# Casey anthony not guilty!!!



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?

Give your thoughts on the casey Anthony verdict.

(I started this thread, but am no longer interested in being a part of it. My apologies.)


----------



## choc0thrax (Jul 5, 2011)

Errmm beat you to it. _-)


----------



## Udo (Jul 5, 2011)

Isn't that inherent in an adversarial legal system, where the emphasis is on the winning argument rather than the truth? Those two can, at times, be "very distant cousins"!


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jul 5, 2011)

Udo @ Tue Jul 05 said:


> Isn't that inherent in an adversarial legal system, where the emphasis is on the winning argument rather than the truth? Those two can, at times, be "very distant cousins"!



Maybe in Australia, but not in a jury case here. The jury had to weigh in on all the evidence. Unfortunately, so much of the evidence was tainted that it simply wasn't possible to even prove how Caylee's death came about. So in the end, it didn't really matter what either the defense or the prosecution said since the evidence was inconclusive.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## robh (Jul 5, 2011)

The media only present the sound bites, juicy bits or "plot twisters" to make a good story to sell. Twelve people had to sift through details not reported to us outsiders, so I don't think it is fitting for any of us to say they were absolutely wrong - even if they are.

Rob


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## midphase (Jul 5, 2011)

Guy Bacos @ Tue Jul 05 said:


> I'm really questioning the system or the new meaning of GUILY BEYOND A "REASONABLE DOUBT". It has become that all you need to do is establish a few very remote doubts, even if they are, .0000000000001% and make no sense, but cannot be dennied, you walk free. That's the criminal justice system. It worked with O.J. and now Casey Anthony. I can see this encouraging the defense attorneys for the worst possible crimes in the future. Hey, all we need to do is establish some kind of ridiculous doubt that the court cannot denny, and that's it, we win. So for O.J. we have no idea who was the murderer and now with Casey Anthony, we have no idea who's responsible for Caylee's death, and we'll never have an answer to this, not officially that is... The moral of story is a good lawyer will buy you freedom no matter how guilty you are.



Sorry but I highly disagree with you. Do you know all the facts? Were you in the courtroom every day of the trial? 

I'm really livid about this assumption that the jurors were a bunch of idiots and that we (the public) know way better than everyone else involved in the case.

WE DON"T!

Further, I think we're all puppets of the media for being so easily brainwashed with their opinions...they don't fucking know either!

It's really not that difficult to be put on trial for murder with circumstantial evidence as the only evidence. Put yourself into the shoes of an innocent man who is being put on trial for a murder he didn't commit...and now tell me that you don't want that reasonable doubt to come up.

This girl who is obviously misguided and quite possibly mental didn't have access to the best legal team that money can buy, and she was indicted by the world since the case came to light...don't you think for a moment that maybe...just maybe...the evidence simply didn't add up? Who knows what happened...but I think it's a mistake to allow ourselves to be brainwashed into thinking what CNN or Fox want us to think.

I suppose you also think that the Italian judicial system is governed by a bunch of uninformed morons too?


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## Udo (Jul 5, 2011)

Peter Alexander @ Wed Jul 06 said:


> Udo @ Tue Jul 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't that inherent in an adversarial legal system, where the emphasis is on the winning argument rather than the truth? Those two can, at times, be "very distant cousins"!
> ...


But the jury is only permitted to make descisions based on facts/evidence that passed the adversarial process.

BTW, I didn't follow the Casey Anthony case in detail, i.e. the comment is about the adversarial process in general.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## midphase (Jul 5, 2011)

1. You're implying that the judge, jury and legal team were incompetent whether you're actually saying that or not.

2. I didn't say she wasn't crazy...she's obviously got some mental issues no doubt, perhaps she should even be committed to a sanitarium...but isn't it possible that she's a complete nutjob and not a murderer?


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 5, 2011)

As Herr Moderator I have to ask you peeps to breathe before posting.

****
Guy, I have to disagree with you about reasonable doubt. It's far better to err on the side of not convicting of a capital offense than to punish someone who isn't guilty, in my opinion.

Yes the Robert Blake and especially OJ Simpson cases were offensive, but I'd rather have that than have innocent people in jail - never mind the death penalty, which I'm totally opposed to.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 5, 2011)

And by the way, I saw Robert Blake in the market a few months ago and it was really creepy. He was very friendly and said hi.

EEEEK!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 5, 2011)

Also...the DSK case is more of a morality play than this one.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## Ed (Jul 5, 2011)

Guy Bacos @ Tue Jul 05 said:


> midphase @ Tue Jul 05 said:
> 
> 
> > 1. You're implying that the judge, jury and legal team were incompetent whether you're actually saying that or not.
> ...



Even if I agree the verdict is wrong you have to sympathise with a jury where they have to weigh all the evidence and if there is a chance that certain evidence or points that you may find convincing is flawed or inadmissable, then they have to deal with that. In the end her life was at stake as they would have pushed for the death penalty. The prosecutions case should have been stronger so there was NOT "reasonable doubt".


----------



## Ed (Jul 5, 2011)

Guy Bacos @ Tue Jul 05 said:


> Even if she is a nut case as midphase bases his entire defense, how can she not be convicted of ANYTHING??? .



If she should have been, maybe they did not officially accuse her of the _"right" _thing and therefore they have to say not guilty to what they did accuse her of.


----------



## Dave Connor (Jul 5, 2011)

Although it seems obvious to us (or anybody really) that she's as guilty as could be it's important to realize the essence of the American system: the burden is on the prosecution to prove their case. That outweighs all other considerations, so indeed she may have done it but that is different than what the jurors perceive as far as the state proving it beyond a reasonable doubt. As Nick said, it's far better to err that way. You would only need to be on the end of flimsy accusations to agree with it wholeheartedly.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## Ed (Jul 5, 2011)

Guy Bacos @ Tue Jul 05 said:


> What I did say was that, 99 of 100 judges would of of convicted her



I am wondering, what are you basing that on?


