PDA

View Full Version : Casey Anthony, Guilty Or Not?



Sid_Vicious
07-01-2011, 08:25 PM
Whatcha think? It has to be one of the most bizarre court events to have viewed since OJ got off. It is all messed up any way you look at it, but I have to figure she killed that child, and is the world's best untrained little actress, with a PHD in lying. Death sentence??? sid

LWW
07-02-2011, 02:50 AM
I haven't followed it that closely ... but from what IO have seen is sure doesn't look good.

That being said ... the Oprahfication of our judicial system makes anything possible.

Don't forget that the Menendez brothers were found not guilty of murdering their parents ... by a state supported and warehoused, Oprah watching drug and alcohol addled, moonbat crazy leftist jury ... on the basis, as one juror said, that they had been punished enough by losing their parents (Whom they had murdered in cold blood.) forever.

Qtec
07-02-2011, 05:28 AM
I have my doubts about anyone in this situation who won't testify in their own defence.

Personally, if I was accused of something I didn't do I would protest my innocence and shout it from the roof tops.

Q

Soflasnapper
07-02-2011, 02:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I haven't followed it that closely ... but from what IO have seen is sure doesn't look good.

That being said ... the Oprahfication of our judicial system makes anything possible.

Don't forget that the Menendez brothers were found not guilty of murdering their parents ... by a state supported and warehoused, Oprah watching drug and alcohol addled, moonbat crazy leftist jury ... on the basis, as one juror said, that they had been punished enough by losing their parents (Whom they had murdered in cold blood.) forever. </div></div>

Perhaps in your alternate universe they were acquitted.

Here, the story is a little different:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Both brothers were convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. In the penalty phase of the trial, the jury did not support death sentences for the brothers but instead returned recommendations of life in prison. The jury later said that the abuse defense was never a factor in their deliberations and that the jury rejected the death penalty because neither brother had a felony record or a history of violence. Unlike the previous trials, the jury unanimously rejected the defense theory that the brothers killed their parents out of fear, but believed rather that the murders were committed with the intent of gaining control of their parents' considerable wealth.

On July 2, 1996, Weisberg sentenced Lyle and Erik Menendez to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Judge Weisberg sentenced the brothers to consecutive sentences for the murders and the charge of conspiracy to commit murder. On September 10, 1996, the California Department of Corrections separated the Menendez brothers, sending them to different prisons. Both were classified as maximum-security inmates and were segregated from other prisoners.

On February 27, 1998, the California Court of Appeal upheld the murder convictions, and on May 28, 1998, the California Supreme Court voted to uphold the murder convictions and life-without-parole sentences, with none of the Supreme Court justices voting to review the case.[4]</div></div>

Their original trial had deadlocked juries, not acquitals. After the juries were deadlocked, they were retried, with the results above, conviction of two counts of murder in the first degree each.

Why do you remember these things so incorrectly, LWW? Seriously asking. They never got off, and they never were acquitted, and in your world they were, and you blame mythical properties of Oprah's audience, drugs and alcohol, and crazy jury members?

Are you projecting again? It's like an irrational spew of your id, or something. Amazing to see, over and over again, and this was not particularly even a political case that had any left or right position. Everybody (maybe excepting Gloria Allred) thought these guys were scum, who murdered their parents to get their money.

Because their theory that they had to blow them away with shotguns because the parents were armed with pints of Haagen Dazs never made a lot of sense to anyone.

Soflasnapper
07-02-2011, 02:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Whatcha think? It has to be one of the most bizarre court events to have viewed since OJ got off. It is all messed up any way you look at it, but I have to figure she killed that child, and is the world's best untrained little actress, with a PHD in lying. Death sentence??? sid </div></div>

I am studiously not following this at all beyond the headline kind of clip I occasionally see.

I object strenuously to this level of coverage on what is perhaps a heinous, but altogether common, crime. It simply is titillation, and not a serious matter to draw so much of the national attention and oxygen in the marketplace of stories. A local tragedy, and minor monster of local import, and it shouldn't be a national story at all.

Sid_Vicious
07-05-2011, 04:43 PM
The legal world has no balance any more. Between all this atrocious lying to the courts and police, this chick slides by!? Then you have the big money IMF guy skating since the woman he raped has character flaws, even ahead of a real trial...where is the sense in all of this? Out system is totally broken, and it is really sad for that little dead girl, but mainly it is so sad that we, as a democratic country, expose ourselves as such hypocrites to justice. sid

LWW
07-05-2011, 05:11 PM
I find it ironic that the left has spent the last century condemning the idea that morals are absolute, and then lamenting that we have devolved into an amoral society.

cushioncrawler
07-05-2011, 05:17 PM
OJ iz innocent.
Simpson did it.
mac.

eg8r
07-05-2011, 07:44 PM
I think that family takes the fun out of dysfunctional. What a mess that family has become. As far as whether she killed her daughter, I want to believe she didn't. Since there is absolutely zero evidence to prove that she killed her daughter I will stick with my gut. Was she a reckless mother, absolutely, but in the end I don't think she actually killed her girl.

