| Author |
Message |
    
Dynasport
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2011 - 04:59 pm: | 
|
Sifo, in a word, no. |
Xdigitalx
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2011 - 05:08 pm: |
|
The jury decided she did not commit 1st degree murder.
My thoughts:
1. someone put her in the trunk of the car so they could do drugs or whatnot, maybe she was being a brat and the duct tape was to keep her quiet. (so they could continue to party or whatnot) they put her in the trunk and thats where she died.
2. Same as above but that someone got really mad at the brat, snapped out and killed her. (so they could continue to party or whatnot)
3. Child was found in pool by someone and that same someone panicked like a hit-and-run and got another someone to help dispose of the body.
4. I think it is quite possible at least one other person (George and/or Cindy) were also involved in the cover up.
It really could have happened anywhere but most likely one of 3 places, at the home, in the car or in the pool.
I hope she does get rich and donates some of it to good causes.
She will have to protect herself from the freaks too though.
Does Fiji have any Islands for sale? |
Pwnzor
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2011 - 05:17 pm: |
|
Those 12 people agreed unanimously that the state didn't meet the burden of proof. Nothing I saw was particularly compelling to me, so we differ in opinion.
I believe she is guilty as hell. Still I think the system worked. This time. Unfortunately, it mostly doesn't. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2011 - 05:34 pm: |
|
My thoughts:
1. someone put her in the trunk of the car so they could do drugs or whatnot, maybe she was being a brat and the duct tape was to keep her quiet. (so they could continue to party or whatnot) they put her in the trunk and thats where she died.
There were 3 strips of duct tape stuck together. That's more than enough to completely cover the nose and mouth of an adult, much less a small child. Is it really reasonable to believe that someone would take a small child, chloroform her, duct tape her face and stuff her into the trunk of a car and call it an accidental death? That would be an absolutely hideous inhuman killing. They have laws that will jail you for doing that to a dog.
2. Same as above but that someone got really mad at the brat, snapped out and killed her. (so they could continue to party or whatnot)
See last sentence above.
3. Child was found in pool by someone and that same someone panicked like a hit-and-run and got another someone to help dispose of the body.
Offering the slightest bit of evidence that she was found in the pool would have offered reasonable doubt. No evidence of such so no reasonable doubt. She could also have been abducted and killed by space aliens.
4. I think it is quite possible at least one other person (George and/or Cindy) were also involved in the cover up.
This would just add conspiracy charges to the mix. There was plenty of evidence that they were deceived though. Either way this wasn't their trial. |
Xdigitalx
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2011 - 06:04 pm: |
|
Is it really reasonable to believe that someone would take a small child, chloroform her, duct tape her face and stuff her into the trunk of a car and call it an accidental death?
Very hideous, but no proof that Casey or George or Cindy or Lee did it. None. Prosicution had no case, why didn't they realize this?
I hope it was at least close to idea #3. Whether it was the pool or someone dropped her on her head or fell they asleep on her and sufficated her, maybe she got into the cubbard under the sink and sucked down some draino.... doesn't matter. Those would be accidents.
I don't know what happened and maybe none of us will ever know what really happened. |
Ourdee
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2011 - 06:24 pm: |
|
Need to take a better look at the guy that "found the body". |
Sifo
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2011 - 06:41 pm: |
|
Very hideous, but no proof that Casey or George or Cindy or Lee did it. None.
The duct tapes points to it not being an accidental death. There's no reason to put tape over the mouth and nose of a dead child. The tape uses was also tied to her household. The fact that the mother covered up the "disappearance" shows that she was involved. Chloroform in the trunk also points to non-accidental death. Chloroform searches on the mothers computer also link her to the crime. The mothers story about making those searches was total debunked by her work records. The computer records, chloroform residue, and tape are all physical evidence that ties her to the crime. In total there is quite compelling evidence of a killing. What is completely lacking is evidence of anything else. |
Dynasport
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2011 - 06:47 pm: |
|
Good grief, I really can't understand some of the statements here. Such as, "I believe she is guilty as hell. Still I think the system worked. This time. Unfortunately, it mostly doesn't."
If she is guilty, the system didn't work. How you can believe both is beyond me. One of the goals of the system is to convict guilty people.
And the cover up went way beyond a hit and run panic. She partied for a month. She lied over and over. How you can give any credibility to any alternative theory her defense team put forth without any support is beyond me. There was chloroform in the trunk. Her mouth was taped with duct tape. How does that mesh with an accidental drowning?