----------



## Ed (Jul 5, 2011)

Guy Bacos @ Tue Jul 05 said:


> Ok, I'm not getting through here. I am enraged that Cases Anthony is walking free, totally free. if there was a minimum of penalty at least for how she was neglectful. Come on now!



If the prosecutions case was not good enough and they found her guilty anyway, how would you like if it were the other way round? What if people were being set free even if the prosecution had a strong case?


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## Ed (Jul 5, 2011)

Guy Bacos @ Tue Jul 05 said:


> Well there was one judge on TV who publicly said he didn't agree. All the other media lawyers also disagreed with the verdict, of course, it's vert easy to say, this is all for drama, but the drama could also work for the other side.
> 
> 99% of the world disagrees with the verdict, I have to conclude that this forum has a problem with me.



I would have less of a problem with your statement if it wasn't completely made up. You could say that as far as you remember every law professional you have personally seen on TV has so far disagreed with the verdict.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## wst3 (Jul 5, 2011)

Twice in one year... a new record, but I agree whole heartedly with Mr. Batzdorf on this, it is the basis of our legal system, and even so we know it does not always work right!



Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jul 05 said:


> It's far better to err on the side of not convicting of a capital offense than to punish someone who isn't guilty, in my opinion.
> 
> Yes the Robert Blake and especially OJ Simpson cases were offensive, but I'd rather have that than have innocent people in jail - never mind the death penalty, which I'm totally opposed to.



I did not follow the case, I seldom follow these things in the press because I do not think that the press has access to the pertinent information (nor should they really), or the responsibility to present the information in an unbiased way, they are far more interested in selling ads (not to dis the whole concept of free market or capitalism), but I did read a great deal about it today because I was surprised by the verdict. The whole thing is disturbing!

But ultimately, "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" - William Blackstone


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## midphase (Jul 5, 2011)

"99% of the world disagrees with the verdict, I have to conclude that this forum has a problem with me."

Yes Guy...it's really all about you...there is a secret board on this forum who spends all waking hours to figure out new and inventive ways to contradict you no matter what you say....the cat is finally out of the bag!


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## Ed (Jul 5, 2011)

Guy Bacos @ Tue Jul 05 said:


> 99% of the world disagrees with the verdict, I have to conclude that this forum has a problem with me.



Missed this.

I didn't follow the case, though I plan to watch the court proceedings as it interests me. I have been speaking as a generalisation here, jury's have it hard and if the prosecution or the police investigation screw up there is a reason why it is necessary to rule on reasonable doubt, because it is determined that it is better than the alternative which is sending innocent people to jail or worse, to be executed.

As for these arbitrary percentages you keep throwing out, I have a problem with that regardless because it's completely meaningless and to me is actually more of a reflection of YOUR own certainty which to me can't be based on facts. You've gone from 99% of judges would say she is guilty to saying that 99% of the entire world thinks she's guilty. These numbers are just something you made up from nothing except what YOU feel YOU'VE seen in the reaction since the verdict. I feel as if you have listened to one side and been so disgusted refused to even find out what the defenses responses to those points were, I for one want to find out but I feel you're the kind of person that doesn't care too much about those kinds of questions.

Whatever the truth is in this case you should not to let your emotions rule your interpretations of facts. To the jury the defense proved there was reasonable doubt and they followed the set of rules from the judge to help them come to their verdict and judging from the opening statements I am watching now from Casey's defense I can easily see how that could happen due to how unbelievably messed up the entire situation was from so many different angles.

I don't think this is disagreement about your opinion that she is guilty, I think its the rather emotional way you have responded here.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## Dave Connor (Jul 5, 2011)

Guy Bacos @ Tue Jul 05 said:


> Come on now! Where are the people not agreeing with this verdict? Why aren't you speaking up? Hello???
> 
> Am I in the Twilight zone?



Guy I don't agree with the verdict at all - it is pitiful. But the entire jury was not convinced that the prosecution actually proved the case according to the instructions the jury was given. It doesn't mean she's not guilty. It means the prosecution was unable to prove their case.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## Ed (Jul 5, 2011)

Guy Bacos @ Tue Jul 05 said:


> The way things are going, soon it will be easy for any murderer to walk free, perhaps involving someone of your family.
> There is a strong emphasis these days on finding a .000000000000001. doubt that you cannot convict. For me it's a real joke. If there was some common sense, I wouldn't be saying any thing, but there is that common sense thing missing.




See, this is what I mean. Such a overly dramatic emotional and irrational response. Why act as if this is some kind of legal turning point and now guilty people everywhere will be able to walk free and murder more people? Soon people will be raping and looting in the streets and the prisons will be opened and convicts will be set loose upon the country to do as they please like some kind of post apocalyptic dystopia, I suppose! 

If she was indeed guilty then this is where the system failed, but what does that mean? We have surely let guilty people get off on crimes before and the fact is I can show you plenty of people who have been wrongly convicted only to have been proven later to have been innocent. Why don't you care about those people? What would you do if you had to serve decades of your life in a prison for a crime you didn't commit? What if the punishment was execution? You act as if that never happens and not only that you think reasonable doubt should not come into it, that someone is guilty until proven innocent, because that is the alternative.




> I wonder how some of you guys would feel if one of your child was killed and the murderer would walk away a free man because of some absurdity argument by some brilliant lawyer, despite everything showing 99.9999% him being guilty. Wouldn't you want him have a minimum of justice. So soon it will be impossible to convict anybody, it's going this way more and more, whether you like it or not.



This is the exact same argument for the death penalty. 

Are you willing to allow innocent people to serve time and even executed for crimes they didn't commit? Are you personally willing to see yourself or someone in your family to die for this? Is it really worth it?

And btw:



> despite everything showing 99.9999% him being guilty



(Theres those meaningless percentages again.... ) 

If it was "everything", "99.9999%" showing she killed her, then how could there have been reasonable doubt? You would have to assume the jury are complete idiots and if the evidence was that strong they had to ignore all of it it is my understanding that the judge can even nullify the verdict.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## Ed (Jul 5, 2011)

Guy Bacos @ Tue Jul 05 said:


> o=?