I applaud the jury for doing the right thing. It is the prosecutors job to prove beyond a shadow of doubt (which is defined for the jurors) and they fell very short. The state basically had zip.

This whole story breaks my heart and hopefully it will go away quickly. I do believe it will hang around for a while as she tries to pay the bills with book sales.

eg8r

Qtec
07-06-2011, 01:09 AM
watch the video. (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-goldberg-geraldo-wouldnt-defend-casey-anthony-if-shed-killed-a-hispanic-immigrant/)

Its no often I agree with Bill O.

The other guy explains the hysteria.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Warning that “no one is going to like what I’m about to say,” Goldberg asserted that “if Casey Anthony were a young black woman with a black two-year-old, <u>no network would give this story ten minutes,</u>” condemning the national media’s ability to be “<u>incredibly shallow.</u>” </div></div>

Q

LWW
07-06-2011, 02:18 AM
Do you know why they wouldn't give it 10 minutes?

hondo
07-06-2011, 07:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I find it ironic that the left has spent the last century condemning the idea that morals are absolute, and then lamenting that we have devolved into an amoral society. </div></div>

I find it ironic that dearless leader has decided to ignore another beatdown by Sofla exposing his posts as total; crap.
DL, how many left hooks are you going to take from this guy before you suffer serious brain damage?
At least you're running away now rather than trying to defend yourself.
Wise move!

hondo
07-06-2011, 07:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I haven't followed it that closely ... but from what IO have seen is sure doesn't look good.

That being said ... the Oprahfication of our judicial system makes anything possible.

Don't forget that the Menendez brothers were found not guilty of murdering their parents ... by a state supported and warehoused, Oprah watching drug and alcohol addled, moonbat crazy leftist jury ... on the basis, as one juror said, that they had been punished enough by losing their parents (Whom they had murdered in cold blood.) forever. </div></div>

Perhaps in your alternate universe they were acquitted.

Here, the story is a little different:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Both brothers were convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. In the penalty phase of the trial, the jury did not support death sentences for the brothers but instead returned recommendations of life in prison. The jury later said that the abuse defense was never a factor in their deliberations and that the jury rejected the death penalty because neither brother had a felony record or a history of violence. Unlike the previous trials, the jury unanimously rejected the defense theory that the brothers killed their parents out of fear, but believed rather that the murders were committed with the intent of gaining control of their parents' considerable wealth.

On July 2, 1996, Weisberg sentenced Lyle and Erik Menendez to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Judge Weisberg sentenced the brothers to consecutive sentences for the murders and the charge of conspiracy to commit murder. On September 10, 1996, the California Department of Corrections separated the Menendez brothers, sending them to different prisons. Both were classified as maximum-security inmates and were segregated from other prisoners.

On February 27, 1998, the California Court of Appeal upheld the murder convictions, and on May 28, 1998, the California Supreme Court voted to uphold the murder convictions and life-without-parole sentences, with none of the Supreme Court justices voting to review the case.[4]</div></div>

Their original trial had deadlocked juries, not acquitals. After the juries were deadlocked, they were retried, with the results above, conviction of two counts of murder in the first degree each.

Why do you remember these things so incorrectly, LWW? Seriously asking. They never got off, and they never were acquitted, and in your world they were, and you blame mythical properties of Oprah's audience, drugs and alcohol, and crazy jury members?

Are you projecting again? It's like an irrational spew of your id, or something. Amazing to see, over and over again, and this was not particularly even a political case that had any left or right position. Everybody (maybe excepting Gloria Allred) thought these guys were scum, who murdered their parents to get their money.

Because their theory that they had to blow them away with shotguns because the parents were armed with pints of Haagen Dazs never made a lot of sense to anyone. </div></div>

dearless leader, your fans await your reply.
Keep scouring the right wing blogs. Surely there's something you can find to twist this?!?!?! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

eg8r
07-06-2011, 09:27 AM
We have a race baiter on the radio also. It is sick that they stoop to such low levels.

eg8r

hondo
07-06-2011, 07:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I haven't followed it that closely ... but from what IO have seen is sure doesn't look good.

That being said ... the Oprahfication of our judicial system makes anything possible.

Don't forget that the Menendez brothers were found not guilty of murdering their parents ... by a state supported and warehoused, Oprah watching drug and alcohol addled, moonbat crazy leftist jury ... on the basis, as one juror said, that they had been punished enough by losing their parents (Whom they had murdered in cold blood.) forever. </div></div>

Perhaps in your alternate universe they were acquitted.

