By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Casey Anthony Trial? What do you all think? Casey Watch is here.

Tagged games:

brendude13 on 06 July 2011
d21lewis said:
The problem is, they get these jurors who are not supposed to have any prior knowledge of the case. While our opinions are formed by the media and circumstances that aren't admissable to court, all the jurors can consider is the evidence. There were some holes that just weren't answered by the prosecution. It's easy for us to sit here and say "She's guilty and deserves to die" (How easy? I'll say it right now--Casey Anthony is guilty and deserves to die) but we weren't the ones that had to sit there and look at her for weeks on end and then decide that, based on our decision, she would be condemned to death. Didn't you guys see The DArk Knight? Nobody wants to get their hands dirty!

It would be one thing if there was a confession or a smoking gun. All we had was circumstantial evidence to go on. While I could personally convict somebody based on circumstantial evidence and a little common sense, I don't think I could kill somebody without absolute certainty. I just don't believe the intent to kill was there. They should have never tried to convict that slut of anything more than manslaughter. To charge anybody with ANY crime, you have to be able to prove all of the elements of the crime (intent, included). If a single element isn't accounted for, the case is lost. With murder, they had to prove Casey intended to kill her daughter. With manslaughter, all they had to prove was that Casey was responsible.

And because of that, a killer is going to walk free.

That's what I was thinking. If she wasn't found guilt of murder, couldn't they drop the charges to manslaughter though? I think everybody knows she is responsible for something, just letting her go like this is unnaceptable.



Around the Network
MessiaH on 06 July 2011
d21lewis said:
The problem is, they get these jurors who are not supposed to have any prior knowledge of the case. While our opinions are formed by the media and circumstances that aren't admissable to court, all the jurors can consider is the evidence. There were some holes that just weren't answered by the prosecution. It's easy for us to sit here and say "She's guilty and deserves to die" (How easy? I'll say it right now--Casey Anthony is guilty and deserves to die) but we weren't the ones that had to sit there and look at her for weeks on end and then decide that, based on our decision, she would be condemned to death. Didn't you guys see The DArk Knight? Nobody wants to get their hands dirty!

It would be one thing if there was a confession or a smoking gun. All we had was circumstantial evidence to go on. While I could personally convict somebody based on circumstantial evidence and a little common sense, I don't think I could kill somebody without absolute certainty. I just don't believe the intent to kill was there. They should have never tried to convict that slut of anything more than manslaughter. To charge anybody with ANY crime, you have to be able to prove all of the elements of the crime (intent, included). If a single element isn't accounted for, the case is lost. With murder, they had to prove Casey intended to kill her daughter. With manslaughter, all they had to prove was that Casey was responsible.

And because of that, a killer is going to walk free.

I agree with your assessment. There was no direct link between Casey and the actual murder. Nothing that proves she actually perpetrated the crime. But I do think she was guilty just based on how she did not report her child missing for over a month, concealed evidence from the police, AND lied to them. If someone is not guilty, they would not have to lie and conceal anything. She is one fucked up woman. The problem here, like you said, is the charge for murder. And with murder comes capital punishment. I think the jury felt too scared to sentence someone to death without definitive evidence that she committed the crime. Had it been manslaughter and the sentence was time in jail, the jury would have probably found her guilty. As such, we have a deranged, evil bitch roaming the streets!



d21lewis on 06 July 2011
brendude13 said:
d21lewis said:
The problem is, they get these jurors who are not supposed to have any prior knowledge of the case. While our opinions are formed by the media and circumstances that aren't admissable to court, all the jurors can consider is the evidence. There were some holes that just weren't answered by the prosecution. It's easy for us to sit here and say "She's guilty and deserves to die" (How easy? I'll say it right now--Casey Anthony is guilty and deserves to die) but we weren't the ones that had to sit there and look at her for weeks on end and then decide that, based on our decision, she would be condemned to death. Didn't you guys see The DArk Knight? Nobody wants to get their hands dirty!

It would be one thing if there was a confession or a smoking gun. All we had was circumstantial evidence to go on. While I could personally convict somebody based on circumstantial evidence and a little common sense, I don't think I could kill somebody without absolute certainty. I just don't believe the intent to kill was there. They should have never tried to convict that slut of anything more than manslaughter. To charge anybody with ANY crime, you have to be able to prove all of the elements of the crime (intent, included). If a single element isn't accounted for, the case is lost. With murder, they had to prove Casey intended to kill her daughter. With manslaughter, all they had to prove was that Casey was responsible.

And because of that, a killer is going to walk free.

That's what I was thinking. If she wasn't found guilt of murder, couldn't they drop the charges to manslaughter though? I think everybody knows she is responsible for something, just letting her go like this is unnaceptable.