Wonderful response says it all. :roll:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 5, 2011)

Guy, I too think she was probably guilty. On the other hand I'd always flip the channel as soon as they ran a story on that trial, so what do I know.

Anyway, it's really not true that it's impossible to convict people of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Usually there's pretty hard forensic evidence, or a witness, or at least a strong motive...and from what I know of this case, none of that existed. They didn't know how the child died exactly, and wanting to party at nightclubs is a pretty suspect motive.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## Ed (Jul 5, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jul 05 said:


> Guy, I too think she was probably guilty. On the other hand I'd always flip the channel as soon as they ran a story on that trial, so what do I know.
> 
> Anyway, it's really not true that it's impossible to convict people of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Usually there's pretty hard forensic evidence, or a witness, or at least a strong motive...and from what I know of this case, none of that existed. They didn't know how the child died exactly, and wanting to party at nightclubs is a pretty suspect motive.



Personally this is why I want to actually watch the court proceedings as news reports and bloggers are not exactly the best way to evaluate a complex court case, especially if you're only hearing sound bites and small chunks of random people's opinions. 

The jury apparently took 10 hours to come up with their decision, according to Guy, they ignored "_everything, 99,9999%_" of the evidence that all pointed to her. Perhaps it was a little more complicated than that and we don't have to imply the jury are idiots.

After watching the defences opening statement on youtube I can see it was totally messed up from so many angles, I look forward to hearing some of the defences to some of these accusations I've heard as I get into it. It may take me a while to watch it all before I can decide what I think about it myself


----------



## Ed (Jul 5, 2011)

Guy Bacos @ Tue Jul 05 said:


> But don't you agree that the more cases we have like this, the more defense lawyers will be motivated into finding ANY sort of reasonable doubt that the court will have to accept?



You act like that's a new concept that they didn't know about before this trial :lol:

Again, if she is guilty then its not new that a jury believed the prosecution failed to prove the case and the defendant has walked free.

Again, plenty of times have innocent people been wrongly convicted.

You say you want to get rid of reasonable doubt, what do you think should replace it? Guilty until proven innocent? Its going to mean a lot more innocent people are punished for things they didn't do, and that could be you or your family or someone else you care about. I asked you if thats something you are willing to accept, for this principle you believe in?


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## Ed (Jul 5, 2011)

Guy Bacos @ Tue Jul 05 said:


> o=?



Why don't you just ignore me if you're going to ignore me? Replying with the elephant gif and quoting my entire message everytime makes it seem like you just can't allow yourself to let my reply go but also you have no idea what to say in responce to it, so you post a silly gif as if it helps. 

Why do you not like responding to people who disagree with you? Its almost as if you have an opinion and you would never want to change it no matter what.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jul 5, 2011)

Guy Bacos @ Tue Jul 05 said:


> I'm really questioning the system or the new meaning of GUILY BEYOND A "REASONABLE DOUBT".



New meaning? The meaning hasn't changed - it's always been that way.



Guy Bacos @ Tue Jul 05 said:


> It has become that all you need to do is establish a few very remote doubts, even if they are, .0000000000001% and make no sense, but cannot be dennied, you walk free.



Become? No - it has always been that way. Look, at the risk of sounding like I am attempting to belittle what you are saying - which is the furthest thing from what I am really attempting - people of many colors, religions and national and ethnic backgrounds have died so that if you are on trial here in the U.S., and there is .0000000000001% of a doubt in the case against you, you walk free. It has always been that way - and it should be that way. If anyone doesn't like it, try moving to a country that has a 'better' judicial system. Move to Iran. Move to N.Korea. 

I am not so sure I necessarily agree with the verdict, but at the same time, I agree that the prosecution did not prove it's case - at least not the way it is being presented in all of the media outlets. And all of them are presenting virtually the identical story, which tells me it's got to be at least close to being accurate.



Guy Bacos @ Tue Jul 05 said:


> The moral of story is a good lawyer will buy you freedom no matter how guilty you are.



Should I list all of the cases where clients of high-profile, expensive attorneys went to prison? C'mon, now. Agreed you have a better shot with a better attorney, but let's not talk about freedom being bought. 



Guy Bacos @ Wed Jul 06 said:


> How can your baby go missing one month and you don't call the police or 911?? And meanwhile you've been partying! + You've lied about all the information you gave to the police (and is convicted of that charge!)
> THESE ARE OFFICIAL AND KNOWN FACTS!



Yes, you are correct - those are facts. But:

1) There are many, many more facts

2) What you posted may be true, and her behaviour may have been a bit repulsive, but that behaviour does not make someone a murderer. The evidence does, and the prosecution did not have enough of it. No DNA, no fingerprints, no witnesses, no motive, no cause of death...THOSE are facts as well.

Cheers.


----------



## robh (Jul 5, 2011)

Guy Bacos @ Tue Jul 05 said:


> *How can your baby go missing one month and you don't call the police or 911?? And meanwhile you've been partying! *
> 
> *+ You've lied about all the information you gave to the police (and is convicted of that charge!) *
> 
> ...


 I think the jury deliberated ~10 hrs on more than those two facts. Those two facts proves she is extremely callous and self absorbed. 

Judging people based on not enough info is a dangerous game. Do you think you've been treated fairly by everyone in this forum in the past? Or have they misjudged you? See what I'm getting at? o-[][]-o 

Rob


----------



## RiffWraith (Jul 5, 2011)

doubley


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## Ed (Jul 5, 2011)

Guy Bacos @ Tue Jul 05 said:


> Everybody seems to be running away from the question I've been asking over and over again?
> 
> What about those 31 days where she didn't even call the police or 911 when her child was missing? I'd like to hear your explanation for that, cause this is a fact and as far as I'm concerning she SHOULD of got jail time for this, but she didn't, nobody can understand this, and yes it was well dwelled in the case. This is one reason I can't just sit back and say: .Hey man, that's how the system is, there wasn't enough proof beyond a reasonable doubt according to the jury" That may be so, but I for one, am proud to voice my opinion in saying this is total [email protected]#t!



