Patterico's Pontifications

7/5/2011

Casey Anthony Found Not Guilty of Murder

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 11:37 am



[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

Update: By the way, you might enjoy Alexander Volokh’s irreverent piece on “n guilty men” exploring the principle that it is better to let 10/100/a billion guilty men go free, rather than convict one innocent.

I have followed this case with half an eye open.   It hasn’t “gripped” me as Cnn suggests it has others.  But I kept “half an eye” on it and the verdict is rolling in now.  Be prepared for updates, but what I am hearing is that the offenses related to the death of her child, Caylee, all resulted in acquittals, but she was convicted of offenses related to lying to the cops (which she obviously did).

Of course “not guilty” is not the same as innocent.  Our court system allows for many probably guilty people to go free, not the least of which was OJ Simpson, where the evidence that he murdered Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman was sufficient for a civil suit, but not for a criminal trial.

I’m not saying that is the case, here.  I haven’t followed the trial enough to form but the barest opinion on her guilt and I won’t share my opinion because that is not fair to anyone involved to do so based on such thin reeds of information.  I just wanted to highlight that the jury’s determination is not a declaration that she is probably innocent.  It means nothing more than that the prosecution failed to prove she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Anyway, expect one update when the dust settles a bit.

And here’s a Fox breaking news link that will surely change as more becomes known.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

219 Responses to “Casey Anthony Found Not Guilty of Murder”

  1. “better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”

    I didn’t follow the story enough to know if the case was unproven, but there’s a reason it’s so tough to convict someone.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  2. I’m just about speechless. I didn’t think there was a juror stupid enough to buy any of her or her lawyers’ schtuff.

    I’m waiting for one of the dummies to open their traps and say something like “She’s suffered enough, hasn’t she?” or “Her parents have already lost a granddaughter, so they shouldn’t lose a daughter too!” It’s not about the freaking family (possibly literally, who knows), it’s about murder, and making sure that someone who is capable of it pays the maximum penalty.

    L.N. Smithee (7b0e77)

  3. ok well there’s that I thought she handled herself very well at the verdict reading

    not sure what she wants to do now but I hear there’s a hotel maid job open in NY

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  4. dustin

    yer comment inspired an update. see above.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  5. LN, you think the state proved its case, and the defense prevailed because of sympathy for the killer? Menendez brothers style?

    If that’s what happened, it’s a very sad day. The victim should have had full possession of the sympathy card. I really couldn’t being myself to pay attention, but most of the family involved seemed pretty damn odd.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  6. I didn’t watch much, but that prosecutor Linda was not engaging & asked jury not to be stupid, in so many words, in her close yesterday. Elitist, talking down to jury. They probably don’t like lawyers…and don’t like being asked not to be stupid.

    koam @wittier (be5afd)

  7. Of course she’s not guilty. James O’Keefe and Andrew Breitbart did it. Neal Rauhauser told me that. Indictments pending.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  8. I am loving watching the liberal elite decry this verdict as an abomination of justice. They did not get the outcome (and everything is about outcome with these dandies) they demanded and are now insisting that the constitutional protections we all enjoy are too many and need to be reigned in.

    This is a fascinating and illuminating reaction. We are dealing with tyrants at all levels. I shall never give any of them quarter in an argument. Screw them.

    Ed from SFV (7d7851)

  9. LN, you think the state proved its case, and the defense prevailed because of sympathy for the killer? Menendez brothers style?

    If that’s what happened, it’s a very sad day. The victim should have had full possession of the sympathy card. I really couldn’t being myself to pay attention, but most of the family involved seemed pretty damn odd.

    Comment by Dustin — 7/5/2011 @ 11:47 am

    I won’t know until one of the morons says why s/he wouldn’t convict her, but I think the key thing is that the parents were obviously trying to save her, particularly with her mother committing perjury about Googling “chlorophyll” on a laptop where Casey obviously searched “chloroform” dozens of times.

    I DO believe the state proved its case, which was that all the evidence pointed to foul play: Casey’s disappearance, her serial lying to family, friends, and law enforcement; her mother’s initial 911 call in which she said her daughter’s car smelled like it had a dead body in it; her carefree activity during in the month after her daughter’s disappearance.

    The defense, on the other hand, created a brand-spanking new story from whole cloth three years hence. It dangled the notion of Casey being a victim of child abuse by her father and brother, but all that actually came up in testimony were the father’s firm denial and her former boyfriend’s allegation that her brother may have inappropriately groped her once. The attempts to vilify the meter reader who found the body were laughable when matched up with Casey’s story of her daughter’s accidental drowning and her father’s disposal of the body.

    I thought there was misconduct by law enforcement in the Simpson trial, but that was obvious juror nullification, IMHO. I don’t know Dubya Tee Eff this is, but it ain’t justice.

    L.N. Smithee (7b0e77)

  10. koam

    i would love an example of her talking down to them if you can think of one.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  11. The attempts to vilify the meter reader who found the body were laughable when matched up with Casey’s story of her daughter’s accidental drowning and her father’s disposal of the body.

    I did catch this part, and yeah, it seemed like desperate contradictions combined with pure evil. Obviously lawyers shouldn’t present the theory the meter reader was a culprit if they know that’s impossible.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  12. I didn’t watch much, but that prosecutor Linda was not engaging & asked jury not to be stupid, in so many words, in her close yesterday. Elitist, talking down to jury. They probably don’t like lawyers…and don’t like being asked not to be stupid.

    Comment by koam @wittier — 7/5/2011 @ 11:51 am

    “Oh, you don’t want us to be stupid? You think you’re smarter than us dumb jurors? Well, we’ll show you! We’ll just be stupid! We’ll be REAL stupid! That’ll teach ya!”

    This ain’t Law & Order, people, this is real life. And real death.

    L.N. Smithee (d7ed67)

  13. “I DO believe the state proved its case, which was that all the evidence pointed to foul play”

    L.N – I think no cause of death and no witnesses sort of hurt the state’s case. How do you convict without those?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  14. For what it’s worth – trending worldwide on Twitter as I type: “Dexter Morgan.”

    L.N. Smithee (d7ed67)

  15. So agree with you, LN. I have followed this case since Caylee first was known to be missing. It was like hearing the OJ verdict all over again.

    PatAZ (4bead0)

  16. I have been losing faith in our legal system for years, and this is just another peg in the coffin. (And, by the way, I am an attorney).

    Believing the prosecution did not prove the case here is akin to believing that O.J. was innocent.

    don’t try to soft-coat it as “we don’t know all the facts” or “the gov’t just didn’t prove its case”.

    NO! This is a case of idiot jurors, nothing more.

    Monkeytoe (5234ab)

  17. Little Caylee Anthony is dead and Casey Anthony, the child’s mother, lied repeatedly about the whereabouts of her daughter, the circumstances of her disappearance, and who was responsible.

    Guilty as sin and free as a bird. Is this a great country, or what?

    PS: L.N. Smithee has it right.

    ropelight (5de274)

  18. okay let me ask a question to the peanut gallery.

    they proved that CA covered up the death of her child. okay.

    but what proof, beyond that coverup, did they have that SHE killed the child?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  19. I am stunned. I get no first degree murder, as it’s hard to prove motive and planning, but if your kid is drowning, you panic and get the cops/EMS/firefighters or whoever; you don’t dump the body in the woods. Defense did their job, throwing up enough smoke to cause doubt in the jurors’ minds.

    rbj (9ae8d9)

  20. Aaron, I enjoyed the link to n Guilty Men. Pretty amusing.

    The story is told of a Chinese law professor, who was listening to a British lawyer explain that Britons were so enlightened, they believed it was better that ninety-nine guilty men go free than that one innocent man be executed. The Chinese professor thought for a second and asked, “Better for whom?” 238

    Dustin (b7410e)

  21. I did not follow the case–but, from what little I have read, it appeared that they did not have any direct evidence that the child was murdered (cause of death unknown?).

    If they could not prove a cause of death (i.e., murder or death by negligence)–Then no matter how people feel about the person, they should not be convicted.

    Which leads to my questions about the legal/court “industry”… With so many obviously problem “convictions” and “not guilty’s”)–When is the legal profession going to decide they have a problem (me–eye witness testimony is dubious at best–eye witness testimony identifying an, otherwise unknown, person of interest is not much better than flipping a coin without corroborating physical evidence).

    In most businesses and professions, there is some sort of review when things go wrong (aircraft, bridges, automobiles, black boxes, computer logs, etc.)–Or the business goes out of business (Enron et.al.).

    BfC (2ebea6)

  22. bfc

    in the prosecution industry, lawyers are fired and DA’s lose elections.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  23. “but what proof, beyond that coverup, did they have that SHE killed the child?”

    A.W. – No cause of death, no witnesses. An emotional feeling that she is guilty is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt in the eyes of the law.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  24. they proved that CA covered up the death of her child. okay.

    but what proof, beyond that coverup, did they have that SHE killed the child?

    Comment by Aaron Worthing — 7/5/2011 @ 12:13 pm

    Proof of the cover up of the death of one’s child, along with the way the child was found – i.e., tape over its mouth, why does one tape a dead child’s mouth closed – is more than enough circumstantial evidence to convict.

    She admits to lying to police about the whereabout of the child (evidence of guilt), hiding the body (evidence of guilt), and she partied and lived it up immediately after Caylee’s death (strongly supporting the prosecution’s claimed motive). The father denied helping to hide teh body as she claimed.

    By her own defense strategy, there were only 2 possibilities here – she killed Caylee, or there was an accidental death that was covered up. By claiming that it was an accidental death that she covered up, she admits to being the one to hide the body, which means if you don’t buy the accidental death theory, she is admitting to killing Caylee.

    She claimed that her father helped hide the body. Her father denies same. There is no other evidence of accidental death.

    So, the only evidence to support her theory (accidental death) is her word – her alleged co-conspirators deny her claims. The physical evidence doesn’t support her defense. Her actions after don’t support her defense.

    And, she is a proven liar by her own admission.

    There is much more to convict than acquit.

    Monkeytoe (5234ab)

  25. And, she is a proven liar by her own admission.

    There is much more to convict than acquit.

    Comment by Monkeytoe —

    Yes, but did they know beyond reasonable doubt that she intentionally murdered her daughter?

    Actually, I think perhaps that was shown. I think hiding the body or lying about what happened is powerful evidence of more than just a death. It’s hard to accept the hiding of the body, or the contradictory explanations, as supporting an accidental death. It’s impossible for me to do that if the talk about planning a murder via google searches is accurate.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  26. It was a tenth trimester abortion!