That's the crazy thing about our court system.  It's sort of an all or nothing deal.  They had to charge her with what they think they can prove.  I'm sure Casey was given the option "If you go ahead and plead guilty, we're going to just charge you with manslaughter.  If you don't, we'll charge you with murder." type deal.  Obiously, Anthony maintained her innocence and the prosecution couldn't prove she was a murderer.  Now, she can't be given another trial because, if you're found innocent, you're innocent.  It was the decision of the court.  She could have been found guilty and then fought it but, like a video game, when you win, you won.  None of the losses matter.

It works both ways.  I remember going to court for a guy that commited armed robbery.  The state told him that if he pled guilty, he'd do 5-10 years.  The guy didn't want to take the deal and the judge slammed him with 40 year of prison!!  Anthony rolled the dice and beat the system.  Maybe she beat the court system but I have a feeling she's going to have to look over her shoulder for a long time to come.....  And I'm willing to bet that she's so psycho that she already convinced herself that she's innocent.  She really is a nutcase. 



Fayceless on 06 July 2011

Just so everyone is clear: she WAS found guilty on four counts of lying to police. The jury could have found her guilty of manslaughter, but they did not. My guess is since there was no solid evidence linking her to her daughters death, they felt they could not find her guilty of that.

She'll get up to a year for each count of lying. But as she's already been in for 3 years, time served will limit that to 1 year tops, probably.



oldschoolfool on 06 July 2011

I'm happy it's over,because I got tired of hearing about it.



Around the Network
d21lewis on 06 July 2011
Fayceless said:
Just so everyone is clear: she WAS found guilty on four counts of lying to police. The jury could have found her guilty of manslaughter, but they did not. My guess is since there was no solid evidence linking her to her daughters death, they felt they could not find her guilty of that.

She'll get up to a year for each count of lying. But as she's already been in for 3 years, time served will limit that to 1 year tops, probably.


But false info is such a slap on the wrist sort of crime.  She could do three years for them (at the descretion of the judge) but if so, it's only because the judge felt she needed to be punished.  I've seen people walk out of the courtroom without doing a day in jail for false information.  One thing that I'm hoping is that her previous charges (the jury wasn't allowed to hear them since they had no bearing on this case) of stealing her best friends credit cards are still pending.  Hopefully she'll be found guilty and does some time for that.



brendude13 on 06 July 2011
d21lewis said:
brendude13 said:
d21lewis said:
The problem is, they get these jurors who are not supposed to have any prior knowledge of the case. While our opinions are formed by the media and circumstances that aren't admissable to court, all the jurors can consider is the evidence. There were some holes that just weren't answered by the prosecution. It's easy for us to sit here and say "She's guilty and deserves to die" (How easy? I'll say it right now--Casey Anthony is guilty and deserves to die) but we weren't the ones that had to sit there and look at her for weeks on end and then decide that, based on our decision, she would be condemned to death. Didn't you guys see The DArk Knight? Nobody wants to get their hands dirty!

It would be one thing if there was a confession or a smoking gun. All we had was circumstantial evidence to go on. While I could personally convict somebody based on circumstantial evidence and a little common sense, I don't think I could kill somebody without absolute certainty. I just don't believe the intent to kill was there. They should have never tried to convict that slut of anything more than manslaughter. To charge anybody with ANY crime, you have to be able to prove all of the elements of the crime (intent, included). If a single element isn't accounted for, the case is lost. With murder, they had to prove Casey intended to kill her daughter. With manslaughter, all they had to prove was that Casey was responsible.

And because of that, a killer is going to walk free.

That's what I was thinking. If she wasn't found guilt of murder, couldn't they drop the charges to manslaughter though? I think everybody knows she is responsible for something, just letting her go like this is unnaceptable.

That's the crazy thing about our court system.  It's sort of an all or nothing deal.  They had to charge her with what they think they can prove.  I'm sure Casey was given the option "If you go ahead and plead guilty, we're going to just charge you with manslaughter.  If you don't, we'll charge you with murder." type deal.  Obiously, Anthony maintained her innocence and the prosecution couldn't prove she was a murderer.  Now, she can't be given another trial because, if you're found innocent, you're innocent.  It was the decision of the court.  She could have been found guilty and then fought it but, like a video game, when you win, you won.  None of the losses matter.

It works both ways.  I remember going to court for a guy that commited armed robbery.  The state told him that if he pled guilty, he'd do 5-10 years.  The guy didn't want to take the deal and the judge slammed him with 40 year of prison!!  Anthony rolled the dice and beat the system.  Maybe she beat the court system but I have a feeling she's going to have to look over her shoulder for a long time to come.....  And I'm willing to bet that she's so psycho that she already convinced herself that she's innocent.  She really is a nutcase. 