I have so far watched the Opening Statement of the Defence, even I can see there are explanations offered. I don't understand how you can act like you don't even know what their defence was!

Just how did you follow this case Guy? Fox news?

And what about my questions? You want to remove reasonable doubt, are you prepared to throw yours and your familys life away on the basis of that if you were ever wrongly convicted?

What about your implication that the jury are idiots that ignored 99.999% of the evidence according to you?


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## Ed (Jul 5, 2011)

Guy Bacos @ Tue Jul 05 said:


> o=?



Delightful! So you get all pissed off because you think people are "running away" from your points and then you ignore everyone's points and questions.

Good one guy, its good to know the intellectual powerhouse such as yourself can respond to all reasonable criticism by just pretending it doesn't exist and posting animated gifs. I wish I could argue as well as you do. Its no wonder you don't understand the trial, I can imagine you're the kind of person that would have hunted her down in a mob with pitch forks and burnt her as a witch long before they even arrested her.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## Studio E (Jul 5, 2011)

Sorry but her missing for 31 days without it being reported doesn't put a smoking gun in her hand. It doesn't at ALL mean that SHE was the one who killed her daughter. I could create a hundred different scenarios based on the holes in the prosecution's argument that makes her not guilty of the actual murder. Im 99% sure she's guilty too but that is indeed the way the cookie crumbles. I have no problem with you at all Guy and I totally understand you being upset. I think we all are.


----------



## Ed (Jul 5, 2011)

Thats right Guy just keep pretending you don't care... 

One final piece of advice, if you don't want others to assume you're either mentally challenged or intellectually dishonest, its not good manors to claim they are "running away" from your points without first considering the fact that you've ignored everyones points so far.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## Ed (Jul 5, 2011)

Guy Bacos @ Tue Jul 05 said:


> Did I ever say that? Again not reading carefully what was said. I'm saying, if she's not convicted for murder of first degree, she should of at least have some jail time for that PARTICULAR OFFENSE.



Again you don't understand how it works.

The jury decided guilty or not guilty on *specific charges*, but she was only found guilty of lying to the police. They have not sentenced her yet, that happens tomorrow. The jury do not sentence people.

She will be sentenced for the charge she was found guilty of, maybe that will include jail time. But if not, if they didn't find her guilty of worse than that how do you imagine they could send her to jail anyway or as if she was found guilty of worse charges? Is that justice for you? What was the point of the trial?


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## robh (Jul 5, 2011)

What does o=? mean?

I found http://www.thepinkelephant.ca (www.thepinkelephant.ca), but I don't think that's what Guy means, does he?
 

Rob


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## RiffWraith (Jul 5, 2011)

Guy Bacos @ Wed Jul 06 said:


> What about those 31 days where she didn't even call the police or 911 when her child was missing?





Guy Bacos @ Wed Jul 06 said:


> I'm saying, if she's not convicted for murder of first degree, she should of at least have some jail time for that PARTICULAR OFFENSE.



Guy, she did serve time for that. She was convicted on four counts of lying to police - of which the 31 days of not calling the police is part of. Each count carries a max of 1 year; she is looking at 4 years total. She has already served almost 3; on Thurs, the judge can either sentence her to time served, or another 15 (approx) mos.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jul 5, 2011)

I know this is turning into the Guy vs. Ed show, but one more thing:



Guy Bacos @ Wed Jul 06 said:


> Ed, so aggravated chid abuse doesn't fit in their at all? Your child is missing for 31 days and you don't give a damn!



Not calling police when your child is missing and "not giving a damn" is not aggravated child abuse. It may be morally, but not legally.

Have a good nite all.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## Ed (Jul 5, 2011)

Guy Bacos @ Tue Jul 05 said:


> Ed @ Tue Jul 05 said:
> 
> 
> > The jury decided guilty or not guilty on *specific charges*, but she was only found guilty of lying to the police. They have not sentenced her yet, that happens tomorrow. The jury do not sentence people.
> ...



Sorry? Do you see an opinion on her guilt in what you quoted?

I simpy stated the facts - *the jury do not sentence people* and *she has not been sentenced yet.* Read what you quoted again. She will be sentenced tomorrow and we shall see what time she gets, as Riff said, she has alredy served 3 years. 



> Furthermore, if you had followed the trial more, and not just a quick 10 min recap on FOX, you would of known that the judge said that to the jury they also had the right to accuse the defendant with lesser charges.



Thats funny I accuse you of acting like all you do is watch Fox news and then you start saying the same thing to me, try and come up with your own way of saying things rather than restating my own back to me.

As to your point above, if you had been listening to what people have been saying including myself you'd have realised that if they didn't then they must have seen reasonable doubt in any suggested "lesser charges". Its either they are too lazy and don't care or they're idiots, maybe it isn't as easy as you make out it is.

Now as I say I have only watched the opening statements so far apart from news reports and opinions on blogs and forums, but maybe you can tell me what evidence is there of "aggravated chid abuse" that I will see come up in the trial?


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o[])


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## Ed (Jul 5, 2011)

Guy Bacos @ Tue Jul 05 said:


> o[])



:roll: Excuse me but you asked me a question... remember?



> Ed, so aggravated chid abuse doesn't fit in their at all?



What evidence will I see in the trial that proves aggravated chid abuse?


----------



## Ed (Jul 5, 2011)

Guy Bacos @ Tue Jul 05 said:


> Hey, if ever I'm accused of murder, I hope to have some of you guys in the jury.



According to you we should presume you're guilty first, if the prosecution doesn't make the case then it doesn't matter, we'll just find you guilty anyway. That is how you want it to work right?


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## Ed (Jul 5, 2011)

Guy Bacos @ Tue Jul 05 said:


> I can believe how cold and heartless some people can be on this thread about this case.



Explain how any of us have been cold and heartless?

If you had it your way - you want to remove "reasonable doubt" from the law - then plenty more people will go to jail and have their lives ruined and many will be executed for something they didn't do. So I'll tell what I find amazing, its how you ignore that fact and have such distain for the judicial system you could be so "cold and heartless" towards all the innocent people that you will be happy to sacrifce.

