PDA

View Full Version : Casey Anthony trial



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 [60] 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68

BaileyCatts
07-09-2011, 03:56 AM
Even Casey was texting a friend about a 'dead squirrel' being plastered to the frame of her car right before she abandoned it. Sorry, didn't mean to write such a macabre post :shuffle:

Only quoting this because of what you say about the dead squirrel, not questioning anything you are saying. I own and drive the exact same make and model Pontiac Sunfire that Casey's car is. It's sitting in my garage right now. There is no way in effing hell that a dead squirrel would be "plastered to the frame of her car" as she claims. The frame sits too high off the ground for a small animal the size of a squirrel to ever be "plastered to the frame". If driving down the round and a squirrel darts in the road, the frame would not even hit the squirrel, its too high. That whole story she told is complete and total pure BS. But then again, so is just about everything else that comes outta her mouth.

BaileyCatts
07-09-2011, 04:03 AM
Anytime there is a drowning or near drowning of a child, there will be a police investigation. Always. If a child dies in a pool, it's very rare for someone not to be charged in connection to that. Since pools are supposed to be secured, a child's death is evidence of both neglect and reckless child endangerment or manslaughter. The issue becomes not if someone will be charged, but who and with what. Any police officer would know this.

No argument there. But these people in the story from my city did not pull the kids out of the pool, duct tape their mouths shut, triple bag them in garbage bags, and throw them in a swamp and continue to live their lives. They immediately called 911 as soon as they were discovered, one woman even ran screaming into the street and stopped a passing car whose driver tried CPR on the kids until medics arrived. They didn't try to cover up a drowning accident.

As to the investigation into that story, I haven't heard anything further in the local news about it, other than the boys spent several days in the hospital in critical condition, and both died a few days later. So initial attempts to revive them did work.

MacMadame
07-09-2011, 05:37 AM
whole post

Oh, okay... I must have misremembered what I read. Thanks for the correction.

Sasha'sSpins
07-09-2011, 06:45 AM
You must not have seen the rest of the comments where this was already addressed.I doubt they will make a fuss over her except to make her pay back the tax payers. I'm sure they don't want her making any money on this. She has quite a bill to pay back I'm sure. Hopefully they will make it a crime not to report your child missing although it's sad they even have too.

No I didn't or I wouldn't have responded. I can't go through every single post in this thread but I did try to skim over it as best I could. :rolleyes:


he and his father certainly enjoy being on tv

on one hand, he says that her mom yelled at her for not supporting her child etc. honestly, i cant imagine not being yelled at if i didn't graduate, couldn't produce income from my fake job, stole from my family and basically emotionally blackmailed them into supporting my child.

then he says that casey borrowed money and then paid him with a check that bounced and that she lied to him about being the father of the baby. i can't imagine any mother not being completely frustrated and angry over how she was living her life.

THIS!

I think NG needs to get off her high horse. She knows she's salivating to get the Anthony's on to her show along with every one else who has a show. If Casey were to agree to come on to her show I fear Nancy would pee her pants from the excitement.

cruisin
07-09-2011, 01:49 PM
As for the evidence that a body was in the trunk, they actually did find exactly those things that you list - volatile fatty acids that are present with human decomposition, coffin flies and other bugs that are attracted to decaying tissue (sorry I know that's gross). As for the smell, the smell of death is really, really distinctive. So much so that it's impossible to confuse it with something else, to my nose at least.

Yes, I read all of that too. But, didn't they disprove, or at least make questionable this part? They said that it is actually impossible for humans to distinguish between various kinds of decay - human/animal/garbage. That it is even difficult for dogs. I also think that the bugs they found were all in the bag that contained the trash, that none of them were found outside the bag. They determined that had a body been in the trunk there would have been more bugs and they would have been all over the trunk. There was also something about the type of bug, that it was not necessarily specific to human decomposition, but would be present in that situation.

I think this is all part of why the jury didn't convict her. It seems that there were other explanations for almost everything the prosecution put out there. As we've all said already, they over charged her. Had they not gone for the death penalty, and made such a spectacle of it, had they not promised such hard evidence and not been able to provide it, they might have gotten a conviction.

MacMadame
07-09-2011, 02:22 PM
No I didn't or I wouldn't have responded. I can't go through every single post in this thread but I did try to skim over it as best I could. :rolleyes:

You're :rolleyes: at them when you admit you don't read every post in the thread? Well :rolleyes: right back at ya then, because it's lame to make it seem like it's unreasonable to be expected read a thread you are participating in.

judiz
07-09-2011, 04:03 PM
What also upsets is that the jury never asked to see any of the evidence or go over the testimony before coming to their conclusion. I honestly don't know how you can judge someone without examing the evidence.

bek
07-09-2011, 04:11 PM
What also upsets is that the jury never asked to see any of the evidence or go over the testimony before coming to their conclusion. I honestly don't know how you can judge someone without examing the evidence.

Easily if you have already decided you don't by the prosecution's case. They heard all of the evidence, and came to a conclusion after hearing it that they don't buy the case. There's no point in spending days looking over the evidence, if they don't buy the evidence.

PrincessLeppard
07-09-2011, 04:28 PM
I think this is all part of why the jury didn't convict her. It seems that there were other explanations for almost everything the prosecution put out there.

But were those other explanations reasonable? (I don't know. I didn't follow the case.) The defense lawyer in the case I was on presented an alternative scenario also, but it made no sense when given all the other evidence (which was mostly circumstantial).

I do agree that she was over-charged, given the little reading I've done.

Marge_Simpson
07-09-2011, 04:45 PM
Casey will be deposed next week in Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez's civil suit:
http://www.forthepeople.com/casey-anthony-case.htm

GaPeach
07-09-2011, 04:53 PM
I was listening to the CF-News 13 link on the above link:

John Morgan Interview on CF-News 13
-- in which he says this deposition will happen sometime. They've set this for July 19th, as 'the state may still appeal' their case and they will have to wait through that if it happens.


Can the State appeal???

sliver98
07-09-2011, 05:02 PM
No they cannot it is over she was acquitted move on.

cruisin
07-09-2011, 05:04 PM
But were those other explanations reasonable? (I don't know. I didn't follow the case.) The defense lawyer in the case I was on presented an alternative scenario also, but it made no sense when given all the other evidence (which was mostly circumstantial).

I do agree that she was over-charged, given the little reading I've done.

I think that the prosecution took too much liberty in constructing their scenarios, especially in the summation and rebuttal. I think she's guilty and I kept thinking how can they make statements like that, when they don't know what really happened. I think the circumstantial evidence might have gotten a manslaughter or reckless endangerment, but they were far to enthusiastic about the murder one and death penalty. I think they screwed their own case.


I was listening to the CF-News 13 link on the above link:

John Morgan Interview on CF-News 13
-- in which he says this deposition will happen sometime. They've set this for July 19th, as 'the state may still appeal' their case and they will have to wait through that if it happens.


Can the State appeal???

I don't think so :confused:

GaPeach
07-09-2011, 05:06 PM
I don't think so :confused:

I didn't think so either--but John Morgan is a good lawyer and it is weird he would make a mistake like that.:confused:

Latte
07-09-2011, 05:36 PM
Could they go after her for Child Endangerment or Child Neglect? How about Abuse Of A Corpse?