I think that the court system needs to be more "set in stone", none of these deals or "if you're found innocent, you're innocent" nonsense, so many people are getting away with the most horrific of crimes.

It's such a shame that they tried for murder, rather than manslaughter. While I think there was sufficient evidence, the jury might not agree, and the woman is insane. They gambled and they failed, being found guilty of manslaughter would have given her a sufficient prison sentence.

Hopefully she gets what's coming to her. If she doesn't end up in prison, she could at least be put into a mental hospital.



Fayceless on 06 July 2011
brendude13 said:
d21lewis said:
brendude13 said:
d21lewis said:
The problem is, they get these jurors who are not supposed to have any prior knowledge of the case. While our opinions are formed by the media and circumstances that aren't admissable to court, all the jurors can consider is the evidence. There were some holes that just weren't answered by the prosecution. It's easy for us to sit here and say "She's guilty and deserves to die" (How easy? I'll say it right now--Casey Anthony is guilty and deserves to die) but we weren't the ones that had to sit there and look at her for weeks on end and then decide that, based on our decision, she would be condemned to death. Didn't you guys see The DArk Knight? Nobody wants to get their hands dirty!

It would be one thing if there was a confession or a smoking gun. All we had was circumstantial evidence to go on. While I could personally convict somebody based on circumstantial evidence and a little common sense, I don't think I could kill somebody without absolute certainty. I just don't believe the intent to kill was there. They should have never tried to convict that slut of anything more than manslaughter. To charge anybody with ANY crime, you have to be able to prove all of the elements of the crime (intent, included). If a single element isn't accounted for, the case is lost. With murder, they had to prove Casey intended to kill her daughter. With manslaughter, all they had to prove was that Casey was responsible.

And because of that, a killer is going to walk free.

That's what I was thinking. If she wasn't found guilt of murder, couldn't they drop the charges to manslaughter though? I think everybody knows she is responsible for something, just letting her go like this is unnaceptable.

That's the crazy thing about our court system.  It's sort of an all or nothing deal.  They had to charge her with what they think they can prove.  I'm sure Casey was given the option "If you go ahead and plead guilty, we're going to just charge you with manslaughter.  If you don't, we'll charge you with murder." type deal.  Obiously, Anthony maintained her innocence and the prosecution couldn't prove she was a murderer.  Now, she can't be given another trial because, if you're found innocent, you're innocent.  It was the decision of the court.  She could have been found guilty and then fought it but, like a video game, when you win, you won.  None of the losses matter.

It works both ways.  I remember going to court for a guy that commited armed robbery.  The state told him that if he pled guilty, he'd do 5-10 years.  The guy didn't want to take the deal and the judge slammed him with 40 year of prison!!  Anthony rolled the dice and beat the system.  Maybe she beat the court system but I have a feeling she's going to have to look over her shoulder for a long time to come.....  And I'm willing to bet that she's so psycho that she already convinced herself that she's innocent.  She really is a nutcase. 

I think that the court system needs to be more "set in stone", none of these deals or "if you're found innocent, you're innocent" nonsense, so many people are getting away with the most horrific of crimes.

It's such a shame that they tried for murder, rather than manslaughter. While I think there was sufficient evidence, the jury might not agree, and the woman is insane. They gambled and they failed, being found guilty of manslaughter would have given her a sufficient prison sentence.

Hopefully she gets what's coming to her. If she doesn't end up in prison, she could at least be put into a mental hospital.

As I stated earlier, they could have found her guilty of manslaughter, but chose not to on a lack of evidence.



d21lewis on 06 July 2011
Fayceless said:

As I stated earlier, they could have found her guilty of manslaughter, but chose not to on a lack of evidence.


They tried aggravated manslaughter.  They could have gone with voluntary or involuntary manslaughter.  There's a difference. Probably would have stood a better chance.  Even then, the big question is how did Caylee die?  Even now, with mom dodging a bullet, there is still no way of knowing exactly how the little girl died.

It just racks my brain.  Mom waited so long to tell someone (she probably NEVER would have said anything), the girl is found in the woods, and she lies about everything and everyone related to the incident (my kid is with the nanny. my kid is in the park. the nanny has kidnapped my kid and lets me talk to her on the phone. etc. etc. etc.).  I just don't get it.



Mr Khan on 29 July 2011
spurgeonryan said:
Well now people are going crazy over a limited edition Casey Anthony mask that will be used for halloween, and last week some lady was ran off the road who looked like Casey. So she should probably stay hidden for a while longer. And S.T.A.G.E if you end up living next to her you could make a bunch of money telling the media where she is!!

The question is when the book or movie deal comes to light. That's when she'll clean up and resentment against her is going to explode



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.