The Casey Anthony Trial

[Butterfly 3]

No.

 

 

 

Yes.

 

 

 

My life is pretty great right now, actually, but my life's happiness is hardly relevant to your qualifications as a juror or as an American.

 

 

 

If I didn't earnestly believe that people could better themselves because some of them are willing to learn and expand their thinking, I wouldn't be able to get out of bed in the morning. That I get out of bed every morning is indicative that this is not the case.

 

You may be an exception to the kind of person to whom I'm referring, and your stubborn, ridiculous refusal to accept that there is a significant legal difference between "what is believed" and "what is proven beyond reasonable doubt" suggests that you are such an exception, but I see no reason to judge everyone on that standard just because you're so content to be a disappointment.

 

 

I know the difference, but it is a reasonable doubt, not no doubt at all. (1) Dr. G a noted Medical Examiner in Orlando area for many years, and higly regarded professional in her field, ruled the death a homicide. In my opinon, there is no reasonable explanation for duct tape to be placed on the child's nose and mouth other than to kill her. (2) Casey was the last person to be seen with Caylee, and Casey failed to report her disappearance. If one of my daugthers went missing for 5 minutes, I am on the phone with the police. (3) Casey looked up cholfrom, neck breaking, household weapons, shovels, etc. (4) Caylee's body was in Casey truck and in the Anthony's backyard. I am convinced of these because Caylee's hair was found in the trunk To me, there is no other reasonable explanation for hair to in her thrunk. Also, the Dogs got a hit in her trunk and in the backyard. In the state of Florida, motive does need to be established.

 

 

 

To me, The Defense's ME was not convincing. He could not remember any major facts of the case, did not even know the anthony's names, could not remember that he broke Caylee's skull during examination. He was rusty and old., and was educated in Palestine which has not been a nation since 1948. There is absolutely no proof that Caylee drown in the family pool. We are to believe that Caylee drown simply because a pathlogical lair said so? In no way do I believe George Anthony covered up the accidential death of Caylee. There is just no evidence. I am convinced beyond doubt that George loved his granddaughter, and would have called 911 in attempt to save Caylee's life. Baez asserted the child got out of the back door in the middle of night, and drown. Why didn't she have her grown on? Why would she dressed for daytime? Why would George spend every dime he had to look for Caylee, if he knew she was dead? Makes no sense at all.

 

 

I woud not have voted for 1st degree murder, but neglect homicide, child neglect, obstruction of justice and improper disposal of a body. State just did not charge Casey with the appropriate crimes.

[Butterfly 3]

By saying Casey Anthony is guilty of 1st degree murder in Florida you are sending her to death. I'm not sure how I'm belittling you, just thought it was odd that you'd talk about being religious and justice all the while talking about how you think it's okay for them to charge her of crimes they could never prove she committed.

 

 

!st degree murder conviction is not always a death sentence. I am pretty sure that there are only 2 women on death row at this time. I only remember 2 women being excuted in FL in recent history, so it would be highly unlikely. Besides, I think a 1st degree murder conviction would have been overturned in appeals.

[Emory889 353]

I am a Christian not a Muslim. Even though I mentioned death sentences in my prior post, my main point was that the sentences are rarely carried out. Death sentence does not deter crime, and I am against it. My god is about justice and love for all. If I served on a Jury and I was convinced that this person was quitly, I am going to vote for conviction. I am not going to vote for a murderer to walk free.

 

You might want to reread the old testament. "Your God" decrees the use of the death penalty as punishment for a multitude of crimes including disobedient children.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

In my opinon, there is no reasonable explanation for duct tape to be placed on the child's nose and mouth other than to kill her.

 

There was no way to prove that the tape was put on Caylee before she died.

 

 

(2) Casey was the last person to be seen with Caylee,

 

Which doesn't mean she was the last one to be with Caylee. The last person I was seen with was that cute girl who works the counter at Panera, but if I'd been kidnapped and murdered after leaving the store, that she was the last one I was seen with would hardly make her a worthy suspect.

 

and Casey failed to report her disappearance. If one of my daugthers went missing for 5 minutes, I am on the phone with the police.

 

Which makes Casey a pretty terrible mother and person. But 1) that fact is not really being disputed and 2) that's not what she was charged with.

 

(3) Casey looked up cholfrom, neck breaking, household weapons, shovels, etc.

 

I've looked up similar things in the past after watching particularly strange episodes of CSI.

 

(4) Caylee's body was in Casey truck and in the Anthony's backyard. I am convinced of these because Caylee's hair was found in the trunk To me, there is no other reasonable explanation for hair to in her thrunk. Also, the Dogs got a hit in her trunk and in the backyard.

 

Any lawyer on Earth could explain hairs of a child being in her mother's car and backyard. You leave hair everywhere you go, and on anything and everything you spend any decent amount of time around. The most basic defense in the world for hair in the trunk is: "I don't clean my car very often."

