The Great Debate: Casey Anonthy

I could not agree more. Regardless of the subject matter this annoying opinionated *** pisses me off.

It's hard to imagine psychotic pundits blanketing the airwaves, screaming for an execution years before a verdict is handed down, wouldn't alter a jury's opinion at least a little.

Potentially in the other direction, if the pundit is thoroughly unlikable enough, and the jurors are trying to prove they aren't manipulated by public/media opinion.

The greatest tragedy in this trial was sadly not the verdict.
Rather, it was the prosecution wasting taxpayer money attempting to convict the accused on capital charges when they severely lacked direct evidence.

When you know you have "warning track power", you don't swing for the fences.

This.

I guess the media went into a self-righteous frenzy while I was diligently ignoring it again.

I normally refrain from saying things like this ... but seriously, are you just trollin'?

Laws preventing Double jeopardy are crucial to promote efficiency (lol, I know) of the judicial system and to protect vital freedoms.

If we didn't have such protection, the State would be able to just constantly re-try and re-try cases until they find a jury that is willing to convict someone who would have been exonerated at least once already.

Ok, for starters, why would she go to great lengths to hide her daughter's body??? ( wrong answer... McFly!!! If you were hiding the body, this raises all suspicion and would def. make the courts think?? Why did you even touch the body in the first place? Did you move it from the scene of the crime in the first place? Why??

2nd, didn't she say she went out with her girlfriends to a niteclub and come home to her daughters dead body??? Doofus, have you heard of a babysitter?? To Cheap to get one... So DON'T HAVE BABIES... If you're original plan is to continue partying after the fact... You're supposed to have that out of your system, by the time you even get knocked up..... DUMBS_ _t!

The pity card was well over played on this one. Double Jeopardy means that she cannot be tried twice for the same crime. Def, injustice here. I believe that there is insufficient investigation here on this case, and somehow with a burdon of proof or beyond reasonable doubt, that she did it, and investigators Eff'd up.

This case will def. be revisited. COLD CASE!!!!!



Justice has always been blind.... shrugs. Go figure!

Your father?

If the gloves don't fit

She`ll be tried again. Not by the courts but by the public and the media, since they seem to have decided she`s guilty.

Forgive my ignorance of the story, I've only read the basics but pretty much this.

If she's been acquitted of the crime, then that's that. The media has set out to make her look like a pathetic excuse for a human being and in that regard, mission accomplished.

The public's opinion of her will either ruin her life or make her famous (and knowing society, it'll be the latter). Hopefully people will have the sense to not encourage her to write a book or something and just leave her to fade into obscurity.

If she is guilty, then I hope her conscience eventually makes her snap.

A friend of mine sent me this image.



I didn't follow the trial too closely, but I can not believe a mother would not call the cops when their child was missing. It just doesn't comprehend for me. That in my mind makes me believe she should at least do some jail time, no matter if she is really guilty of the murder or not.

They definitely tried to appeal to emotions through circumstantial evidence alone. You can't convict, especially on Murder in the 1st, on just circumstantial, though I personally thought Casey would get 2nd degree.

One thing that bugged me though, was pigface Nancy Grace going on about "THE CHLORAFORM SEARCHES ARE TEH PROOFEZ LOLZ KILL HER LOLZ", claiming that there "Was no reason" to search for it.

Maybe I'm alone, but I've searched Obscure ***before, just out of curiosity. Am I going to be convicted of First Degree Murder in 5 years, because I searched "Dagger" or "Renal Artery", and someone a block away got stabbed in the kidney?

Probably one of my favorite episodes of Penn and Teller: ***. (Criminal Justice)

Brings a lot of good points about prosecutorial over zealousness and misconduct.

iirc. Some guy she knew posted some comic on his MySpace and the punchline had to do with chloroform... or something like that.

and something about her mom actually searched it.

idk. both the prosecution and defense are an embarassment to the legal system.

I agree with the verdict. I think that there wasn't enough evidence to prove that she was guilty. I'm sick of people screaming over the verdict, saying that they just know that she is guilty, when they probably didn't even watch one minute of the trial.