Our disagreement really has nothing to do with her being innocent or guilty, I don't even know yet, you still don't seem to realise that. Ah well!


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## nikolas (Jul 5, 2011)

Being in Greece I had no idea about the case, Anthony, etc...

From what I gather people here try to differentiate between the law and their feelings. My own feelings from what I read in wiki (poor gathering of the story but whatever), makes me think that the woman is a total jerk, mentaly unstable, etc. The logical side of me though says that she shouldn't be convicted for first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, and aggravated manslaughter charges.

I would also imagine that the disconnection of her child gone missing is somethign that the DA should deal with, not the jury (like for example convict someone of something they didn't do in order to keep it going).

Finally, what's up with the blue elephants? Am I loosing my sight, cause everyone says they're pink, but we all know there are no pink elephants! :D


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 5, 2011)

I don't think anyone is cold and heartless about this case, Guy - at least I'm certainly not. Having had a 3-year-old daughter myself (who's going to be 17 this month) I can tell you that like any normal parent, I'd get run over by a train to save her in an emergency.

That's not the point. The argument is over the way the legal system works. And unfortunately the one that works perfectly and gets every single case right doesn't exist.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 5, 2011)

Also, didn't the defense have an explanation for the 30 days? I half-watched five minutes of a grossly cheesy documentary on MSNBC that my wife had on, and the defense lawyer said something about that...except I didn't really take in what it was.


----------



## midphase (Jul 5, 2011)

Guy,

I have no idea what's come over you...seriously! 

We have a system in place in order to attempt to prevent stuff like this from happening:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... bbery.html

and this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/06/60minutes/main3914719.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/ ... 4719.shtml)

and this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/world ... 92402.html

and this:

http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2010/08/01/mistaken-identifications-sent-two-innocent-men-to-prison/ (http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2010/08/ ... to-prison/)

The list goes on and on unfortunately...and now you'd like it to be even bigger!


I don't know what happened...not sure anyone ever will. I lived in Orlando for too many years, and know people who are friends with some of the involved. I can tell you that Orlando doesn't fuck around when it comes to law and prosecution, it's a moderately conservative state and county and the police are strong and diligent. If we wasn't found guilty there must be a very legitimate reason.

Do I think she's off her rockers? Yes...then again I know many other people who are...but it doesn't necessarily make them a murderer. I also tend not to believe the picture that the media painted of this girl...essentially a party whore who completely ignored her missing child for over a month. I'm not sure if that's the way it really truly went down...but I have to assume that those jurors do, or at least were furnished with enough credible information to have a good idea.

I don't know if you've ever been part of a jury, let alone for a murder. My wife was just a few months ago, and I can tell you that it's no walk in the park, and lines get blurred very easily, nothing is what it seems and things get complex quickly. I feel that in this case, if she was let go (let go being a loose term considering she's spend 3 years in jail, will possibly spend one more, and her life is ruined), there is probably a damn good reason. This is not OJ Simpson, she didn't have the best of the best that money can buy in terms of legal representation, there wasn't a team of 200 people digging for any possible technicality to use for defense, there weren't any weird issues brought up to sidestep the case into a racial or other issue that really doesn't have any bearing. All in all, I think all the cards were stacked against her and if she managed to beat the charges, I have to believe that there simply wasn't enough proof.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## midphase (Jul 5, 2011)

Guy Bacos @ Tue Jul 05 said:


> just tune is on Nancy Grace and all her guest, and she is a VERY well respected lawyer



'Nuff said...I'm bowing out of this one!
o=? o=? o=? o=? o=? o=? o=? o=? o=? o=? o=? o=? o=?


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2011)

o=?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 5, 2011)

Guy, this *appears* to be a grave injustice. I agree.

But I think everyone here to a man is saying the same thing I'm saying: having people get away with murder occasionally is better than any real-world alternative.

And the reasons I'm not overcome with emotion about this are that 1. the child is gone whether or not this woman gets punished; 2. you can't dwell on every horrible story in the news if you're going to make it through life; 3. I'm sick of hearing about this horrible story, which I really don't need to know about; 4. it annoys the hell out of me that this has been the number one news story for the past month.


----------



## Ed (Jul 6, 2011)

If anyone thinks this was cut and dry and suggest they watch the opening statement from the defense, its long but its interesting. 

Now I look forward to what the prosecution can respond with and they may have very good rebuttals to their points but unless they are very good these are very serious charges against them, whether she is guilty or not it may be that the prosecution's case and the police seriously screwed up.

For example, here are some of the interesting points I heard from the defense, but not exhaustive. 

1. The police used "psychics".

2. A retired police dog that failed to alert the handler the second time to the same location, they failed to follow the procedure to rule out bias such as there must be several cars and the handler must not know the suspects car. 

3. The hair from the car will be admittedly inconclusive because you need more than one hair and therefore it can't be evidence of anything.

3. The "air" expert is some kind of wacky nut case that believes in some form of dowsing with a coat hanger can reveal bodies under the ground, according to the defence he wants to attach electronics to flies to search for dead bodies, that he is heavily biased in that he wants to sell a device to police depts on the basis of this air test and stands to make millions off the trial if successful. That his air test has never been admitted in court before, that this is its first test and has not been verified by any means, that they could not find a single other expert that would agree with him.

4. That they forensically tested all manner of items from Casey such as the duct tape, her clothes, her shoes etc for blood, DNA, soil matches etc. They all came back negative, except the duct tape which was contaminated by someone at the FBI. 

So unless the defense are seriously misrepresenting the case or just making things up, thats some pretty embarrassing holes to me. Maybe someone who has seen the rest of the trial can tell me if there was a response to any of these points, if not I'll get to it when I watch some more!


----------



## Ed (Jul 6, 2011)

midphase @ Tue Jul 05 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Tue Jul 05 said:
> 
> 
> > just tune is on Nancy Grace and all her guest, and she is a VERY well respected lawyer
> ...