    I feel sick.

    ∅ (e7577d)

  27. Hey if the glove don’t fit, you must acquit and all that happy horsepucky.

    Actually I would have convicted the whole lot of them of the (non)crime of exhausting my patience. It’s been an unseemly Florida sideshow among–if I dare borrow a phrase from a New York Times snotty reporter–“low sloping foreheads”.

    There are–unfortunately–at least several hundred young children who die at the hands of one or more of their abusive family members each year in this country.

    For one reason or another–a comely young mother with round heels? sexual abuse of the mother by her father?—the cable TV “news” shows have battened on this particular sorry episode. Go figure.

    Mike Myers (0e06a9)

  28. dustin, i am reading that they didn’t even know what killed the child. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/06/us/06casey.html

    it is very, very difficult to convict person of any kind of crime related to a person’s death if you can’t even say what killed them.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  29. I do wonder if Nancy Grace’s domination of this story led many to be certain her conviction was a forgone conclusion. Something about how that person zealously went after this story annoyed the hell out of me.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  30. i am reading that they didn’t even know what killed the child.

    I’m sure you’re right. I’m no expert on the facts. And of course, when you hide a body in a swamp for a long time, evidence goes away.

    Regardless, it seems Caylee will not be getting justice. Someone failed her utterly, and I think most of us will agree her mother failed her the most, and I guess this may be one of those times we don’t have a good solution for that.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  31. I haven’t been following the trial closely (although coverage of it was impossible to avoid for any news junkie), but am not surprised. In any criminal case the jury gets lectured about the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard so many times that it is not an easy thing to convict someone. Moreover, the prosecution focused its efforts on the first degree charge, and its theory seemed to be a “res ipsa” notion that “well, what else could have happened but that she intentionally killed her child.” There was a lot of evidence of culpable behavior, and I would not have been surprised by a guilty verdict, but an acquittal doesn’t shock me.

    Roscoe (a1594e)

  32. I’ll get you linked up, Aaron.

    Meanwhile, lots of breaking video and updates ‘Casey Anthony Not Guilty’.

    Donald Douglas (76750b)

  33. The State overcharged, as is their wont. It was a political decision to try a capital murder case. The jury gave a collective middle finger to the State for politicizing a tragedy.

    Ed from SFV (7d7851)

  34. I have tried hundreds of matters, many of them before 12 jurors, more than two dozen before 6 jurors.

    Put 12 different people in that box, get a different result.

    We have become a land of technicalities. Loopholes and legal maneuverings. Slick, crafty and wily.

    This was a crappy case. Every common sense indication that this was a twelfth trimester abortion. Party girl mom wanted a life and a baby was in the way.

    She did not act, at any time, like a mother who had a missing child. She acted like someone who wanted to be given a “pro choice” option on a near three year old.

    She invented people, places and things that were not true to throw the cops off the scent.

    She looked up terms like chloroform and breaking necks.

    The prosecution had a case without fingerprints on the body or the duct tape. They had no witnesses to the direct cause of death.

    The defendant never took the stand.

    Everyone assumed that the overwhelming evidence of “acting guilty as hell” would be enough to carry the day with the jury. It did not.

    That is no reason to celebrate this jury or this jury system. The murderer went scot free again. Happens all the time. For a huge number of really crappy reasons.

    Racial bias, bias against police, bias against the “system”, bias against the lawyers, sometimes even the judge and his rulings.

    It works many, many times. On occasion, it sucks beyond words.

    This little girl died and is not with us and her murderer lives among us. We love our technicalities. Sometimes to a fault.

    cfbleachers (fb9900)

  35. 9. Aaron

    I think that from what I saw yesterday, Linda wasn’t attempting to make herself appealing to the jury and she spoke of her biggest fear being that the jury gets lost in the law/minutae and forgets to look at the big picture. (my paraphrase).

    found it: “My biggest fear, and I do not under any circumstances mean this as an insult, my biggest fear is that common sense will be lost in all of the rhetoric.”

    Combined with her demeanor, I just felt like she was saying, in so many words, “Gee, I know this isn’t really your (the jury’s) realm, but don’t get bogged down in the nitty gritty and just help us avenge the child’s death.”

    I’m not talking about specifics, but the feeling I got from watching Linda rebut/close yesterday.

    koam @wittier (be5afd)

  36. I don’t know about y’all, but I find something appealing about RSM’s coverage. keywords “lying murderous slut”.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  37. “The physical evidence doesn’t support her defense.”

    Monkeytoe – The physical evidence does not even establish cause of death.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  38. okay let me ask a question to the peanut gallery.

    they proved that CA covered up the death of her child. okay.

    but what proof, beyond that coverup, did they have that SHE killed the child?

    Comment by Aaron Worthing — 7/5/2011 @ 12:13 pm

    Who else had a motive to cover it up? And who else acted like a burden had been lifted from her shoulders for an entire month rather than grieving? Remember, diminished capacity was NOT part of her defense; she alleged that it was accidental — did she act as if an accident had occurred? Amanda Knox is in prison in Italy largely because she did cartwheels in a police station when they were trying to question her about the brutal killing of her roommate; is it possible to number how many Knox cartwheels could be the equivalent of Casey’s partying during Caylee’s “disappearance”?

    There have been plenty of people who have been convicted on flimsier circumstantial evidence. Right now in SoCal, there is a case being built against a gangbanger who tattooed the scene of an unsolved murder onto his chest. Unlike Casey, that guy didn’t act like he was looking for the “real killer.” Are we to the point now where there has to be DNA evidence gathered by Horatio Caine and his Ray-Bans to blunt the most outrageous, ridiculous, unbelievable pettifogging by defense attorneys, all designed to make a single imbecilic juror dizzy?

    I expect that someday — maybe soon, maybe years from now — a friend of Casey’s who knows the truth will speak up. Someone like Frank Falzon, police detective friend of Dan White, the S.F. Supervisor who committed the Moscone/Milk murders in City Hall. Falzon says that after that White was released on parole, he blithely spoke of intending to kill another supervisor — Carol Ruth Silver — along with Milk and Moscone that day, putting the lie to the idea that White was temporarily insane. Until then, I must remind myself that vengeance is God’s, and recite the serenity prayer through clenched teeth.

    L.N. Smithee (7b0e77)

  39. Stipulate the the murder wasn’t proven.

    I’d further say that the jury must have had something against the prosecutor to not find Casey guilty on child abuse.

    If the 2-year-old girl went missing for 31 days during which the mom didn’t report her missing, didn’t tell her family the girl was missing, was obviously deceptive with her parents, and went partying during the time, doesn’t that fit some definition of child abuse, even a lesser charge, that she was accused of?

    The jury didn’t even focus on that…so what was the defense in that regard, and, more likely, what did the jury have against the prosecutors, their overreach regarding murder 1?

    koam @wittier (be5afd)

  40. This is the greatest country in the world, if you are guilty.

    Tutu (54ce64)

  41. in the prosecution industry, lawyers are fired and DA’s lose elections.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing — 7/5/2011 @ 12:17 pm

    But we do not allow the Enron president and board of directors to be “fired” by the shareholders.
    They are held accountable by the state through civil and criminal courts–Why not for judges/etc…

    While I do not believe the being a prosecutor, judge, or lawyer is easy work… Limited immunity for them (and police) places them in a different position than the rest of the citizens.

    If a verdict was overturned based on faulty evidence (actual proof of complicity–not just interpretation)or on improper application of the law (i.e., higher court overturns ruling)–then they should be fired/demoted/tried in court.

    Which gets me into the courts where votes are taken on the law (state/federal supreme courts, various appellate courts, etc.)–If 3-9 people can not convince each other of the law (5/4 votes, etc.)–then how can I hold them as knowledgeable judicators of the law.

    If the courts cannot get an 9/zip vote on the issue(s) being decided–then the lower court results should not be overturned… Nothing more than we require of juries every day.

    BfC (2ebea6)

  42. The police seem to be a small danger to the guilty but the innocent. They are the ones in danger, Sorry Patrick but this is just appalling.

    I just saw this in the local paper yesterday and we don’t even have the story of what he was supposed to have done. The first version I heard was that he ran a poorly marked stop sign in Blue Jay, a village about a mile from my house.

    Now, I’m not sure but I am sure that it was nothing more than a minor traffic violation.

    Mike K (8f3f19)

  43. If I was somehow not vigilant and my daughter died of an accidental drowning, I would never trust the police nor the DA to give me the slightest break. I hope I would never hide the body as was done here, but it is not unreasonable for me to do what I could to minimize my jeopardy to criminal conviction(s).

    This bimbo panicked and she tampered with evidence. But, did she fully plan out a murder?

    Ed from SFV (7d7851)

  44. bfc

    but i think what is dangerous about what you are saying is this.

    much of law is subjective. like okay, profits are not subjective and a bay covered in oil is not subjective, either. but virtually everything in law is subjective.

    so you propose what? if a prosecutor blows a case they go to jail for any crimes the defendant does in the future? i think unless the errors were objective, that is a very dubious undertaking, whatever is on your mind.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  45. But, did she fully plan out a murder?

    Adding in her behavior after the death, and the googling how to break necks and use chloroform, I think she did plan a murder.

    I suffer from not being interested enough in this story to have followed it closely, but I guess I just don’t see a reason to doubt her guilt, and sufficient evidence of motive, opportunity and result (even if the body was too degraded to show how the death occurred).

    Dustin (b7410e)

  46. She claimed that her father helped hide the body. Her father denies same. There is no other evidence of accidental death.

    Who on earth takes a supposed drowning accident and tries to cover that up to look like a murder??? It makes no sense to the reasonable man.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  47. “But we do not allow the Enron president and board of directors to be “fired” by the shareholders.”

    Bfc – Sure we do, every year via the proxy although most companies stagger their board terms. Alternatively, shareholders can get together and stage a proxy fight to vote them all out subject to the company’s bylaws.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  48. The difficulty here may have been that it was a death penalty case. I have no particular problem with the death penalty myself, but I suspect most jurors are reluctant to condemn a person to death on circumstantial evidence. It also makes family members less cooperative witnesses, as we saw in this case. What parent wants to assist in the execution of their own child?

    I will always wonder what verdict the jury might have returned had the penalty been life in prison instead.

    Ellie in T.O. (52a260)

  49. Who on earth takes a supposed drowning accident and tries to cover that up to look like a murder??? It makes no sense to the reasonable man.