I couldn't agree more. . .
The defending attorney compiled a compelling defense, in my opinion.

This is how I feel, people love to forget the simple ideal behind our justice system.. innocent until proven guilty and guilty beyond a reasonable doubt come to mind.. all these people made up their mind based off what the media told them and the fact that she made some really bad decisions.

Sure, she probably did it, but it needs to be proven before she is convicted, the jurors are the ones who sat through all of the testimonies and evidence they are much more suited to make judgement than most of the people sharing their opinions on the case.

I feel it is better to let a guilty man walk free, than imprison an innocent person. I'd be a terrible prosecutor, though pretty much everyone I met, thinks I'd make a fantastic defense attorney, because of my ability to argue just for it's own sake.

At least if you let the guilty person walk, the investigation of the crime still continues, if you convict an innocent for a crime, you stop looking for the real perpetrator, and they're free to *** up the world for years to come.

Lol you have they Casey haters, which well I don't hate her myself, but if they want to be mad, I don't blame them (though she got the correct verdict)

Then you have the people saying the jury should be shot. This scares me (not literally, but as an expression) with our Americans. The number of people willing to throw someone's life away based on circumstantial evidence and wanting death to those who judged based on the facts and what could/could not be proven.

She's gonna be killed regardless. Lol, have a strange feeling bad luck will come this girl's way one way or another. But thats just me, i beleive in karma AND IT CAN BE A ***!

lol..lmfao

I'm more on the opinion that if the day after the trial they find the smoking gun (Serious new evidence) that a person should be re-try

example: Person says she was at work from 1pm-10pm so its impossible for this person to commit the crime

Then we find out after the trial she messed with the clock in and out time at work and actually left at 6pm and with the new evidence we find the gun as well with the person finger prints on the weapon

We should be able to go back to trial

I get the point of double jeopardy

She's gonna get very rich off of this and if she's smart, she'll take the money and go off far away and live somewhere where she's unknown and never have to work another day in her life.

That's so very likely, but I don't think people will let her get away with this completely without something happening. But it might die out like the rest of these crazy *** stories. O well

I was just gonna say how she was gonna get rich off this... What people don't realize is they are going to make her rich by making this such a huge media sensation...

If evidence is found over 2 years after a crime was committed than the prosecution and police failed hard. There are obviously exceptions to the rule but generally speaking by the time a case hits trial this type of stuff should be sorted out.

whats wrong with killing her own kid?

isn't that how it goes "i brought you into this world, i can damn sure take you out of it!"

Marvin Gaye's dad did it.

Agreed X 100%, Zic.
Like I said, the prosecution probably knew damn well they were taking a huge gamble by seeking 1st-degree murder conviction (based on the spotty evidence they had). If they did not know that, then shame on them for being incompetent.

I can not stomach Nancy Grace; she's a freak and a clown, in my opinion. Regarding the internet searches for "chloroform", I can't believe the prosecution would even waste their breath putting that into evidence without corroborating direct (hard) evidence.
For example, if someone goes to a Walmart that sells guns, that's not evidence that s/he shot someone. If someone visits a whorehouse, that's not evidence that s/he solicited prostitution. Likewise, if I tabbed away from this website right now and cued up 10 Google searches for "automatic weapons", and then someone random ends up dead on my lawn tomorrow morning with automatic rifle slugs in his chest, my Google searches are not evidence.

Laypersons may be ignorant to this, but you bet your *** that lawyers, especially criminal prosecutors, damned-well know this.

Actually, depending on the presiding judge, many jurisdictions do allow for re-trail in such a case. "Double Jeopardy" (to my knowledge) disallows the government from re-trying the accused based on the SAME evidence presented in a previous trial that resulted in a "not guilty" verdict.

Unless the "statue of limitations" expires on a criminal investigation, it's possible for the government to re-try a previously-exonerated person if there is COMPELLING, verifiable previously-undiscovered direct evidence (DNA testing, eye-witnesses, etc.).

Yep, I think it has to be very compelling evidence iirc

Yea if they said they were at work, then it was found that they really just changed the time clock and lied about it, that would amount to purgery, which is grounds for a re-trial.