Here, the story is a little different:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Both brothers were convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. In the penalty phase of the trial, the jury did not support death sentences for the brothers but instead returned recommendations of life in prison. The jury later said that the abuse defense was never a factor in their deliberations and that the jury rejected the death penalty because neither brother had a felony record or a history of violence. Unlike the previous trials, the jury unanimously rejected the defense theory that the brothers killed their parents out of fear, but believed rather that the murders were committed with the intent of gaining control of their parents' considerable wealth.

On July 2, 1996, Weisberg sentenced Lyle and Erik Menendez to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Judge Weisberg sentenced the brothers to consecutive sentences for the murders and the charge of conspiracy to commit murder. On September 10, 1996, the California Department of Corrections separated the Menendez brothers, sending them to different prisons. Both were classified as maximum-security inmates and were segregated from other prisoners.

On February 27, 1998, the California Court of Appeal upheld the murder convictions, and on May 28, 1998, the California Supreme Court voted to uphold the murder convictions and life-without-parole sentences, with none of the Supreme Court justices voting to review the case.[4]</div></div>

Their original trial had deadlocked juries, not acquitals. After the juries were deadlocked, they were retried, with the results above, conviction of two counts of murder in the first degree each.

Why do you remember these things so incorrectly, LWW? Seriously asking. They never got off, and they never were acquitted, and in your world they were, and you blame mythical properties of Oprah's audience, drugs and alcohol, and crazy jury members?

Are you projecting again? It's like an irrational spew of your id, or something. Amazing to see, over and over again, and this was not particularly even a political case that had any left or right position. Everybody (maybe excepting Gloria Allred) thought these guys were scum, who murdered their parents to get their money.

Because their theory that they had to blow them away with shotguns because the parents were armed with pints of Haagen Dazs never made a lot of sense to anyone. </div></div>

dearless leader, your fans await your reply.
Keep scouring the right wing blogs. Surely there's something you can find to twist this?!?!?! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif </div></div>


Bump for DL.

LWW
07-07-2011, 05:26 AM
WOW! Just wow.

Your <span style='font-size: 11pt'>"VICTORIES"</span> are so small and few and far between that you go to this length?

I stand corrected, the Menendez brothers were not found guilty (In the first trial.) of murdering their parents because of a juror lamenting that they had already suffered due to the loss of their parents ... whom the Menendez brothers had murdered.

Sev
07-07-2011, 05:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Whatcha think? It has to be one of the most bizarre court events to have viewed since OJ got off. It is all messed up any way you look at it, but I have to figure she killed that child, and is the world's best untrained little actress, with a PHD in lying. Death sentence??? sid </div></div>

The point is moot.
She is now getting offers up to 1 million dollars for interviews.

The prosecution had no concrete evidence. The jury executed its decision correctly. There was reasonable doubt.

The max she can receive is 4 years. 3 years can be considered served. Its possible she will be released with no further time served.

However charges may be pending on the grandparents as well as others. The saga may not be over.

hondo
07-07-2011, 06:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WOW! Just wow.

Your <span style='font-size: 11pt'>"VICTORIES"</span> are so small and few and far between that you go to this length?

I stand corrected, the Menendez brothers were not found guilty (In the first trial.) of murdering their parents because of a juror lamenting that they had already suffered due to the loss of their parents ... whom the Menendez brothers had murdered. </div></div>

The rest of us admit when we're wrong. You have to be forced.
What an ego for a common troll!

LWW
07-07-2011, 05:23 PM
Are you asking anyone to believe that <u><span style='font-size: 26pt'>YOU</span></u> forced me to do something?

That is simply precious.

hondo
07-07-2011, 08:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you asking anyone to believe that <u><span style='font-size: 26pt'>YOU</span></u> forced me to do something?

That is simply precious. </div></div>

Thanks for proving my point.

Qtec
07-08-2011, 12:36 AM
Well, this one was a bit out of the norm.

For me there is only one piece of evidence that counts. She didn't report her daughter missing for 30 days!

You could add to that how many lies she told and how many times the story changed.

A normal mother would go nuts if her 2 yr old child was missing for 30 minutes.

Q

Soflasnapper
07-08-2011, 05:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, this one was a bit out of the norm.

For me there is only one piece of evidence that counts. She didn't report her daughter missing for 30 days!

You could add to that how many lies she told and how many times the story changed.

A normal mother would go nuts if her 2 yr old child was missing for 30 minutes.

Q </div></div>

Not having followed it much, as I said, still I heard a snippet about maybe the child drowned, and then this was the coverup of an accidental death. Don't know if this was speculation from the defense side, or substantiated in any way.

However, I agree that part is otherwise inexplicable, except under guilt of the act. It would certainly NOT be sufficient to show murder 1 (premeditation), so under the fact situation, the prosecution really over-charged and paid a price for that I guess.

LWW
07-08-2011, 05:36 PM
Since when did cause of death become a requirement for the prosecution?

What if I shoot you and stab someone while holding their head under water and then shove their corpse into a wood chipper ... am I to be assumed innocent because the cause of death is indeterminate?