Yes well now we know who's he's being watching :D Doesn't Nancy Grace work for FOX? Didn't Guy accuse me of watching FOX and so I don't know anything about it? :roll: Doesn't Nancy Grace endorse psychics in police investigations? And she is so well-respected as a prosecutor she had to start a media career. Koo koo koo


----------



## choc0thrax (Jul 8, 2011)

Nancy Grace = CNN. Does she use psychics? Doesn't sound like something she'd do.


----------



## Ed (Jul 8, 2011)

choc0thrax @ Fri Jul 08 said:


> Nancy Grace = CNN. Does she use psychics? Doesn't sound like something she'd do.



Apparently she has said that she believes psychics have been used successfully to help solve crimes.


----------



## chimuelo (Jul 8, 2011)

Lots of phonies out there, but it has been documented and worked in the past.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... b2bfT4PtgQ

Psychics were used to find the remains of a murder in the Wild Horse Creek area where we dug up fossils as kids....

This trial isn't over. I think the truth will be revealed in time and maybe some closure for the folks that are concerned or involved.

I'm thinking of taking my first wife hunting this year.
I can retain an attorney to explain away what a tregedy the outing was, as my X mistakenly put on the Brown Fur Coat and Antlers by mistake instead of the vest and tags....


----------



## Mike Marino (Jul 8, 2011)

Weighing on this one.

The Anthony household is only a few miles away from me. When the story first broke (back in 2007) I could stand on my driveway and watch the news helicopters hovering hovering over the residence. I followed the trial a good bit; I didn't watch it on tv every day but usually listened on the way to work, etc.

I can say it's been pretty intense around central Florida for obvious reasons. We have a flawed justice system, BUT, it's better than anything else out there (just my opinion). As a father of two kids (one being 3 years old) it's very hard to remove my emotions from the case. I have the same thoughts as most others: I believe that she had a part in the child's death....whether in part or in whole, nobody knows. It's just a "gut" feeling.....and it's reasons like this that they scrutinize over who they want sitting in that jury box and who they don't want. Whether I think she's guilty or not doesn't really matter; the jury saw the evidence, heard the "experts," deliberated, and made the decision of not guilty.

I believe that Jeff Ashton (prosecuting attorney for the state of Florida) overcharged the case, moving it to a 1st degree murder case.....when he knew that the evidence that had to be provided might be too new, technical, and "out there (like the air testing)....or just not be there. I think that the second mistake he made was that he named the murder weapon as the duct tape but was unable to really prove it.

There were a couple (of MANY) elements that popped out at me:
*One of the "expert" witnesses (and I apologize, I forgot which one she was) had testified that: 100% of the time, when there's an accidental death of a child, someone calls 911 immediately.

*I think Jeff Ashton had it 100% right when he said: "...you don't make an accident look like murder..."

As was stated in earlier posts, the burden of proof falls on the prosecution (the state). So all Jose Baez (defense attorney) had to do was raise doubt: maybe it was Roy Kronk (the guy who found the body), maybe it was Casey's father, maybe he sexually abused her as a child, maybe it was an accidental drowning (to which there was absolutely no supporting evidence), maybe it was the nanny, maybe, maybe, maybe. Because that body was underwater for so long (washing away , perhaps, any identifiable fingerprints or dna or something), that's all he had to do: put doubt in the minds of the jurors.

I'm still pissed about the whole thing; but nobody won in the court room on Tuesday. EVERYBODY lost. Why? Here's why:

* We still have a dead child with no one to blame.
* Casey Anthony is absolutely in harms way. (People were not afraid to confront OJ Simpson when he was released...and he's a pretty big dude. Casey is about 5'1" and maybe 115lbs.) Her life is over....even when the book comes out. Who wants to read about what a pathological liar is saying??? (I'd probably be surprised, lol)
* The final threads of the Anthony has been ripped apart (and likely, for good).
* A large percentage of the population seem to disagree with the trial verdict (in whole or in part)...causing a massive weight on the integrity of our legal system.

If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the prosecution team for the state of Florida. Apparently they just didn't get it done. And I might add that it's simply heart-breaking to hear a juror say that "not guilty isn't the same as innocent." That.........that's a tough pill to swallow. You can decode that statement for yourself.

To finish up, I disagree with the verdict of the trial, but frustratingly understand the legal system here. At this point, it is what it is....and it really sucks to have to say that.

That's my 2 cents from Orlando.

- Mike


----------



## hbuus (Jul 9, 2011)

My God Guy Bacos, you are ridiculous in this thread too.


----------



## Ed (Jul 9, 2011)

chimuelo @ Fri Jul 08 said:


> Lots of phonies out there, but it has been documented and worked in the past.
> 
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... b2bfT4PtgQ



This is slightly off topic but...
Sounds ridiculous to me. For a start is it believable that the police would give items to her to let some students "practise" on them? Then it even says she spoke to a reporter before she spoke to the police. 

According to the wik article on psychic detectives:



> "A 1993 survey of police departments in the 50 largest cities in the United States revealed that a third of them had accepted predictions from psychic detectives in the past, although only seven departments treated such information any differently to information from an ordinary source. No police department reported any instances of a psychic investigator providing information that was more helpful than other information received during the course of a case.[8][9] A former senior investigator for the FBI has stated that psychics may be used "as a last resort [and] as an investigative tool with caution"[10] for providing clues not directly admissible in the court of law such as a criminal's character, or the location of dead bodies.[11][12]"



And in the UK:



> In 2006, 28 British police forces responded to a query from the UK-Skeptics to say that they did not and have never used psychics, one force saying "We are unaware of any inquiries significantly progressed solely by information provided by a psychic medium."[5] In 2009, when the Metropolitan Police had denied the use of psychics and were then presented with emails suggesting the use of a psychic they made a press statement authorized by the senior investigating officer that was much more ambiguous: "We do not identify people we may or may not speak with in connection with inquiries. We are not prepared to discuss this further."[6]



Some people in law enforcement believe in stuff like psychics but theres a reason they aren't admissible and there's a reason why astrology also seems like it fits people exactly until you realise how these people do it. Most psychics will rely on hindsight and after the case try to make their vague predictions fit and if they're lucky they will have got something correct and everything they were wrong about will be forgotton.