    Comment by Dana — 7/5/2011 @ 1:23 pm

    Thanks for getting it.

    L.N. Smithee (d7ed67)

  50. How is it dangerous to hold judicial industry liable for the same criminal/civil penalties (I will through in elective office holders too) when it is OK for the other 95% of the population.

    Again–I am talking about civil and criminal cases vs proxy votes… We don’t tell the prosecutor or the judge–don’t worry, the share holders voted the person out of office.

    I don’t think the law should be about subjective issues. Voting may be about subjective issues (conservative, liberal, libertarian, etc.).

    If you decide cases on subjective issues–then there is nothing to decide (yes, very broad brush for discussion purposes).

    In computer programing, there are subjective decisions on how to organize the code. But, in the end, the code “runs” based on the software and how it is written (bugs and all).

    If we just look at the Innocence Project where people are demonstrably innocent (yes, there are probably cases were innocences was not clear–just not “guilt”).

    If the software or the “law” give demonstrably false results–then the “law” was wrong.

    And it needs to be fixed (process, laws, people, etc.)–just like is done in software or any other industry.

    Apparently, the law is broken in may places. “It” needs to be fixed.

    Just like in private industry–They fix things and are careful not just because the customer may be unhappy–they also make decisions based on fear of being sued/charged.

    BfC (2ebea6)

  51. “Beyind a Reasonable Doubt” not only means “Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt” to these jurors, they cleary believe that any aspect of “doubt” is grounds for acquittal.

    “don’t like being asked not to be stupid” nails it.

    David Ehrenstein (2550d9)

  52. When did she admit she hid the body?

    SusanT (355042)

  53. bfc

    > If the software or the “law” give demonstrably false results–then the “law” was wrong.

    but what is demonstrably false, and who is to blame?

    take for instance, the OJ case. clearly he did it. but why was he found not guilty.

    Theory #1: the jury was too stupid.

    theory #2: the prosecution screwed up. maybe.

    theory #3: the jury was concerned about riots and the like, if they found him guilty.

    theory #4: OJ’s lawyers were that slick.

    theory #5: mark fuhrman. enough said.

    theory #6: they just didn’t have enough evidence.

    So which of those is the reason why OJ simpson was free to walk the streets to later commit a fresh crime? there is no objectively correct answer to that question, period.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  54. Ellie in T.O.

    Excellent point. You can’t put anyone to death when you can’t prove with hard evidence that the victim was in fact killed. Harder than “Who covers up a an accident to make it look like a murder?”

    Someone whose thinking is muddled by mania might do almost anything whether we think it makes sense or not.
    Having said that … I suspect she got away with murder.

    Quasimodo (bc61a0)

  55. What? You don’t report your daughter missing for over a month, and you’re not convicted of child neglect? Are you kidding me?

    ∅ (e7577d)

  56. bfc

    and how would that work in reality, anyway.

    Okay so BP dumps oil all over the gulf of mexico.

    So then we charge the execs there for the crime of negligently spilling oil.

    Then they are acquitted.

    So then… we prosecute the prosecutors for failing to convict?

    And what if those prosecutors are acquitted? Do we then try THEIR prosecutors for failing to convict the prosecutors who failed to convict the BP executives?

    How does that even work?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  57. Most Floridians are mentally retarded. So I am not shocked.

    Sponge Bob Square Pants (786e37)

  58. What? You don’t report your daughter missing for over a month, and you’re not convicted of child neglect? Are you kidding me?

    Was that charge before the jury?

    Quasimodo (bc61a0)

  59. 57 Quasimodo

    exactly

    See my 37 above http://patterico.com/2011/07/05/casey-anthony-found-not-guilty-of-murder/#comment-816088

    My theory is that the jury must have resented the prosecution for some reason to not turn in some kind of guilty on child abuse if a relevant lesser charge was included in this trial.

    koam @wittier (be5afd)

  60. So which of those is the reason why OJ simpson was free to walk the streets to later commit a fresh crime? there is no objectively correct answer to that question, period.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing — 7/5/2011 @ 1:44 pm

    If you believe that OJ was guilty because of civil or criminal behavior by one or more of the lawyers, judge, jury member (bribery), police (criminal or civil incompetence), etc…

    Then why not let a prosecutor do a colonoscopy on the people suspected of the crimes (with sufficient evidence required to begin the investigation).

    We have a system where we have various levels of convincing evidence to “convict”/find for the plaintiff.

    The legal seems to be the process of choice for the general community… Why not for the “professional” legal community too.

    I am more concerned with improper convictions / finding of fault than not doing the job well enough to convict.

    However, if a failure to convict was the result (for example) of a police officer’s illegal search tainted the evidence–Then perhaps that person should not be a police officer and subject to penalties as described by law.

    If–the law industry does not like fuzzy law (i.e., the crazy legal tapestry that seems to be evidence law–like throwing away tainted evidence vs using the evidence and charging the officer with breaking a law that did not even exist before the first judge created said “law”)…Use the Evidence in the trial of the defendant and Charge the Cop/Prosecutor/Judge/etc. that collected that evidence “illegally”.

    I believe if judges et.al. were subject to the same laws that we are (false conviction, then then participants should be subject to libel laws with personal penalties).

    Frankly, I believe that we, as citizens are being held hostage to an out of control judiciary system. If they had to follow the same laws we do–there would be a different system with better results (like lawmakers that don’t have to comply with their own labor laws because of “separation of powers”).

    Aron–Please don’t take any of this as hostile to you or your opinions–I am really trying to learn.

    I am not trying hang people for following the “rules”–I am after fixing the system through equal and equitable enforcement of the rules. Anything else leads to a corrupt process and corrupt results.

    -Bill

    BfC (2ebea6)

  61. Sorry, shold have been aggravated child abuse was one of the charges.

    ∅ (e7577d)

  62. If somebody made a conscious decision to throw the case (over charging beyond the facts at the time), or, for example charge Exxon for failure to follow rules which the US could not enforce due to lack of jurisdiction (International Waters, whatever)…

    Then yes, the work product/emails from all of the government prosecutors can be disclosed and Exxon (or any person–including environmental groups) could dispose the prosecutors for further information… Just like, I would guess, the government did to Exxon.

    My belief–if Judges, prosecutors, police, etc. were subjected to the same “criminal/civil exposure” that any ordinary citizen/company is today when performing their duties/living their lives–The process would change dramatically (looser pays, prosecutor that suppressed evidence of innocence, etc., Judge grants early release and the person re-offends in a few

    BfC (2ebea6)

  63. I think it would be very instructive if y’all would watch the defense closing. It was devastating for the prosecution’s case. I can’t find it online yet, but I hope we’ll all be able to watch it soon.

    Question for Aaron –

    After the verdict was read the judge summoned her to the bench and announced that he found her not guilty on the three or four main counts. I do not know whether this is standard procedure in Florida but I have never seen this happen elsewhere. Is this as unusual as I think it is?

    Roy Lofquist (4440aa)

  64. bfc:

    > Then why not let a prosecutor do a colonoscopy on the people suspected of the crimes (with sufficient evidence required to begin the investigation).

    Um, how about because if you did that no one would ever want to work in a prosecutor’s office again.

    Seriously, every single time they prosecute someone there is a risk of someone being set free wrongly or being wrongly convicted. and you want to turn every single time they lose a case, or win one they shouldn’t, into a criminal case?

    no one would voluntarily subject themselves to that. i know i wouldn’t. i consider myself a pretty good lawyer, but i am not perfect.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  65. Regarding the child abuse charges–Say she was an “average” single mother until her child died…

    I keep hearing about people that want to charge/convict of child abuse for not reporting the missing child, supplying information based on her behavior after the child died/was killed.

    For me, nobody could be charged with a crime against a child after the child was dead…

    The only thing I keep learning from these types of cases–Do not ever talk to the police or investigators–whether you are guilty or not.

    Apparently, she would have gone free if she did not say a thing.

    BfC (2ebea6)

  66. Um, how about because if you did that no one would ever want to work in a prosecutor’s office again.

    Um, how about nobody would ever want to start/work in a business ever again because of the risk of any pissed of employ or customer creating a class action suit (whether it was reasonable or not).

    Again, I think limited immunity (created by courts, not by any bill?) is pretty corrupting.

    Convicting anyone (or finding for civil responsibility) should be difficult. I believe that would also apply to convicting lawyers, judges, etc… Same for everyone.

    By the way, is it true that the only people not under oath to tell the truth in a court room are the lawyers and the Judge?

    BfC (2ebea6)

  67. I guess there are a few people that agree with me:

    ATF GUNRUNNING SCANDAL UPDATE: U.S. Officials Behind ‘Fast and Furious’ Gun Sales Should Be Tried in Mexico, Lawmaker Says. “While the investigation continues into the U.S. operation that helped send thousands of guns south of the border, Mexican lawmakers say they’ll press for extradition and prosecution in Mexico of American officials who authorized and ran the operation.”

    The border gun shops (from what little I have read) where, more or less, blackmailed by the AFT to sell guns to folks everyone knew were straw-buyers in violation of federal law.

    I will stop here–this is obviously beyond the point of this thread… Sorry.

    BfC (2ebea6)

  68. Not surprising at all — and the jury is right.

    This case should not have been charged when it was — and there was a lot of commentary from prosecutors questioning the decision to do so.

    They could not prove the manner of death – they had a theory, but it was only a theory.

    When you can prove someone was murdered, and you can prove that the defendant was the only person in a position to commit the crime, you can get a conviction with a lack of physical evidence or witness testimony.

    But, when you cannot even prove someone was murdered — the circumstances of how the death happened — and then you pile on top of that a purely circumstantial case that ties the defendant to the “crime”, you are set up for an acquittal.

    No one can say whether she drowned or didn’t drown. No one could say HOW she died, so you cannot rule out accidental death as the cause.

    Pretty basic IMO. The state charged this case because of the intensity of the glare of the spotlight, nothing else.

    shipwreckedcrew (fe3b5b)

  69. While the OJ jury clearly had a number of external elements influencing their decision – the greatest of these being race. We know that Shapiro played it to the hilt, making it easy to see why the jury voted as it did.

    However, in the Case Anthony trial, I really can’t see any external influence over the jury other than perhaps a balking at the very strong possibility of sentencing one to death.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  70. shipwreckedcrew,

    Do you think then there were other charges she should have been brought up on instead? Child neglect (in light of the month that went by…)?

