, really happened. How much pleasure could she get out of partying with no use of her arms or legs? Effing party girl.....