But the fact is that every single time a claimed psychic has been tested under controlled scientific conditions they have failed. But having said that people like Uri Geller have fooled scientists who are unaware of the cheap magic tricks he uses, until James Randi proved conclusively that he was a fraud several times in several different ways.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jul 9, 2011)

Mike Marino @ Fri Jul 08 said:


> Her life is over....even when the book comes out.




Disagree. Her life is even better than it was before this whole thing started. 

1. She doesn't have that annoying kid bothering her anymore.

2. She got revenge on her mother and got away with it.

3. She's famous now. 

4. She will likely have far more money now. Her old salary of pretending to work at Universal probably didn't pay well. 

5. She will have plenty of money to party, party! PARTY!!

This is actually a perfect storm for improving her life.

I think the moral of the story here is when life hands you lemons, kill your kids and drink lemonade flavoured vodka with a wet t-shirt on and everything will be aight.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 9, 2011)

So you'd like to trade places with her, choc?

I predict she'll self-destruct just like OJ Simpson did.


----------



## madbulk (Jul 9, 2011)

I certainly hope so. Would be nice if it's a little quicker paced too.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jul 9, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Jul 09 said:


> So you'd like to trade places with her, choc?



Hell no, I don't want to live in Florida.


----------



## madbulk (Jul 9, 2011)

Guy's original premise isn't lost on me. Reasonable doubt needs to be reasonable, not perfect.
And I'm nowhere near bothered at calling the jury idiots with only a passing understanding of what happened here. I'll work back from my idiots starting point.
(I don't like that they were reportedly turned away at a restaurant.)
The defense, from what I can see, opened with "but it COULD'VE happened this other way, and nobody will prove that it could not have."
And there's nothing fair about this... but my best guess or perhaps I should more fairly say hunch is that the jury accepted this as a basic premise, then asked the prosecution to overwhelm it. And it couldn't. 
The prosecution was going to ask that you put together the circumstantial evidence and reach what they considered the only reasonable conclusion. And I strongly agree that it is the only reasonable conclusion.
The jury was deftly positioned to not go this way from day one. And my damning terribly unfair accusation not just toward these 12 but the system, is that this is the easier path for a jury, the one that moves the burden off of them, and rests it on the prosecution to do more than can reasonably be demanded.
Let me put it another way, before someone responds, "that's the nature of the adversarial system, and it's the best in the world."
Jury: "Prosecutor, give us 100% clarity and certainty, or we're not taking this on our shoulders for the rest of our lives. We didn't ask for this."
Scott Peterson is on death row. No cause of death. But it all pointed to him.
And my big disclaimer... parent of young children... no objectivity... too much anger.


----------



## wst3 (Jul 9, 2011)

madbulk @ Sat Jul 09 said:


> Guy's original premise isn't lost on me. Reasonable doubt needs to be reasonable, not perfect.<snip>



Well said!

Without going into detail, I sat on a criminal jury exactly once, and I would not want to do it again (though it is certainly better than sitting in the jury for a civil trial - but that's another topic!)

The defendant was accused of child molestation... a pretty heinous crime all by itself. The evidence was mostly he said she said stuff, and a lot of it ended up being excluded as hear-say. It came down to the testimony of the accused and the victim. To me, the victim described the activity with great clarity, consistency, and in far greater detail than would be possible if she were making it up.

But that's one person's opinion... or rather it ended up being the opinion of ten folks. The other two held to their opinions that the defendant was not guilty for a couple of days. Sadly, I played a role in persuading them to change their votes.

Even though I was only one of ten to start out with a guilty vote I had concerns. The prosecution did not prove beyond ANY doubt that the crime happened as they described it, but they did dispel my "reasonable" doubts.

Make no mistake, if you've not sat as a juror in a criminal trial it is not something you can take lightly. This was not a capital case, but the defendant is still in prison, and that's not trivial.

Jurors are supposed to take their responsibility seriously - but they are not, I think, supposed to look for an out to shirk that responsibility, and it seem to me that's becoming more common.

No one (at least no one I've met) wants to sit on a jury and be part of the group that judges another person, possibly sending them to prison for a long time, or worse. It's just not something most of us were brought up to do.

But we must do it, and we must be careful that we only send guilty people away. It is a huge responsibility! And it isn't easy!

My impression is that this jury, and some other recent juries have taken the easy way out and pushed their responsibilities onto the prosecutors. That can not be good for our communities or our republic.


----------



## George Caplan (Jul 10, 2011)

any of you guys ever been on a jury?


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 11, 2011)

I wonder what the real concern is here. Is it:

1. That she'll have another kid and kill that one too?
2. That she'll find another kid and kill that one?
3.That justice was not done, so there was no eye for a biblical eye?..or
4. ( the one I suspect) people were all geared up to get their orgasm of righteous anger expunged in a scathing sperm shower of "GUILTY!"

No one here was on that jury. No one heard or saw everything that was put in front of the jury. The jury had to know what the public expected, yet they only took ten hrs to reach the unanimous verdict that the prosecution had not proven their case beyond reasonable doubt. I believe they probably acted their consciences and did what they thought was right. They should be commended for their service and discharged.

I didn't watch ten minutes of this circus, but for those who spent their lives at it, give it a few minutes, another bus will be by any minute now carrying more human misery, and you can always hop on that one. Maybe this time your spectator at the Coliseum voyeurism will be rewarded by some hungry lions.


----------



## Mike Marino (Jul 11, 2011)

Wow.....

To each his own I guess.


----------



## madbulk (Jul 11, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Mon Jul 11 said:


> I wonder what the real concern is here. Is it:
> 
> 1. That she'll have another kid and kill that one too?
> 2. That she'll find another kid and kill that one?
> ...



That was uncalled for.