    And if it was due to media spotlight that the charges were filed, wouldn’t the prosecutors have taken extra care to make sure they had a rock solid case before filing the specific charges they did?

    Dana (4eca6e)

  71. I know nothing at all about this case — I never even heard about it until Sunday — so I can only write on general principles, but this comment requires a response:

    Proof of the cover up of the death of one’s child, along with the way the child was found – i.e., tape over its mouth, why does one tape a dead child’s mouth closed – is more than enough circumstantial evidence to convict.

    Good grief! If that’s your idea of justice it would be dangerous to allow you anywhere near a court room. If you’re ever called for jury duty, I hope the defense lawyer finds this comment and uses it to disqualify you. I’m serious.

    I should add that I am extremely skeptical of forensic scientists and their testimony, and would never convict someone on their word alone. They are a dangerous and arrogant lot, and seem to have no understanding of the concept of “reasonable doubt”. Occam’s razor is a nice philosophical tool, but it has no place in the court room. That’s a lesson I learned ~25 year ago from Lindy Chamberlain’s trial, and I’ve seen nothing since to change my mind.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  72. hah here is a Casey A-related twitterfail

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  73. hah again… more Casey A verdict fun

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  74. Didn’t follow the case closely at all. Maybe am a little surprised at the verdict based just on the headlines about the case over the last month and the generally unsympathetic nature of the mom. But I am very surprised at the speed with which the verdict was rendered once the case got to the jury. I would have thought there would have been quite a few questions and issues the jury had to debate and consider, and that the evidence would not have seemed so clear cut to all of them so soon.

    elissa (fb4a7e)

  75. 11 L N Smithee

    I entirely agree that shows & movies like that are ridiculous, so I don’t get my info from there.

    I only watched some news reports and tuned in to the final morning yesterday. So it was my sense that prosecutor Linda wasn’t appealing to jury effectively, as I wrote earlier.

    Given that they acquitted in a few hours, including filling out all those forms, what do you think the jury made of the prosecution’s case? It doesn’t seem like there was much dissent among the jurors if they were unanimous that quickly. Were they rebelling against the media having decided it for them?

    koam @wittier (be5afd)

  76. Perhaps the jury thumbed their noses at the legal system that sequestered them for months, made them listen to idiot drivel ad nauseam, and even kept them from their families on both Memorial Day and Independence Day.

    I’ll wait to hear what individual jury members have to say, but for now I’m entertaining the notion the jury accepted the lowest common denominator and took the quickest way out.

    ropelight (5de274)

  77. David French asks whether or not it was the CSI effect that influenced jurors. I wonder if any commenters considered this? Clearly a sign of the times.

    While I have little doubt that the Casey Anthony jurors will break their silence soon enough, I do wonder how much the not guilty verdicts were due to the well-known (to lawyers anyway) “CSI effect.” Put simply, the CSI effect is short-hand for the enhanced expectations jurors have for forensic evidence — and corresponding disregard for circumstantial evidence — as a result of watching crime and punishment shows on television. And the Anthony trial was notable for its strong circumstantial evidence and serious lack of conclusive forensics.

    The very existence of the CSI effect is controversial, with prosecutors eager to recount examples of jurors with utterly absurd forensic expectations but with little empirical evidence to back up the anecdotes. It strikes me, however, that a high-profile case like the Anthony trial is exactly the kind of case where jurors’ forensic expectations would be sky-high.

    But the prosecution couldn’t deliver. Its forensic evidence was weak (the cause of death couldn’t even be established), the crime scene itself was arguably tampered with, and the forensic evidence that did exist (like the decomposition smell in the trunk) hardly qualified as scientific. Instead of forensics, the prosecution appealed to common sense and circumstances. But it wasn’t enough.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  78. I’m with LN Smithee.

    Furthermore, if they found her floating in the pool, why not call an ambulance and try to resuscitate her?

    It makes no sense that you have to have an eyewitness to the murder to get a conviction.
    She was the last one with the baby, then she ditched her car and left her home. She never reported her daughter missing, had spent two years putting the baby somewhere when she lied to her family about taking her to the nanny, and led the police on a wild goose chase after her mother finally called 911 about the smell of the car and the missing baby. She berated her family when she was arrested. She never spoke to her father about what “he” had done once she was arrested.

    Give me a reasonable explanation of what happened.
    If you say drowning, then having a pool is an automatic get out of jail free card.

    MayBee (081489)

  79. I think it’s that people have lost track of what a “reasonable” doubt is. That jury did.

    MayBee (081489)

  80. Interesting comment, Dana, on the changing expectations of jurors.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  81. I served on a jury where a gangbanger, the night after car jacking someone, was involved in a police chase in the same car he had been seen in the night before. He had with him a bag of bullets (the same kind that were used) and dropped the gun on the side of the road while his car was being chased. The victim ID’d him in a photo lineup.
    The gangbanger said he did not know the bullets were in the car, and said the police had planted the gun on the roadside.
    And it took us two days of deliberation, because people just weren’t sure it was proven that he knew those bullets were in that car.

    MayBee (081489)

  82. Dustin,

    In noting influence of race on the OJ jury, I never considered the CSI effect influencing this jury. Who knew?

    And I hate to say it, but it speaks to the susceptibility and perhaps, shallowness of the average joe sitting on a jury. To think that a television show could create such an expectation in real life, well…I guess what else is new…

    Dana (4eca6e)

  83. There is another aspect to the CSI effect: You, the viewer, always gets the reveal of what actually happened. You come away with absolutely no doubt, because as the investigators find the clues, the audience gets to see they are right. The audience becomes the eyewitness.
    That doesn’t happen in real life. The absolute certainty of knowing when the investigators are right does not exist.

    MayBee (081489)

  84. Oh- in my gangbanger trial, the gangbanger represented himself. And even I will tell you, it made him incredibly sympathetic. I think Jose Baez’s roughness and unpolished appearance made him (and her) seem like an underdog compared to the big mean State of Florida.

    MayBee (081489)

  85. To think that a television show could create such an expectation in real life, well…I guess what else is new…

    Comment by Dana

    It’s frustrating because it makes so much sense. I can totally see some know it all complaining that the real evidence was somehow not right because of their ‘expertise’.

    Combine that with Maybee’s point about what people might think is real reasonable doubt, and justice could be denied. On TV, often you get a very convenient confession or video proof or witness making a dramatic reversal at the end… something of that nature.

    In this case, people are seriously acting like the cause of death wasn’t homicide. Of a child taped up and thrown in a swamp while the killer does all she can to conceal it. I can’t say I’m an expert on this case, and I understand why many found the Nancy Grace approach conclusory and unfair, but from what I know, I’d have voted to convict.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  86. Re the “CSI effect”, AIUI forensic scientists are complaining that the show makes people expect evidence that actually proves what it purports to prove, when the truth is, apparently, that “it just doesn’t work like that”, i.e. in real life forensic evidence is messy and inconclusive. Well, if that’s the case then their whole profession is a fraud. They’ve spent decades presenting such evidence to juries and the public as if it were nearly infallible; thousands of people have been convicted because juries bought that line. And now they’re telling us that it’s been hype all along? The TV shows are just taking these people at their word; they created this expectation, and now they are being made to live by it. Boo hoo.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  87. Maybee, that jury deliberation of yours would have driven me insane.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  88. On TV, often you get a very convenient confession or video proof or witness making a dramatic reversal at the end… something of that nature.

    The blurring of reality and fiction…an hour show has just that – one hour less commercials – to resolve the situation. That simply isn’t reality though. While basing these shows on real cases, it is still, nonetheless, a created fiction.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  89. They’ve spent decades presenting such evidence to juries and the public as if it were nearly infallible

    I think part of the concern is that some expect tests to be performed that aren’t realistic.

    they created this expectation, and now they are being made to live by it. Boo hoo.

    I don’t think this is what the complaint is. They don’t mind being held to scientific claims. The problem is that there are expectations that, for example, if a mom threw her child into a swamp there would be some way to prove it in a lab, when that isn’t always the case.

    The child was murdered. I don’t know if the state somehow failed to show it, but that’s the truth anyway. The notion she only looks like she was murdered, and the person with the motive and planning to murder her maybe didn’t is just unreasonable.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  90. I’ve seen too many of these blown jury trials. It’s too much! Our entire judicial system is a shameful disaster. I am very much in favor of a British style court system, with no Juries. It couldn’t possibly be worse than what we have now.

    quiznilo (6151d2)

  91. I’ve seen too many of these blown jury trials. It’s too much! Our entire judicial system is a shameful disaster. I am very much in favor of a British style court system, with no Juries. It couldn’t possibly be worse than what we have now.

    Comment by quiznilo — 7/5/2011 @ 5:01 pm

    I know what you’re saying, but you gotta think about the day on which you’re saying this … or, to be precise, the day after minus 235 years.

    L.N. Smithee (7b0e77)

  92. I didn’t really follow this because I thought she was guilty from the first I ever heard of it. Like George Carlin said “I would make an excellent juror because I can spot a guilty person just like that”. =)

    But yeah, pretty shocking decision.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  93. I have read those here that think Casey Anthony is innocent because the prosecution did not prove its case. I disagree.

    This is a woman who claims to not know where her child is, doesn’t report the missing child to the police, doesn’t tell her father, a former homicide detective, that her child is missing, goes out partying her ass off for a month, and puts her philosopy (La Bella Vita) on her shoulder. This woman is guilty as hell.

    And for those who say that you cannot convict without a cause of death, tell that to Scott Peterson who currently sits on death row. Scott Peterson was convicted without a cause of death, without a witness, without any forensic evidence that he did it.

    Casey Anthony is a classic case of Borderline Personality Disorder. Research it. Psychiatrists rarely refer to it because there is no known cause but it is a severe mental disorder. Hatred for her parents (shown by the looks on her face), hatred for anyone who gets in the way of doing what she wanted to do (party), and the ability to lie like a rug. And the most important trait in BPD is the ability to never, EVER take blame for what the person has done.

    Casey Anthony joins the ranks of William Ayers: guilty as hell, free as a bird.

    retire05 (c9c4f2)

  94. This is NOT a case of “idiot jurors” 12 of them had to come to unanimous agreement. They followed the law. If you want to blame anyone, blame the “idiot prosecutors.” who botched this from the beginning. And yes, I do believe she is guilty.

    Schuyler (ec8670)

  95. I never heard anything about this case until today, and just by listening to these people argue about it on Hannity’s radio show, I can tell that she is guilty and the proof is overwhelming, despite the fact that those who are on the radio can’t articulate it.