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

To me, The Defense's ME was not convincing.

 

His goal wasn't to convince you. It was to convice a jury. You had no role in the case at all, so to him, you were irrelevant.

 

He could not remember any major facts of the case, did not even know the anthony's names, could not remember that he broke Caylee's skull during examination.

 

He was hardly the only person to confuse facts during the trial. Both sides did that plenty.

 

He was rusty and old., and was educated in Palestine which has not been a nation since 1948.

 

I'd love to hear an explanation as to why his being educated in Palestine is relevant. Because without such an explanation, it sure as **** sounds racist.

 

There is absolutely no proof that Caylee drown in the family pool.

 

There's no proof she was murdered either. Hence, the not guilty verdict.

 

We are to believe that Caylee drown simply because a pathlogical lair said so?

 

No one expects you to believe anything. You're confusing your personal certainty of the truth with what was provable in a court of law.

 

In no way do I believe George Anthony covered up the accidential death of Caylee. There is just no evidence.

 

There is circumstantial evidence. You may not believe that circumstantial evidence is meaningful, but the only evidence that Caylee was murdered is ALSO circumstantial, and you seem to have no qualms about executing a woman based off circumstantial evidence when you agree with it.

 

I am convinced beyond doubt that George loved his granddaughter, and would have called 911 in attempt to save Caylee's life.

 

Based on what? Your gut feeling about his character? How does that gut feeling have any place in a juror's room? How is that gut feeling anyone's notion of justice?

 

Baez asserted the child got out of the back door in the middle of night, and drown. Why didn't she have her grown on? Why would she dressed for daytime? Why would George spend every dime he had to look for Caylee, if he knew she was dead? Makes no sense at all.

 

And nothing you just said proves that Casey Anthony murdered her daughter.

 

I woud not have voted for 1st degree murder, but neglect homicide, child neglect, obstruction of justice and improper disposal of a body. State just did not charge Casey with the appropriate crimes.

 

So wait a minute: You're upset that people are agreeing that Casey Anthony being found not guilty, because the prosecution failed to prove their case that Casey Anthony had committed murder, but you THEN claim the state didn't make the appropriate charges? The same thing that a bunch of us were claiming pages ago?

 

Are you *****ing kidding me? And you have the gall to call ME arrogant?

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

You might want to reread the old testament. "Your God" decrees the use of the death penalty as punishment for a multitude of crimes including disobedient children.

 

He also explicitly supports slavery.

 

But then most people will say that Jesus's sacrifice wiped out most of the old testament laws so they no longer apply. But that kind of makes you wonder why a perfect god who makes perfect laws needs to do such a thing.

 

Mysterious ways indeed.

[Emory889 353]

He also explicitly supports slavery.

 

But then most people will say that Jesus's sacrifice wiped out most of the old testament laws so they no longer apply. But that kind of makes you wonder why a perfect god who makes perfect laws needs to do such a thing.

 

Mysterious ways indeed.

 

Most of the Christians that I know (and respect, for the record) still believe the Old Testament is relevant. They just have a tendicity to ignore the lesser known laws that are clearly politically incorrect by today's standards.

[Optimist Prime 197]

I guess I'll comment on a few things...

 

Firstly, the Jewish and Christian god are definitely the same. Though, a Christian would argue that they have a fuller view of God, as the Messianic prophecies (Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, Daniel 7) have been fulfilled in Jesus.

 

When it comes to Muslims, they worship the God of Abraham, and in that sense, they worship the same god. But the characteristics of this god are different than the one worshiped by Jews and Christians. So, it can be argued either way.

 

And as for the Muslims recognizing the Bible, that's not entirely true. They do think that the Bible should be read by Muslims, but because there are some vast differences between the Bible and Quran, the Quran should be taken as Authority and the Bible as reference. They believe that the Bible has been tampered with and can only really be trusted insomuch as it agrees with the Quran (much like the Mormons believe about their books, but I find the god of Islam MUCH more like the Christian god than the god of Mormonism).

 

The Jews and Muslims are both, indeed, Abrahamic. Isaac and Ishmael being the fathers of each, respectively. And Muslims argue that the "prophet" Moses foretold to come after him is Mohammad, whereas, Christians would say that it is Jesus himself.

 

And about the Old Testament laws...

 

Jeremiah 31 promises a New Covenant to be made between God and his people. This covenant is different from the Old Covenant because the Old was for a people of a different time. The Jews were surrounded by enemies who all worshiped different idols. If the laws were not as strict, the Jews would not have kept their god separate from the gods of the people around them. And the harsh laws in the Old Testament were meant to show the difficulty of keeping the Law. It's purpose was to show how hard it is to really be righteous in the eyes of God.

 

The New Testament expands on this. Paul writes in his letter to the Romans that as Christians, we have died to the law. And now we adhere to the Law of Righteousness because the Old is obsolete.

