They missed a shit load of computer search evidence that Baez was waiting for them to bring up.
Prosecution team in the Casey Anthony trial fucked up big time
|by Anonymous||reply 34||11/21/2012|
Beat by bozo Baez. Thanks Florida!
|by Anonymous||reply 1||11/21/2012|
"Beat by bozo Baez."
Please, like it was the prosecution's fault that the jurors were retarded.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||11/21/2012|
Yea, R2, keep saying that if it makes you happy. That jury was surprisingly smart. They didn't fall for all the publicity and the public lynch mentality that was everywhere. They particularly saw right through the bullshit "expert" evidence the prosecution tried to foist on them. "Experts" who were soundly debunked both in qualifications and in the unsound opinions and conclusions they proffered as evidence.
That jury looked at the evidence that was presented and realized it didn't come to much. They were right and, I might add, rather courageous. You cannot convict people on speculation and your hatred of someone.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||11/21/2012|
[quote]There was an oversight,” said sheriff’s Capt. Angelo Nieves, confirming that the agency tried and failed to extract information that would have revealed the entire Internet browsing history for that day. “This has been a learning experience for investigators as well.”
Could the residents of Florida be any more embarrassed? Having an adequate# of polling places, counting ballots, figuring out a simple browser history.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||11/21/2012|
Oh please R3 the woman was guilty as sin.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||11/21/2012|
"You cannot convict people on speculation and your hatred of someone."
But you CAN bomb their country and make up lies about WMDs!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 6||11/21/2012|
Computer search = nothing.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||11/21/2012|
[quote]Oh please [R3] the woman was guilty as sin.
Well thank you Nancy Grace for that expect analysis.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||11/21/2012|
[quote] the woman was guilty as sin
R5, that's not the point and I hope you are educated enough to know that.
No more stupid comments from you.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||11/21/2012|
Oh my. Do we have a Casey Anthony apologist troll?
|by Anonymous||reply 10||11/21/2012|
R2, I was referring to both the people (jurors) and the government, including the dumb cops who didn't find the damning info. Did you actually read the article? You must be a native Floridian. Congratulations! Now put down the meth/crackpipe/bath salts. Please.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||11/21/2012|
This woman, regardless of the evidence or lack of it that supported the fact of her killing her daughter, should be given support, sympathy and consideration. After all, she is a mother who has lost her child, the hardest experience a person can have.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||11/21/2012|
Does everyone understand that committing a criminal act and being found guilty for a crime are two completely different things?
R5: To be found guilty, the prosecution had to establish that Casey Anthony did it, establish that fact beyond a reasonable douby to a jury of her peers, according to the rules of evidence.
The prosecution did not do that so she is not guilty. It is of no significance that she did it, unless you want a society without laws.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||11/21/2012|
"That jury was surprisingly smart."
ROFLMAO. Baez went for jurors with no education beyond high school.
Only someone with no common sense would agree with you.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||11/21/2012|
Common sense does not track education closely.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||11/21/2012|
"You cannot convict people on speculation and your hatred of someone."
Speculation? ROFLMAO. Hilarious that you believe her lies about Casey drowning.
"You must be a native Floridian. Congratulations! Now put down the meth/crackpipe/bath salts"
Look who's talking, redneck retard.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||11/21/2012|
"That jury looked at the evidence that was presented and realized it didn't come to much."
Yes. It's very common when someone goes missing to wait thirty days to phone the police.
Care to explain that, Einstein?
|by Anonymous||reply 17||11/21/2012|
CHAMPAGNE JAMBOREE! BIG PICTURE WINDOW!
|by Anonymous||reply 18||11/21/2012|
If anything, the ruling should prove that America is a class-free society. Not only are the rich capable of getting away with murder but the poor trailer trash can do it, too.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||11/21/2012|
I still think the procecution made one big mistake by going for a murder conviction with a possible death penalty attached to it. They had a dead kid and a dislikable mother but no real proof of murder. They probably thought conviction by a media jury would spill over into conviction by a real jury.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||11/21/2012|
[quote] Well thank you Nancy Grace for that expect analysis.
What did you expect, expert? An expectedly expert analysis. Or an acceptably expert expectation?
|by Anonymous||reply 21||11/21/2012|
Are you kidding, R12? The fraus were the ones baying for blood!
|by Anonymous||reply 22||11/21/2012|
If I had been a juror I would have found her guilty with the evidence presented.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||11/21/2012|
Then, R23, you'd have been wrong.
Lots of idiotic nonsense on this thread. Name calling doesn't exactly move the discussion forward. It's hard to have an intelligent discussion about Anthony or the trial because the screaming banshee fraus and the whoevers can't stop drooling and spinning long enough to use their heads.
And I mean Linda Blair spinning.