    What’s her name who killed her kids and blamed getting carjacked by a black dude. You don’t have to know anything else about the case to know that she is guilty if you know that she made up the story about the carjacker. In the realm of reason, it is as good as a confession of guilt. For it to be anything else would mean that murderers who are careful should never have to be prosecuted because all the investigators have is your story and they can only investigate whether or not your story is true. That is apparently not worth anything anymore.

    This one invented a nanny.

    j curtis (9aa049)

  96. casey anthony
    rest assured the hottest spot
    in Hell awaits you

    ColonelHaiku (822dce)

  97. I think that if she’d been charged with negligent homicide of a child she probably would have been convicted.

    htom (412a17)

  98. _____________________________________________

    I DO believe the state proved its case, which was that all the evidence pointed to foul play: Casey’s disappearance, her serial lying to family, friends, and law enforcement; her mother’s initial 911 call in which she said her daughter’s car smelled like it had a dead body in it; her carefree activity during in the month after her daughter’s disappearance.
    Comment by L.N. Smithee

    I didn’t follow the case, but if your synopsis is accurate, then I’d say this is a variation of the OJ verdict. But instead of jurors feeling sympathy towards a defendant because of his race, in this instance jurors perhaps were deluded (and/or idiotic) towards Casey Anthony because of her status as a sad, downtrodden, unmarried, underdog, working-class woman?

    If the political slant of most of the jurors is revealed, that will say a lot about how correct or incorrect that assumption is.

    I wonder if most of the jurors are similar to those voters in a California election a few years ago who didn’t want to require that single, underaged girls receive the consent of a parent or guardian before receiving an abortion? But the same type of people who, in another California election, forbade owners of horses from selling their animals to rendering plants.

    Modern society has become so humane, compassionate and sophisticated.

    where the evidence that he murdered Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman was sufficient for a civil suit, but not for a criminal trial.

    Not sufficient for the type of jurors who, as is perhaps the case with the people determining Casey Anthony’s fate, were emotionally beholden to the cause of do-gooderism, progressivism and Democrat-party ideals. Folks who can point to their communities and proclaim: “See, look at how well-adjusted, non-dysfunctional, crime-free, highly educated, stable, prosperous and happy we are!!!”
    _____________________________________________

    Mark (411533)

  99. Casey Anthony’s pattern of behavior is quite indicative of her guilt, and there is a strong likelihood that her involvement in her daughter’s death goes beyond being told that her daughter’s body was found.

    And yet I am a regular visitor of Reason.Com. I have read Radley Balko’s columns titled “This Week in Innocence”. I read about Timothy Cole and Steven Hayne.

    I can not say with any certainty that the jury got it wrong on this case.

    Michael Ejercito (64388b)

  100. This sad case comes down to two things.

    First, it’s pretty damn clear (due to her behavior following her daughter’s disappearance) that this vile woman murdered her daughter.

    Second, it’s also rather clear that the prosecutors had a pretty weak case. Hard to win a murder conviction when you can’t even say with certainty what the cause of death was.

    Did she get away with murder? Probably. Does that make me sick to my stomach? You bet. Should murder cases be decided on gut feelings, behavior or hunches rather than evidence? Hell no. Sometimes, life’s patently unfair, but would you rather have a system where a jury could convict you just because they didn’t like your demeanor and behavior?

    radar (378484)

  101. I think all too often jurors confuse reasonable doubt with beyond a shadow of a doubt. I cannot see how anyone could have doubt about her guilt.

    Dennis D (e0b996)

  102. Never bought that “it is better to let a thousand guilty people go free than convict one innocent man” crap. I’d rather see those thousand guilty people in prison. If that one innocent man is you, well life sucks.

    Jim Norton (c31a9b)

  103. Interestingly, the majority of murder cases which end in a guilty verdict are based on “circumstantial evidence”. Even with the advent of DNA and it’s use in legal system, it is only used with a fraction of it’s capability. Fact.

    O-mah (4de175)

  104. I’ve heard the latest neocon explanations – the jury, all 12 are just dumb as rocks, and lust after little miss pretty, so the cons call for destruction of the jury system, suffer from now recurring OJ derangement syndrome, and are spewing expletive’s in tourettic ticks, sometimes uncontrollably. Of , course, the jurors, all 12, are “left wing liberal idiots”.
    This has been quite entertaining watching the neocons explode.

    SiliconDoc (7ba52b)

  105. It’s not clear you have any idea what the word “neocon” means, Silicondoc.

    You sound kinda silly. I’m sure there are a few people calling for a change in how we decide cases, which you are hysterically calling ‘the destruction of the jury system!!!!!!’, but I don’t know why people are not allowed to talk about that kind of idea. And also most conservatives are not actually arguing for that anyway. Many are talking about the importance of serving on juries.

    The sad truth is that someone appears to have gotten away with murder, and you think that’s entertainment.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  106. Well said

    O-mah (4de175)

  107. I think he meant “silicone”-doc.

    O-mah (4de175)

  108. #104, you must have watched it as entertainment for 3+ years, you achieved the exact reaction expected, pretend the whole world mirrors your view, and condemns as uncaring and callous, if they do not.
    That the kind of insanity that is so entertaining.
    Thank you, liberal, emotional, and foolish.

    SiliconDoc (7ba52b)

  109. Dustin is correct. Someone got away with murder. And Casey Anthony IS a heaping pile of human garbage, whatever the level of involevement she had in the disappearance and death of her daughter.

    BTW, Geraldo Rivera on O’Reilly last night sunk to an absolute all-time low, portraying Casey as the victim and even going so far as to call her a “great mother”. *Retch*!

    Icy Texan (c3206e)

  110. Thank you for the capacity for understanding my point, Icy.

    SiliconDoc sure seems to have a strange taste for entertainment. I’m not surprised someone like that would have an interest in judging others. Anything to avoid looking in the mirror.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  111. I would like to see how Casey Anthony scores on Dr. Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist and exam.

    O-mah (4de175)

  112. Geraldo Rivera on O’Reilly last night sunk to an absolute all-time low, portraying Casey as the victim and even going so far as to call her a “great mother”.

    You have got to be kidding me???

    WTF?

    If he’s calling her a great mother, he should be fired.

    Random (4dc233)

  113. Even Rick Sanchez wouldn’t do that. That’s taking stupid beyond Ray Nagin levels.

    Random (4dc233)

  114. #108, #109, Neither one of you understand the point you claim you’ve made, since neither of you have proof of any murder at all.
    We all well know, though, if this particular woman was standing in front of you insane mongers, she would be charged with murder if her child accidentally drowned exactly as she described.
    Now there’s a point neither of you funny circus goers want to look at in your warped mirrors, but this point is clear to anyone whose been around as long as just Casey and the entire rest of the nation.
    I believe we can call it MWI, or SWM.
    So who really cares what you two pat bros coddle eachothers weak minds with.

    SiliconDoc (7ba52b)

  115. Random

    yeah, i saw geraldo say that. seriously, wtf?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  116. Kinda bizarre, why would a drowned child have duct tape over her mouth?

    O-mah (4de175)

  117. What does Geraldo really want?

    Attention. Relevance.

    He’s say OJ was a great husband if that’s what it took to stay on the radar.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  118. Silicon, you come here to judge people you barely understand, and yet you call something that is quite horrible your entertainment. A lot of people seem to find this poor little girl’s murder to be popcorn fodder. I don’t care what you have to say or who you feel like judging.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  119. “We all well know, though, if this particular woman was standing in front of you insane mongers, she would be charged with murder if her child accidentally drowned exactly as she described.”

    Huh? She didn’t “describe” her child drowning. She claimed the kid was abducted by a nanny who subsequently turned out to be non-existent. Only when her lie was exposed did she then put forward the drowning scenario (through her sleazy lawyers). In future, please restrict your communications to things you actually know something about.

    Ellie in T.O. (90d35e)

  120. Why wouldn’t we charge the person who researched how to murder someone, showed their motive to murder, and whose latest explanation is that they covered up a drowning by making it look like a murder?

    This kook acts like it was an injustice that Ms Anthony was even prosecuted! HAHAHAHAHA

    if her child accidentally drowned

    Do you really think this is a possibility? No. You just hate ‘neocons’, whatever exactly you mean by that. You don’t care what the truth is. You just care about making a political point no matter how stupid it is.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  121. 117. The entertainment, since you seem to still have become suddenly too thick, or perhaps just a liar with no other apparent attack ready, has been how stupid people like you are, and I do know you oh so well.
    As you see, I’ve proved that already, twice, and this, the third time.
    Now you have fun too (how sinful, right neocon ? lol), while you morbidly hang your stupid head down low, because you’re the idiot that believes in murder in this case, right ?
    Now you hang that sorry head in sorrow, and the rest of us who aren’t deluded like you can laugh – at Y O U.

    SiliconDoc (7ba52b)

  122. Oh gee, the neocon is offended….. like the liberal…. what a surprise.

    SiliconDoc (7ba52b)

  123. ellie

    i thought the nanny existed and she was suing casey anthony? could be wrong.

    Dustin

    i don’t know. if you can’t prove how the child died, i am not sure they should have charged her with murder. that seems like almost automatic reasonable doubt. i mean, i agree she probably did something wrong, but… i still don’t know if she deliberately killed the child, accidentally did or what.

    i won’t actually say the prosecutors were wrong to bring it–i wasn’t there–just it was questionable.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  124. i don’t know. if you can’t prove how the child died, i am not sure they should have charged her with murder.

    This really is a burden of proof issue. I think it is beyond reasonable doubt that throwing that body out there, taped up, by a person researching how to murder the child, is proof she was murdered. It’s not beyond any possible doubt… just beyond what I consider reasonable doubt.

    However, I think the larger point here is that the trial hinged on that finding of fact. The jury determining whether Ms Anthony murdered the child or merely disposed of a death that coincided with her apparent wish to commit murder (I’m basing this on her behavior before and after the incident).

    The jury was asked this question. Apparently , Aaron, you are correct that the state was unable to prove it to them, but I think it was legitimate to bring this to trial.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  125. Dustin

    see for me the big lesson in this case is it is not the crime, but the coverup. I think she so scuttled the evidence that we will never know what she did. But we suspect the worst and reasonably so. But we know she disposed of the evidence, lied to the cops, etc. we can’t prove the underlying crime, but that doesn’t mean she goes away scott-free. she still goes to jail for the cover-up.

    yes, it is highly coincidental that she looked up chloroform and it was found in the car and so on. i would concur that she probably had something to do with the kid’s death.