 

Now, I think it would also be proper to mention that the slavery in the Bible is not the slavery that we think of today. It was an indentured servitude, where a person can willfully offer themselves to be a slave to another for an agreed upon period of time. While in servitude, they can then learn skills that would allow them to find employment elsewhere. Some even decide to remain indentured servants because they preferred it.

 

Now, there are also rules within the Bible about how one should treat their slaves. Also, slaves were only allowed to remain indentured for seven years unless they willingly choose to stay. And master's were commanded to give to those slaves that left "freely" from their flock.

 

I didn't know if I wanted to take part in this conversation, but I guess I can at least provide some food for thought from a Christian perspective.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

I will say, Optimist, that your willingness to discuss these topics in a civil manner and your clear dedication to knowledge of your religion is to be commended. There are too few people like you around, and I know it's not easy to maintain civility in the face of criticisms like this. I know we atheists can be hard to deal with. So kudos to you for that.

 

That being said, I have some trouble with what you're saying here. The slavery explanation seems like sugar-coating to me. I'll admit that I'm ignorant of some of the finer details involved here, but even indentured servitude seems like something that wouldn't be compatible with an all-knowing and all-lovng god. If he created everyone and has a plan for everyone, that means he purposely made some people slaves or indentured servants, and since we have to assume that God's influence didn't stop with the end of biblical times, we have to assume that he's responsible for the uglier slavery that has happened almost everywhere throughout human history as well. He's responsible for creating both the people who treated other human beings so harshly and also for creating those who were doomed to live a life of slavery. Why? What's the purpose of creating people who will have unbelievably miserable lives? Is it solely to teach the rest of us a lesson? I can't come up with an explanation for that which doesn't involve a gigantic moral problem.

 

This same reasoning applies to the Old Testament laws as well. Even if we are to accept that those laws were necessary to keep the Jews in line, we still have to accept that God created those conditions in the first place. He must have chosen to make all that stuff happen so that people would have to commit what would today be described as incredibly immoral acts in his name. Why?

 

I haven't heard an explanation yet that doesn't result in God being an absurdly immoral being, and that seems to preclude worshiping him.

[Emory889 353]

I am having a hard time with the concept that God needed stricter laws to keep the ancient Jewish people in line. These were the same people that had, within their generation, seen countless miracles including the plagues in Egypt and the Red Sea get parted. They had experienced countless signs that God existed. Modern civilization, on the other hand, has just as many different gods, and even more people that doubt the existance of a god all together. It seems to me that if God was sincere about stricter laws to keep people righteous, he would be more interested in those laws today as opposed to an age when people had experienced these wonders first hand. I also have a problem with God using death as a punishment for following other deities when free will is supposed to be the greatest gift that God ever gave us. That doesn't jive with me.

 

I echo the response from Gene, Optimist. I have a lot of friends that are Christian and I appreciate the input from people that can have a conversation about religion in civil manner even if we don't all believe in the same things.

[Butterfly 3]

His goal wasn't to convince you. It was to convice a jury. You had no role in the case at all, so to him, you were irrelevant.

 

 

 

He was hardly the only person to confuse facts during the trial. Both sides did that plenty.

 

 

 

I'd love to hear an explanation as to why his being educated in Palestine is relevant. Because without such an explanation, it sure as **** sounds racist.

 

 

 

There's no proof she was murdered either. Hence, the not guilty verdict.

 

 

 

No one expects you to believe anything. You're confusing your personal certainty of the truth with what was provable in a court of law.

 

 

 

There is circumstantial evidence. You may not believe that circumstantial evidence is meaningful, but the only evidence that Caylee was murdered is ALSO circumstantial, and you seem to have no qualms about executing a woman based off circumstantial evidence when you agree with it.

 

 

 

Based on what? Your gut feeling about his character? How does that gut feeling have any place in a juror's room? How is that gut feeling anyone's notion of justice?

 

 

 

And nothing you just said proves that Casey Anthony murdered her daughter.

 

 

 

So wait a minute: You're upset that people are agreeing that Casey Anthony being found not guilty, because the prosecution failed to prove their case that Casey Anthony had committed murder, but you THEN claim the state didn't make the appropriate charges? The same thing that a bunch of us were claiming pages ago?

 

Are you *****ing kidding me? And you have the gall to call ME arrogant?

 

 

 

I no longer wish to dicuss this case because it is tragic and upsetting. As to comment about me being a racist is bull. I made reference to Palenstine to show that this gentlemen is somewhat old being that Isreal came into being in 1948. This means he was in college in the 1940's. How can I be certain he is up to date on modern procedures? This guy is at least 84. Yes, I did realize that maybe that more appropriate charges could have been filed on this. A beautiful 2 year old year is dead. People will get emotional over this issue, but can look at things realistically over time. So stop telling me I am wrong for getting emotional and being sad over her death. Are you completely devoid of all human emotions?

[Chase 209]

 

It's just a matter of time, people. Dexter will handle the justice.