Don't they teach basic civics in school anymore and what it takes to convict people? And for all those mocking an attorney who won a murder trial with maybe the most despised mother in eons and a sweet little innocent murdered child - well, sweeties, you DO that. He fucking won the case. Despite the enormous odds - he won. I think people felt comfortable dissing him because he's Latino and not with a top tier law firm.
I read the article and you really can't tell much from it. There are dozens of questions that arise from this so called new "evidence" which, if can't be answered fully or accurately, will make this evidence as unconvincing as that already presented at trial.
For instance, the cell tower "pinging" as a way to calcluate someone's location is tricky and subject to interpretation and is not always accurate as to location. I just had a CLE in this and there are lots of ways this could be wrong or very inaccurate.
You know for people who act skeptical about the ground beneath their feet it always surprises me what mindless sheep some become when a prosecutor presents evdience - even against someone they hate.
It's one thing to suspect she did it and it's another to prove it.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||11/21/2012|
r17, it is a common mistake that many, many LEOs still make.
Just because you are a psychopath, does not make you a) a murderer or b) the murderer in the specific case under investigation.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||11/21/2012|
R22, I was just gonna say... the fraus were the most outraged by the verdict. They did not side one bit with Anthony.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||11/21/2012|
You can find someone guilty on circumstancial evidence. And they should have.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||11/21/2012|
"Lots of idiotic nonsense on this thread."
I agree. You should stop posting.
"it is a common mistake that many, many LEOs still make."
Waiting that long is not a "common mistake". Did you take a short bus to school?
I've yet to read a somewhat intelligent explanation as to why this woman waited so long to report A CHILD missing. Maybe I would buy the waiting excuse if the deceased in question were an adult who had not had much contact with the family.
A child? And NO ONE in the family thought it wise to phone the police in all of those days.
The lawyer couldn't even explain that one, and had to throw up the "She was abused" card to skirt the issue.
You think the law was right in the case, then you can explain why the family waited so long. Not to mention how she could bring herself to go out and party not knowing if her child was alive or not.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||11/21/2012|
[quote] You can find someone guilty on circumstancial evidence
You have to understand the difference between speculation and circumstantial evidence. You don't. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Her failure to contact authorities may prove her a negligent mother but it didn't tie her sufficiently to the crime. When a child is neglected or essentially abandoned - even for a short period of time - then it is easy for bad things to befall them.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||11/21/2012|
"Her failure to contact authorities may prove her a negligent mother"
That is being negligent, dear. Do you know what the word means? You sound unsure. Not good if you're trying to prove a point.
"When a child is neglected or essentially abandoned - even for a short period of time - then it is easy for bad things to befall them."
Number one, that response is sorely lacking in any kind of depth. And drop the hyperbole. Plus, it still doesn't fully answer the question posed by R28. It doesn't bring into play any one of the family members who could have called the police.
Furthermore, actions say a lot. Most negligent mothers still wouldn't wait thirty one days to report a child missing. Nor would their family memebers.
You're going to have to try much harder to convince people otherwise. So far, what I've read is incredibly weak.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||11/21/2012|
The issue is not whether or not she is "negligent"; it is whether or not she is a psychopath.
Psychopaths could easily wait that long before calling police because they don't give a shit what happened to the kid. They'll take care of the kid's basic needs and pretend to love her/him in order to achieve positive rewards *for themselves*. Otherwise, they are incapable of feeling empathy and genuinely caring for another person, even their own child(ren).
As to the other family members, they could have been told various lies by the parent, or they don't want to face the fact their relative is a murderer, or a combination of the two.
I can't remember the details of the case, i.e. what family member knew what and when.
The bottom line is, she could be a horrible psychopath, but actually only be responsible for neglect if it turned out the kid got grabbed by a pedo, or died an accidental death.
I am NOT saying I believe she was innocent, just that displaying odd parental behaviour, even that extreme, doesn't automatically mean she is a murderer. The case had to prove their case, as someone upthread said, according to the law and the rules of evidence.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||11/21/2012|
The State had to prove its case...
|by Anonymous||reply 32||11/21/2012|
Oh YES. Si, si! Miss Casey inn-uh-sin. Si. Miss Casey--she good mamacita. Good mamacita. If I no have the baby for thirty days, she no wait so long to call the police.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||11/21/2012|
I have always felt there was an accident and Casey knew Mom and Dad would rip her a new one for anything happening to their darling grandchild so she decided to live on borrowed time. Narcissists do this, my sister is one. She lies like a pro and deceives at every opportunity. Even over things that don't really matter. Her life is just one long lie. Casey reminded me greatly of my sister. And like my sister she has become unable to live without the lies and can't even really understand what truth is any more.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||11/21/2012|