    But is it unreasonable to suppose that the kid might have died of a true accident? unreasonable to think maybe someone else killed the child? i don’t know, seems pretty reasonable to me.

    otoh, i won’t actually say the prosecution shouldn’t have brought the case. i wasn’t there, and they may know more than they are telling. but if i was in their shoes i would be very leery about bringing it in the first place. i would certainly be very open to a plea bargain.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  126. Maybe “silicone” believes that the circumstantial evidence that was produced by the prosectuion was insufficient in linking Anthony directly to the body of her deceased child. Circumstantial evidence can be compelling, but has it’s limitations. I personally believe, that if the the “threads” of the circumstantial evidence are roped together in a fashion that goes beyond the level of mere inferencing, it can be mighty weighty. Statistically, the majority of convictions for homicide related crimes is based on circumstantial evidence! A good DA has the ability to weave these threads together in a manner that is beyond merely inferencing, to showing the “impossibility to believe otherwise” based on an overwhelming series of links and circumstances that are shockingly and statistically irrefutable. Of course, this is based on the series of circumstances that would directly link the accused to the event/crime.

    O-mah (4de175)

  127. 118. So your proof the lawyers made it up, and that she didn’t tell them ? None. It’s your fantasy opinion.
    Thanks for talking about that which you haven’t a clue about, really, hypocrite.
    Apparently this particular neocon theory of yours revolves around the idea that someone who lies at some point, can never come clean with the truth at any future time, when something exposes the former lie.
    So playing dumb like the liberal idiot, you hope to have claimed her story for the missing child, once invalidated by “discoveries”, means when she came clean, it was lie, too, because you say so… and you know what really happened because….
    Next, you don’t tell us what really happened. Perhaps the jury would laugh at you, too. Oh, they did.

    SiliconDoc (7ba52b)

  128. SiliconDoc, when I think “accidental drowning”, my thoughts naturally run to “duct tape” — as would those of any reasonable person.

    Icy Texan (c3206e)

  129. think she so scuttled the evidence that we will never know what she did.

    I understand why you’d see it this way. On the other hand, it isn’t reasonable, in my opinion, that someone would research how to murder, cover up the evidence of a death to look like a murder, and then party. Therefore, the circumstantial case proves the cause of death.

    But is it unreasonable to suppose that the kid might have died of a true accident? unreasonable to think maybe someone else killed the child? i don’t know, seems pretty reasonable to me.

    We’re just going to have to disagree on that, my friend.

    SiliconDoc, your efforts to judge people who see this murder as a tragedy instead of their entertainment are going to fall on deaf ears.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  130. my thoughts naturally run to “duct tape”

    You mean if you found your child had died in an accident your first move wouldn’t me to gag her corpse?

    Huh.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  131. Oh Dustin, don’t be such a fool.
    She maybe partied because that’s the lifestyle she lived, and certainly her friends would have tried to cheer her up – and that means PARTYING to her and her crowd.
    Isn’t that kind of really, really STUPID of you neocons, for not realizing that ?
    Really, just WHAT THE HELL do you think that type crowd does ?
    Also, you FOOLS, honestly, so stupid I’m ashamed to be associated with you, latched onto the most ignorant theory – that her new tattoo was a declaration of her “new life and philosophy” –
    Instead, what is really more likely again ? Her partying friends saw she was down and tried to cheer her up – and bonding for that group is tattoo time.

    How can you neocon fools be so thick ? I doubt you’re 80 years old, and sequestered from this common knowledge, for cripes sakes you’re on the internet…

    What if the jury decided your idiot theory that partying and a tat made her guilty and uncaring, and instead showed her friends saw the sorrow in her and tried to cheer her up and cared for her ?

    I mean can you neocons fathom that or are you all insane ?
    Which is more likely actually ? Which is SANE?
    Obviously, not your theory, but you fools blow it out your pieholes like it’s a fact.

    SiliconDoc (7ba52b)

  132. LOL – Now that’s entertainment.Thank you for being so stupid !

    SiliconDoc (7ba52b)

  133. I may not agree with you silicone, but that “piehole” line was priceless.

    O-mah (4de175)

  134. Well, entertainment is poor Dustin moping around in the sorrow of his failure and loss on the verdict he no doubt squealed must occur, and he didn’t get.
    He’s trying to protect his pat bro rep by just saying out loud my “judgement” (apparently also offensive now to the neocon right not just libs) against his tragedy whine is on deaf ears ( he’s pleading for your help fellow travellers – how about some solidarity, since I don’t know him but he speaks for all here – LOL)

    The “tragedy” happened years ago – the only tragedy this fool has now is his big fat text yapper and him stuffing his feet in it further.
    An accident is a tragedy.
    A coverup is even a tragedy in this case, because we now know the neocons want a MURDER CHARGE (heck we’ve known it for a long time as I already pointed out) for accidents while drunk or while “being a bad parent”.
    ————————–
    So there’s a tragedy – a comical tragedy – the angry neocon fool, hellbent on being LEO boy, finds a cover up that is avoiding his overzealous moral village we all own the child mentality – that means a mistake is murder – and so the general public avoids the neocon freaks at all costs – and then the coverup yields neocon freak a big fat goose egg, anyway – but don’t expect dummy to look in the mirror, and don’t expect him to EVER believe it wasn’t cold blooded sociopathic murder – because gull durn it that smart and UN KNOWN be me neocon wouldn’t charge that tramp stamped drugged up drunken whore with murder if her baby drowned from her negligence…..
    YES, what a comical tragedy, from the NEOCON MORONS.

    SiliconDoc (7ba52b)

  135. Geraldo’s “greatest” moments, from his appearance on The O’Reilly Factor last night:

    “the former accused, Casey Anthony.”
    — Funny. I wasn’t aware that the state had dropped the charges, only that the trial was over. Apparently an acquittal now means that you were never accused. This may seem like niggling, but Geraldo makes it sound like to call her ‘the accused’ after the end of the trial somehow puts an unfair stigma upon her. Political correctness run amuck.

    “there was not one bit of evidence that this mother ever in any way neglected or abused this child.”
    — Personally, this comment renders me speechless.

    “she [Casey] was abused”
    — Personal responsibility, Geraldo. It’s like Life cereal. Try it, you’ll like it.

    “This was a good mother. You see the videos.”
    — Translation: she behaved herself when she KNEW that she was on-camera, as opposed to those jailhouse recordings where she did NOT know (or was too clueless to realize) that she was being taped.

    “Maybe she’s psychotic, who knows? but that is not the crime of murder.”
    — Yeah. Psychos that kill are usually confined to mental institutions. What happened here, Geraldo?

    “Justice and retribution are different, justice and revenge are different.”
    — And sometimes they are the same. Semantics: ‘punishment’ as compared to ‘revenge’.

    Icy Texan (c3206e)

  136. Silicon! You are heavy-duty. A modern savage a freakin terminator, your post’s are a riot! I am getting a barrels worth of entertainment just reading you. I respect the right to always disagree, and you have your opinion, I respect that! The “tramp stamp” line is slaying me! Love it!
    I do appreciate being entertained, big time. After all, that’s what it’s all about, eh?

    The Rhodesian (4de175)

  137. Gee, here’s a question: Why does SiliconDoc think that this is a left/right political issue? I thought it was a question of “did the prosecution prove its case?” Silly me.

    Icy Texan (c3206e)

  138. I respect the right to always disagree, and you have your opinion, I respect that!

    But does it respect your right to disagree? It doesn’t sound like it even bothers to understand who he is disagreeing with or what they are saying on his path to expressing his ridiculous outrage and noting how delightful he finds the entertainment value he’s finding in this situation.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  139. Squealed, did you say “squealed”! I am on the floor. LOL! LOL!

    The Rhodesian (4de175)

  140. Dustin. Man, lighten up “bro”. I feel the verdict is WRONG! That does not mean that silicon is not hella funny! Silicon just went off on you, it was pretty funny, you gotta admit. Lines like “squeal”, tramp stamp, who writes this material? It was a riot. A little levity never hurt anyone.

    The Rhodesian (4de175)

  141. That does not mean that silicon is not hella funny!

    We’re still saying ‘hella’?

    Hmmm. I think silicon doc is an abject moron, and I think he’s committed the ultimate sin of pretending he’s funny when he’s actually a judgmental jackass. But that’s just me. If you are laughing, don’t let me stop you.

    Silicon just went off on you, it was pretty funny, you gotta admit.

    It sounds like I have his number and he’s really upset about it. I have no idea what he’s flipping out about neocons, except that he’s too stupid to know what he’s talking about.

    If you think lines like “squeal” are “hella” funny, knock yourself out. I think he’s pretty boring, though.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  142. Once again, the thick crowd thinks I find my text entertaining. What I find entertaining is how stupid you are.
    The silence is of course, expected—–

    Would the daughter of a retired LEO be aware of the laws concerning her negligence – a favorite word here, combined with murder in this drowning ?
    The quacking dummy crowd thinks so, and apparently thinks the jury never caught wind of what the neocons still screech she should be charged with if the child drowned.
    Decades of Ted Kennedy jokes left them completely uninformed, of course, as well.
    Finally, the neocons shriek the jurors are dumb as a rock.
    LOL
    Yes, it’s HILARIOUS.

    SiliconDoc (7ba52b)

  143. Hey, Dustin- c’mon man. Keep it in perspective. Silica was “righteous”, he went off a little. It was funny. Wipe flush and move on.

    The Rhodesian (4de175)

  144. And how am I ‘squealing’ anyway? Silicon is the one who entered the thread to whine about all the ‘neocons’. He couldn’t back up his argument, if you can even call it an argument.

    A little levity never hurt anyone.

    Oh I think I finally am getting it. This is about how SiliconDoc said this murder is his entertainment. He’s a troll and you know how that makes him look, so you’re pretending I’m the schoolmarm who can’t have any fun. I have no problem with jokes. I’m probably a lot funnier than either of you are when the situation is appropriate.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  145. LOL!

    The Rhodesian (4de175)

  146. Silica was “righteous”,

    Do you know what a quotation mark is?

    You’re going full retard here. Repeating the same ‘I think it was funny’ crap 50 times in a row is not really helping me see what you’re laughing at. SiliconDoc can’t hold his own in an argument, and he’s not funny. Sorry.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  147. Once again, the thick crowd thinks I find my text entertaining.