----------



## Mike Marino (Jul 11, 2011)

+1


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 11, 2011)

Perhaps so. Is there any truth to it, do you think?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 11, 2011)

I don't want to think there's any truth to it, but alas.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jul 11, 2011)

I was just in it for the scathing sperm shower.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 11, 2011)

yes, that line was purely for you, Choco. :wink:


----------



## madbulk (Jul 11, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Mon Jul 11 said:


> Perhaps so. Is there any truth to it, do you think?


I'm less inclined to speak to the faint validity of it than the obnoxiousness with which it was delivered. If I should not have been personally offended, by all means let me know.
On points 1 and 2, yes.
You poisoned the water a bit on 3. I'm not the eye for an eye type and very opposed to the death penalty. Justice is a complicated thing.
And expunging righteous anger isn't so bad. Yeah, I would've preferred at least a little of that.

So yes, there's some truth in it, but spare me the vitriol.


----------



## Ed (Jul 11, 2011)

If it wasn't for the death penalty they may have been less cautious. In fact thats what the juror who has given interviews said. I think from what i know she was guilty of more, but they layed all their eggs in murder 1 which dashed credibility in the other areas since they had already confused the jurors. Large parts in her story certainly made no sence, but then parts of the prosecutions case made no sence to me either, this probably wouldnt have been a problem if they had not pushed for murder 1


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 11, 2011)

madbulk @ Mon Jul 11 said:


> NYC Composer @ Mon Jul 11 said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps so. Is there any truth to it, do you think?
> ...



I can understand that. It was pretty vitriolic, and I'm sorry I offended you. I don't remember your statements on the matter, and what I said was directed at the subject, not at any individual-however in re-reading what i wrote, the tone of my remarks was unnecessarily harsh.

However, it's exactly the way I feel about the matter. The voyeuristic, ghoulish approach that the media has propagated and that the public has signed on to, not only in "news", but also in the constant and celebrated personal humiliations of reality television, appeal to the worst parts of human nature in my view, and it's a subject that bears discussion. Billions of dollars were made on this trial. The ginning up of righteous indignation for profit is cynical and I wish people wouldn't sign up for it. I know it's hard to look away from a train wreck, but misery as entertainment-how can that be a positive in the human experience?


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 11, 2011)

Ed @ Mon Jul 11 said:


> If it wasn't for the death penalty they may have been less cautious. In fact thats what the juror who has given interviews said. I think from what i know she was guilty of more, but they layed all their eggs in murder 1 which dashed credibility in the other areas since they had already confused the jurors. Large parts in her story certainly made no sence, but then parts of the prosecutions case made no sence to me either, this probably wouldnt have been a problem if they had not pushed for murder 1



+1


----------



## madbulk (Jul 11, 2011)

Larry, I agree with all of those sentiments and I would stand on the very next soapbox right beside you and shout all the more loudly.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 11, 2011)

madbulk @ Mon Jul 11 said:


> Larry, I agree with all of those sentiments and I would stand on the very next soapbox right beside you and shout all the more loudly.



Yeah, I'm pretty preachy. It's one of my worst qualities :wink: 

Glad you agree, though. I wish more people would. If people looked away, less advertising dollars, less craziness.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jul 12, 2011)

You could save yourself a lot of stress by just accepting that this stuff appeals to humans. o/~


----------



## madbulk (Jul 12, 2011)

You'd think so, but no. It just stresses me more.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 12, 2011)

choc0thrax @ Tue Jul 12 said:


> You could save yourself a lot of stress by just accepting that this stuff appeals to humans. o/~



Or I could speak my mind. (shrug).Sometimes people think about the things you say.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jul 26, 2011)

BUMP


http://gawker.com/5824690/the-casey-anthony-latex-mask


Get your kids the costume they really want this halloween with the Casey Anthony mask!


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 26, 2011)

choc0thrax @ Tue Jul 26 said:


> BUMP
> 
> 
> http://gawker.com/5824690/the-casey-anthony-latex-mask
> ...



Do you play the fiddle? I hear an Italian city is burning.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jul 26, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Tue Jul 26 said:


> choc0thrax @ Tue Jul 26 said:
> 
> 
> > BUMP
> ...



What's funny is I'll actually be in Rome in about 3 weeks. I can play the spoons, maybe that's good enough.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 26, 2011)

choc0thrax @ Tue Jul 26 said:


> NYC Composer @ Tue Jul 26 said:
> 
> 
> > choc0thrax @ Tue Jul 26 said:
> ...



Humor is so, so subjective.

If you make it to Venice and are looking for a Bellini, tell Mr. Cipriani that Larry from 718 said hi.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jul 27, 2011)

http://www.tmz.com/2011/07/26/casey-ant ... ar-murder/



Looks like Casey's gonna laugh all the way to the bank. She's probably gonna blow it all pretty fast with all the partying so I think we'll be seeing her kill a kid every 5 or so years to be able to maintain the lifestyle.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 27, 2011)

choc0thrax @ Wed Jul 27 said:


> http://www.tmz.com/2011/07/26/casey-anthony-parents-abc-nbc-cbs-network-payment-video-photos-licensing-mark-geragos-bidding-war-murder/
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like Casey's gonna laugh all the way to the bank. She's probably gonna blow it all pretty fast with all the partying so I think we'll be seeing her kill a kid every 5 or so years to be able to maintain the lifestyle.



Do you find that deplorable, amusing, or just 'it is what it is'?

I figure it's one of the first, otherwise you'd probably not bothering commenting.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jul 27, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Wed Jul 27 said:


> choc0thrax @ Wed Jul 27 said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.tmz.com/2011/07/26/casey-anthony-parents-abc-nbc-cbs-network-payment-video-photos-licensing-mark-geragos-bidding-war-murder/
> ...



It irks me because I don't think she deserves a penny above 500k.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 27, 2011)

choc0thrax @ Wed Jul 27 said:


> NYC Composer @ Wed Jul 27 said:
> 
> 
> > choc0thrax @ Wed Jul 27 said:
> ...



Yep, I'm going with amusing.


----------