Wake up people!
I'm done. This is only frustrating me. |
Xdigitalx
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2011 - 07:00 pm: |
|
*The fact that the mother covered up the "disappearance" shows that she was involved.
No... just that she didn't care much.
*Chloroform in the trunk also points to non-accidental death.
*Chloroform searches
Points to yes, but doesn't prove it.
*In total there is quite compelling evidence of a killing. What is completely lacking is evidence of anything else.
By who, with what, and how... exactly??
quite compelling ...yes,.. but beyond any reasonable doubt?? No, the verdict shows that answer. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2011 - 07:14 pm: |
|
Points to yes, but doesn't prove it.
And that's the problem. People wanting a single piece of evidence that proves what happened beyond any doubt. Welcome to the CSI world. |
Kenm123t
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2011 - 07:28 pm: |
|
Leonard Padilla the tracker bounty hunter stated on a local WFTL 850 am that the meter readers G/F works at the jail and was sent out to find Caylee Leos supposedly listened in when Baez was talking to Casey they knew where she was but couldnt use the info directly. You can tune on the web at 9 am eastern to hear the rest of the interview. Sounds wild but explains why Kronk an ex bail bondsman was sent out of his work area. |
Xdigitalx
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2011 - 07:38 pm: |
|
wow ken...
yea... didn't that meter reader guy have to call 2 times (separate days) to get the police out there? Maybe they hope to split the 25 million...25 ways... |
Kenm123t
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2011 - 07:46 pm: |
|
I didnt hear all of the interview but its interesting. Padilla is the guy that came in to hunt for Caylee and was working with the police etc. Time will tell how it turns out. The Orlando PD is just pitiful did you hear the Chief after the verdict sounded like the credits of a hip hop video |
Xdigitalx
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2011 - 09:39 pm: |
|
And that's the problem. People wanting a single piece of evidence that proves what happened beyond any doubt.
Thats why I brought up Scott Peterson case. Circumstantial evidence convicted him, no actual proof of murder. Was CSI Miami around then? (09/23/02)
The Casey Anthony Jury did exactly what the Judge told them. I do hope they find out the truth someday. |
Court
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2011 - 10:20 pm: |
|
I saw "Juror #3" on the tube ....... I'm damn glad she's not my "peer" .... Gal seems like an idiot. |
Davegess
| | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2011 - 12:22 am: |
|
The jury decided. That is it. You and I did not sit there for days and days and see all the evidence and hear all the arguments. Not a perfect system but the best there is. It would be hard for you or I to see all the evidence and arguments presented.
Sifo, I to was never called for jury duty in 4o plus years as a registered voter and them BOOM 3 times in 3 years. Just chance i think. |
Pwnzor
| | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2011 - 08:54 am: |
|
Apparently Dyna just wants to be right... entitled to his opinion, he is... change mine, it does not.
Can't understand simple english? My statements were quite plain. MY opinion, like YOUR opinion, means nothing. WE only know what the media has shown us.
I don't watch any of that CSI crap. |
Pwnzor
| | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2011 - 09:02 am: |
|
And another thing, Dyna...
The system is designed to convict people who are proven guilty. Nobody else.
Just look at all the people now being exonerated by DNA after spending half their lives in prison.
It's not healthy, in my opinion, for people to get all emotional about things like this. We were not there. We did not see. We do not know. Period.
Want to see actual guilty people? Watch Cops. Great show. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2011 - 08:21 pm: |
|
Just look at all the people now being exonerated by DNA after spending half their lives in prison.
DNA almost never exonerates anyone of a crime. It can certainly point to guilt, but almost never to innocence.
Cases that are overturned on DNA evidence are usually cases where there are numerous pieces of the puzzle where the carrier of the DNA is just one piece. Take that one piece out and you still are likely to find a person guilty. The problem is that years after the fact the jury that heard the evidence is long gone, so the only solution is to free someone. This is far from exoneration.
For some reason that I just can't fathom, the almost certainty of DNA evidence has been used as an argument against the death penalty. Logic should work in the reverse. The more certain we can be of the guilt, the more assured we can be that the person being punished is guilty. Somehow we have perverted logic to the point that the ability to better determine guilt or innocence means that we must hand out less harsh punishments to those who are guilty to a point of scientific certainty.
Want to see actual guilty people? Watch Cops. Great show.
I thought you had to be proven guilty in the court of law??? |
|