    You can’t back up your own words, so you back away from them, tail tucked between your legs.

    Finally, the neocons shriek the jurors are dumb as a rock.
    LOL

    You are probably mentally ill.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  148. Yes, of course, you’re all too stupid to follow, I’m insane, and none of you have a counterpoint, because… you lying claim you cannot understand, so your tail is, you say, magically invisible.
    What a bunch of low lives.

    SiliconDoc (7ba52b)

  149. Wipe flush and move on.

    Any infantile troll can blurt out something vulgar. Lame.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  150. Silicon, you’re still scared of backing up your assertion linking anything about this case to ‘neocons’, whatever exactly you think they are.

    You can just repeat your silly claims if you want. I think you’re stupid.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  151. Dustin, you should r-e-l-a-x.. Cool down, take a brief walk, remove youself from the “screen”. Go eat a pop-tart, slam some kool-aid. Do whatever you need to c-a-l-m down. Okay senor.

    The Rhodesian (4de175)

  152. What makes you think I’m upset, Rhodesian?

    Just because you want me to be? Why would you talking about poop and cheering on silicondoc’s bizarre anti-neocon screaming upset me? The internet is full of trolls.

    How many ways can I explain that you’re lame?

    Dustin (b7410e)

  153. seven?

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  154. Yes, I agree the verdict was wrong.

    Rhodesian (4de175)

  155. I am confused. Has Paul Wolfowitz or Richard Perle issued a position statement on the Casey Anthony trial that I somehow missed?

    elissa (30d6f0)

  156. colonel has fitty
    bucks says Casey Anthony
    appears in Penthouse

    ColonelHaiku (822dce)

  157. What drugs is SiliconDoc on? Or what language is s/he writing in? His/her posts seem like word salad.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  158. colonel think must be
    animal tranquilizer
    Doc lost in Cosmos

    ColonelHaiku (822dce)

  159. ______________________________________

    if you can’t prove how the child died, i am not sure they should have charged her with murder.

    I’m puzzled because I though there were a variety of murder cases throughout the history of the judicial system in which a victim was presumed to be dead (ie, his or her body had never been found) and yet the defendant was found guilty of murder. So the idea that there needs to be explicit, specific or detailed evidence of the way that someone died — if I’m interpreting such a qualification correctly — makes it seem that it’s a lot easier for a person to get away with murder than what I formerly presumed was the case.

    As for the manner in which the prosecution handled the case, I understand they went for the death penalty instead of a non-ultimate form of punishment. So that’s where I’d focus my criticism of them.

    Regarding Geraldo Rivera, if he’s gushed over Casey Anthony being a wonderful mother, and perhaps believes she therefore deserves a lot of benefit of the doubt, that is the essence of idiotic liberal sentiment. Such sentiment has a knack for making a person ass-backwards in judging who or what is good, who or what is bad, or, worse of all, transposing the two categories. When such fools delude themselves into believing they’re somehow more humane, compassionate and sophisticated than the average person, that’s when things become truly pathetic and laughable.

    Mark (411533)

  160. Is pond dunking still a consideration?

    bmertz (3f53fb)

  161. 157 Mark That’s what I was thinking. Was there a provable cause of death in the Scott Peterson trial?
    Also from what I understand they did charge her with manslaughter AND child abuse and she was found not guilty on those 2 counts as well as murder 1.
    I mean it seems to me that they would’ve been better off not finding the body?
    What kind of as Mother uses chloroform on their baby. Baby dies (Yes we do not know how) ruled homicide. Mother puts duck tape over babies mouth (If she was already dead…why tape) puts her in a laundry bag in the trunk of her car then in a swamp all the while partying and getting tattoos. A guilty one. Maybe not murder 1. Someone give me another “reasonable” explanation of how she is not guilty on all three of those counts.

    Blackburnsghost (2ffb0c)

  162. 159. It was “aggravated manslaughter” below the higher murder charge.
    —-
    Well, there’s no way to convince the already decided that she isn’t guilty of murder with just the accidental drowning.
    Parents who leave a child in a vehicle in the sun by accident or to shop get charged with murder – as well as pet owners who enter Wal Mart with a pet in the “too hot vehicle” may get 3 year incarceration sentences.
    So – the answer that does nothing to change your mind is however the REASON for the defense offered.
    If the child drowned accidentally, MURDER is what she faced THEN – let’s not forget her partying lifestyle and taking away your precious news attentions from the rest of the public ENRAGES most of you – so there’s another mental block to any of you “understanding” any explanation.

    So, when the accidentally drowned baby was found – she decided to cover it up to avoid THE MURDER CHARGES she well knew our generously perfect public neocons would demand along with the hillary villagers..

    Now after that, the lot of you pretend you are stupid enough to NOT understand that motive…. hell you absolutely pretend the or are just as damned stupid when it comes to the duct tape.

    If a person was covering up a drowning, lying and saying the baby was off with some new and unfamiliar nanny – when they disposed of the corpse, they would TRY to make it look like some sort of murder by another – this of course easily explains the duct tape… and anything else one may decide to whine about implying it doesn’t make sense.
    No, it makes perfect sense, the common knowledge in public in such things is of course- DUCT TAPE – what everyone uses to abduct, restrict, silence, and even in sexually explicit situations –

    So the pretense that it doesn’t make sense is ignorant, planned stupidity, a dead and unused brain, self denial, wishful thinking – you name it, it’s just about as dishonest and as stupid as it gets.

    SiliconDoc (7ba52b)

  163. Silicondoc is on a roll. He/she (it)? was hella funny! Silicone flambeed poor Dustin. He was all shook up. Hey mohn! get a clue, it’s only a discussion board, it ain’t a cure for smelly feet or dandruff. It’s a place to let yur hair down and “let er riiiiip”!

    The Rhodesian (4de175)

  164. The tragic death of Casey Anthonys daughter is shocking and sad in a numbing way, that is difficult to explain on this blog. I certainly do not agree with the verdict, which leaves me speechless, and do not endorse the point of view that silicone has taken. That said, silicone really “worked” poor Dustin. Worked him bigtime.

    The Rhodesian (4de175)

  165. Juror : “No one got up there and said Casey acted like Caylee was a burden to her and she never wanted to be a mother, nobody said that. They all said that Casey seemed to have a good relationship with her daughter and that it seemed genuine.”

    Oh my – ” I wasn’t just going to decide on speculation and emotion.”

    LOL – Or decide against the presented evidence because a bunch of raging emotional freaks scream in anger while ignoring evidence and becoming suddenly as dumb as a rock, as in “where da duct tape come from doc ? !??!! mandible, there was a piece stuck on the mandible !”

    Really, the stupidity is amazing to me.

    http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/casey-anthony-juror-jennifer-ford-prosecution-needed-solid-14016509?tab=9482931&section=1206833

    SiliconDoc (7ba52b)

  166. This bozo SiliconTwit is about as big an obnoxious jerk as we’ve seen here in some time, and his boyfriend Rhodesian is either a sockpuppet or a butt-licker. Both have identified themselves as too inconsequential and insignificant for anything but examples of angry, low-brow, loud-mouth, bottom feeders.

    STwit’s comments remind me of a 9/11 Twoofer rant.

    ropelight (1c9132)

  167. I will amend my earlier statement regarding dopelight, when I said he sounded like Shakespeare and francis bacon. Naw! he sounds just like a number of other putz’s who post here. Boo-hoo for Dustin. He loves to mock people and talk smack, yet when he gets capped on he “whines” like a baby. Dopelight, take your ball and go home, boo-hoo!

    The Rhodesian (4de175)

  168. Mandible, did you say mandible. The lower jaw is the mandible. Silicondoc is “righteous”. He wants his shot at some glory. I’m sure a lot of people slammed him. Chicken came home to roost for Dustin.

    The Rhodesian (4de175)

  169. Make that “a sockpuppet and a butt-licker.” The dim bulb now calling himself “The Rhodesian” just outed himself. He was using “O-mah” when he complimented my prose on Patterico’s “Neal Rauhauser” post on 7/5/2011.

    #249. Shakespeare and Sir Francis Bacon could not have said it better.

    Comment by O-mah — 7/6/2011 @ 11:47 am

    Case closed.

    Mommy (1c9132)

  170. OoooooooH! I’ve been outed! Whoopee! How many sockpuppet names do you post under “dopelight/JD”? Three or four that I can think of. Gee gosh golly! I’m all shook up! LOL! LOL!

    O-mah (4de175)

  171. JD/Dopelight/Mommy et al. Why don’t you go back to harassing “Yelverton” you pathetic cyberputz. We all know you are jealous of him you pathetic twit.

    O-mah (4de175)

  172. Remember when I said this is a discussion board, have some fun, just keep it light. The problem is a number of people here get real nasty and righteous. Sharing thoughts and ideas is where it’s at. I don’t like to have to get righteous and be uncharitable. Pulls me outta my center.

    O-mah (4de175)

  173. Wow, from Shakespere to cyberputz. This simpleton just can’t stop mocking himself. Must be a case of low self-esteem complicated by gender confusion.

    BTW I’ve never been confused with JD before this nutcase started yelping and running in circles chasin’ his tail.

    ropelight (1c9132)

  174. Dopelight, if yur’ not JD, you are as equally as slimy and duplicitous. Either way, you are a lowlife.

    O-mah (4de175)

  175. I’m sure you have a myriad of screwy sockpuppet names dopelight. JD being one of many..

    O-mah (4de175)

  176. Does this mean you don’t think the wit and wisdom of my comments rival those of Sir Francis Bacon any more?

    ropelight (1c9132)

  177. They never did, JD/dopelight/mommy. Yelverton should be checkin in soon, you better gear up to start slammin’ him some more. I see you don’t care for Stone or IMDW much either, wonder why?

    O-mah (4de175)

  178. Now JD/dopelight is posting as butt-licker. Methinks dopelight has a rear-end fixation

    O-mah (4de175)

  179. I would imagine dopelight and butt-licker never finished potty-training, still wearin “stork trunks”

    O-mah (4de175)

  180. O-mah-The-Rhodesian, calling you a self-outing butt-licker sure got your goat didn’t it? Well, laughingstock, since the shoe fits both your left feet, you can tap dance around and entertain the SiliconTwit.

    ropelight (1c9132)

  181. Buttlicker/JD/Dopelight. A handful of intelligent, talented people post on this blog and share information insightfully. The fact that you revel in “getting somones goat”, only confirms the fact you are a bottom-feeder and will remain as such. I love watching Yelverton make you look developmentally disabled. Who’s the laughingstock?

    O-mah (4de175)

  182. That would be you, butt-licker, or should I call you pipsqueak instead?

    ropelight (1c9132)

  183. Ropelight, it’s just a weirdo. Don’t worry about it. This loser keeps coming here, posing as a conservative, and is too stupid to avoid looking like a fake instantly.

    I found Silicon’s link very interesting and helpful in understanding why Silicon is so sure the neocons will hate these jurors. While I still have no idea why he’s talking about exporting democracy or American political change over the past 40 years, I do think he’s right. I mean, neocon or not, anyone rational will be frustrated with this jury.

    They are saying there was plenty of evidence to convict for murder… that part was proven, but because the death penalty was on the table, they couldn’t convict for that. Or lesser charges that don’t merit the death penalty. They are saying they believe this story of moving an accidentally drowned child because no one saw Casey put the corpse in her trunk… but under any theory, someone must have moved the body, so our not seeing it proves nothing.

    Frankly, the circumstantial evidence couldn’t be stronger, with Casey planning the murder, researching it, the murder taking place with physical evidence of homicide including the body being thrown out, gagged, and hidden, the further party behavior, the desperate lying. It’s just not reasonable, in my opinion to doubt this ads up to murder. The jury even seems to agree, but had a problem with the death penalty.

    Why would this case be so difficult for them? Because women are difficult to execute, especially in places like that. It’s as simple as that. We do not have a fair justice system. Had Casey been an ugly male, she’d have been convicted.

    Reasonable people disagree, though I think Silicon’s views are not reasonable. Either way, the bottom line is that Caylee Anthony was murdered and will not get justice, and I find that unamusing and not entertaining at all.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  184. BTW, I don’t think Tamandua, Rhodesian, Tifosa, etc are Yelverton socks.

    I think this person is mentioning him as misdirection, because ultimately, he’s a coward. He knows some mentioned the different sockpuppet, and hopes to create as much acrimony and lulz as possible.

    Yelverton is more of a true believer… full of rage, but interested in actually changing minds, and I hate to add, in possession of a enough intelligence to at least attempt a direct interaction with others.

    This is a completely different person.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  185. The concern about the death penalty makes no sense to me. I mean not the general concern over the aplicability in this case but the specific concern of the jurors. If the jury convicted her of first degree murder unanimously, wouldn’t they still need to unanimously recomend the death penalty? Any juror who was concerned that that punishment was unjustified would have a veto in the jury room. And it does not explain a not guilty on the two lesser charges.

    Have Blue (dbbcd4)

  186. If the jury convicted her of first degree murder unanimously, wouldn’t they still need to unanimously recomend the death penalty?

    Exactly.

    It is insane on many levels. Clearly this juror had not carefully considered what the hell was going on. If she thought murder was proven, and would vote that way but for the death penalty, naturally she should have either convicted of murder and voted for a lesser penalty, or if she’s too stupid for that, she should have convicted for a lesser crime than murder.

    And it does not explain a not guilty on the two lesser charges.

    All it shows is that the jury didn’t understand what the hell was going on.

    It’s a tremendous injustice.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  187. Dustbin, I don’t mention Yelverton as misdirection. I mention him because he excels at making you all look intellectually inferior and it is quite apparent you must be rather envious of the man, if you devote so much time to slating him. I have to wonder how anyone who reads you or dopelights’ posts can take either of you seriously. Whenever anyone disagrees you, you resort to mature, “intellectual behavior” like calling other bloggers, “buttlickers”, morons, idiots, trolls, etc. etc. See my point, or are you just to “thick”?

    O-mah (4de175)

  188. Another crazed troll with a fixation on me? How cute.

    JD (29e1cd)

  189. If you don’t want to be called a buttlicker, then stop licking Yelverton’s butt. [Sheesh! what is this, rocket science?]

    Icy Texan (07c5b7)

  190. Spoken like a true narcissist JD/dopelight.

    O-mah (4de175)

  191. JD/dopelight, why don’t you run along and lose another argument to Yelverton. I love watching him make you look more stupid than you already do.

    O-mah (4de175)

  192. Narcissist? How so? I have not even addressed you prior to this, after reading you ranting and raving about me, and admitting to posting under a variety of names, and it is somehow my issue? Our host can clear show how effing wrong you are in your baseless claims of sockpuppetry on my part. As for your brown-nosing the racist midget hilljack, well that is just funny.

    JD (85b089)

  193. Narcissist? How so? I have not even addressed you prior to this, after reading you ranting and raving about me, and admitting to posting under a variety of names, and it is somehow my issue? Our host can clear show how effing wrong you are in your baseless claims of sockpuppetry on my part. As for your brown-nosing the racist midget hilljack, well that is just funny.

    JD (b98cae)

  194. I get a charge out of watching Yelverton manhandle “yokels” like jd/dopelight.

    O-mah (4de175)

  195. JD, I thought your vocabulary was bigger than that. Yelverton never resorts to name calling, he just calmly and intellectually “grinds you and your intellectual inferiors into fine dust”. It’s almost embarassing to watch you get mauled this way.

    O-mah (4de175)

  196. Shorter version: O-mah gets a charge out of man-handling.

    Icy Texan (07c5b7)

  197. This is brilliant comedy/satire. Truly. Yelverton is too much of a coward to even post under his name, much less form an argument beyond copypasta thinkregress talking points. Or to call people racists. Or display his hatred of christians.

    Please keep commenting. Your cries for attention from me and willie the racist hilljack are hysterical.

    JD (29e1cd)

  198. As for your brown-nosing the racist midget hilljack, well that is just funny.

    Comment by JD

    He doesn’t care that it looks sycophantic and pathetic because it’s a misdirection.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  199. If I had a dollar for everytime you called a person “racist” JD, I would be a wealthy man. Does your duplicity ever end?

    O-mah (4de175)

  200. Being tone-deaf is yet another cute characteristic of yours.

    Have you ever read the text below the Submit Comment button?

    JD (85b089)

  201. If I had a dollar for every time JD wasn’t joking when he called someone a racist, I would have two dollars. Maybe three.

    O-Mah, you just aren’t smart enough to pretend to be conservative. That time you were screaming about how I wasn’t conservative enough for your tolerance, and your later apology, begging us to get along… that all came across as incredibly fake.

    I don’t care if you want to play pretend. I realize you are intimidated by us, which is why you resort to any tactic other than a direct debate. But I would really like it if your personas were a little more realistic. It’s just that you’re pretty boring.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  202. i mean, this ‘I love Yelverton’ persona is even lamer than the ‘I hate porn’ one (what’s with you clowns and porn, anyway?)

    What’s next? How about this: come as you are, and debate politics directly, and if you can’t win the debate, change your mind about politics and vote for Republicans.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  203. That is just silly talk, Dustin.

    JD (b98cae)

  204. Here’s a Greasemonkey script to ignore O-mah/Rhodesian and EPWJ.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  205. That was pretty funny “swillhouse”, almost as funny as you trying to wax theological. You must have purchased your theology degree from the back of a match book cover, along with your sense of humor. The only charmer that hasn’t come in for his pound of flesh is “Daleypox”, I’d imagine he’s on the way.

    O-mah (4de175)

  206. The problem with debating you “dustbin” is that a spirited conversation devolves into childish name-calling. Your last attempt at debating the qualities of Nixons presidency wasn’t worth the effort. You casually dismissed his foreign policy as being almost irrelevant. Strange, I thought half of the presidents job description was foreign policy and overseas diplomacy. You, a republican of all people should have known that!

    O-mah (4de175)

  207. So, what other names have you sock puppeted under?

    JD (b98cae)

  208. You casually dismissed his foreign policy as being almost irrelevant. Strange

    I never said anything of the sort. I realize you know that. You did a similar thing when telling me you knew all these porn stars and how you can tell I’m not a real conservative.

    It’s pretty clear you’re totally intimidated by the prospect of an honest debate on any issue. As soon as you’re challenged, you put that clown nose on and start lying.

    I think Milhouse’s advice is wise.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  209. I would love to understand the psychology behind the multiple sock puppets, repeated reincarnations after being banned, commenting where unwelcome, etc …

    JD (d48c3b)

  210. Not half as many as you JD. Go debate your friend Yelverton, I love watching him “flay” you.

    O-mah (4de175)

  211. Lie. On many levels. Are you like 5 years old? Just make stuff up? The next time Yelverton “flays” anything will be the first time. Usually your type are just brown-nosers, but you appear to be trying for the brown-head.

    JD (d48c3b)

  212. I watched silicone dismantle you into so many little pieces dustbin it was embarassing! Why debate a troll like you? You can’t be intellectually honest enough to ever admit your wrong, and nobody “my friend” is right all of the time, not even me..

    O-mah (4de175)

  213. Well, to be fair, a lot of the trolls have felt compelled to post as me, so technically, there have been many posting under my name. It is an odd quirk.

    JD (b98cae)

  214. Yeah, JD has some kind of troll infuriating mojo I couldn’t hope to emulate. It’s pretty funny how desperate O-mah is to take him down. Even funnier how pathetic the attempt so far as been.

    Hey, JD, you’re really ropelight! Wicked Burn!

    And I’ll use quotation marks stupidly! PWNED!!!

    Anyway, O mah cannot resist exposing how intimidated he is by the prospect of a simple open debate. That seems to be a theme on the coffee party left these days. So hyper to hurt people instead of interfacing with them openly. They have weighed their ideas and found them so light even they don’t take them seriously.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  215. The only reason you haven’t been banned JD is because you float money to keep these blogs afloat. If not, you would have been sent packin’ a long time ago. I bet the attorneys and academicians who read your nonsense and post on this (and other sites), think you are a nutcase along with your pack of mangy hounds, who travel in your polluted wake. But, like I say “you pay”, you continue to play..

    O-mah (4de175)

  216. Oh, by the way dustbin, nobody is trying to take anyone down. You see it’s simple, you bully’s get your jollies steamrolling other people on this and other sites. I’m just responding to the juvenile mumbo-jumbo JD and his ilk continue to post along with yourself. Simple. I wasn’t the one to throw the first stone, I just didn’t “roll-over” after you and your buddies launched em’. This is only stating the obvious.

    O-mah (4de175)

  217. Anyways, “good evening you charming people”. I have to get packing, my wife and I are going on vacation tomorrow. We leave for Hawaii!Yippee!

    O-mah (4de175)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7989 secs.