I always said that if Amanda Knox wasn't such an attractive girl, no one would've given a crap about her case. And here we have another case with an attractive female, and a lot of the same people are all over it.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Anyone following the Casey Anthony trial
- Thread starter Severus Snape
- Start date
I always said that if Amanda Knox wasn't such an attractive girl, no one would've given a crap about her case. And here we have another case with an attractive female, and a lot of the same people are all over it.
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2006
- Messages
- 15,302
I hadn't heard of the case until the verdict, and I find the absolute certainty of people to be quite peculiar.
Also, people really need to brush up on the difference between the different murder and manslaughter charges. The distinctions are not based on how sure you are, you need to be beyond reasonable doubt for all of them. People keep acting like we can just downgrade charges if we aren't sure enough to give the death penalty. One of the keys to deciding which charge fits the crime is actually knowing how she died.
Also, people really need to brush up on the difference between the different murder and manslaughter charges. The distinctions are not based on how sure you are, you need to be beyond reasonable doubt for all of them. People keep acting like we can just downgrade charges if we aren't sure enough to give the death penalty. One of the keys to deciding which charge fits the crime is actually knowing how she died.
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2006
- Messages
- 15,302
I've actually read cases where the mother carried their dead baby around shopping.
NSFW, and filled with other examples.
But they were poor and black, so I guess nobody cares?
I was actually wondering why people were so focused here. They just found a dead boy's body in the backyard a few towns over. But then I heard about Nancy Drew and decided it wasn't just some random surge of attention.
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
Well, there is the Zenida Gonzalez lawsuit because of defamation.
Then the SA office wants to sue for the money spent looking for her daughter due to her lies. (I don't think that is possible though, as that may fall under the rule of double jeopardy.)
Then there is the Texas Equisearch, who is considering suing her for coming out and looking for her daughter. (Again, I don't know how far they will get with this though.)
There could be more. Not to mention the $70k she owes the IRS.
She's not out of the woods yet. But much closer, that's for sure.
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
I know that out court system is not perfect. I was asking for a citation for this wild claim.
"Courts of law in the USA aren't as reliable as an airline. "
Yeah, none will come.
The jury never knew how Lacy Peterson died, yet her husband Scott is living on some row, I think it starts with a "d", in San Quentin.
But since her body was chopped into pieces, it sort of convinced people that there was some foul play concerning the incident.
In this case, however, there's no evidence there was any foul play at all.
I'm not sure if you're serious about teh Lacy Peterson case, or you are way more high than me, or perhaps it a Norway thing, but her body was eaten by crabs and the baby popped out...not chopped up.
I wasn't familiar with the case, so I read up on it on Wikipedia. It says her torso washed ashore with no hands, feet or head. The article didn't say they were chopped off, but that's how I interpreted it. I might be wrong. Sounds like you have some serious nasty crabs, though..
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 13,012
Ryokan,
I discussed your argument elsewhere. Barbie Nadeau at the Daily Beast and others have made what I consider to be superficial comparisons between the two cases, so I thought I would check out this thread. I think it is interesting that several of us who comment on both cases think that Anthony is likely to be guilty of manslaughter at least.
Tsukasa Buddha,
I was surprised when I looked at the Anthony case in a little bit more detail that it was as weak as it was with respect to first-degree murder. However, MikeyT and lane99 have made what seem to me to be reasonable arguments about manslaughter. For me the fact that she did not report the death is difficult to square with any innocent explanation.
I wasn't familiar with the case, so I read up on it on Wikipedia. It says her torso washed ashore with no hands, feet or head. The article didn't say they were chopped off, but that's how I interpreted it. I might be wrong. Sounds like you have some serious nasty crabs, though..
As I recall, they said they were NOT hacked off with a tool or anything, but most likely got chewed off or fell off. I know she was headless, but that could happen from having chains around her neck, there was zero blood/DNA ever found at the house.
If he went all chainsaw on her, there would have been evidence.
How is this one even possible? What she was like what 22 maybe 23 when she was arrested and denied bail. So even assuming she has worked since 16 that gives her 6 years minus at least a few weeks probably months when the kid was born. She worked lower service jobs that whole time and than had a tax deduction for 1 to 2 of those years so lets go crazy and assume she was averaging 35k a year that is still a third of her lifetime earnings she owes.
That jury was wrong and the defense team there were more worried about trying the case in the press than in the court room.
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
She lied and cheated the IRS?
EDIT: Actually it seems to be this:
http://blogs.forbes.com/kellyphillipserb/2011/05/29/casey-anthony-on-trial-liened-by-irs/
Last edited:
ABC paid her $200,000 back in '08 for, ah.......just read the link.
$70,000 sounds just about right for that amount of cash income.
http://news.yahoo.com/abc-news-paid-casey-anthony-family-200-000-175202089.html
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
She got a big check from ABC (IIRC) for something in the area of $200,000 for pictures or something.
Nevr declared it on her taxes, or never got a chance to pay that, I don't know exactly.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
You are kidding, right ?
Duct tape over the mouth and chloroform are just everyday, playtime paraphernalia ?
Makes me wonder if you watched the trial or just heard these facts from media sources.
The chloroform searches on Casey Anthony's computer were sketchy at best. Casey's boyfriend at the time of the searches sent her this joke on his My Space Page.
The boyfriend testifiied that it was about the same time he sent that joke, the Defense was able to show the searches were performed. It's reasonable to say a 22 year old girl wouldn't know what chloroform was so it in turn is reasonable that she googled it to learn more so she could understand the joke. The State presented two computer analyst who contradicted one another as to how many times the chloroform searches were performed. There was some sketchy stuff bringing in a new computer analyst at the last minute, literally did his analysis while the trial was on going, to say what the State wanted to hear. Honestly, the computer analysis was kind of a mess. Also, there were never any findings of chloroform in the home, ingredients comparable to making chloroform, or receipts for products to make chloroform. It was never proven that chloroform ever existed other than some searches on the internet.
The State brought in an expert witness who claimed that the air samples of the trunk were "extrodinarly high" levels of chloroform. He wasn't a chemist by trade and the science he used was cutting edge and NEVER used in a court room before. The Defense brought in a Forensic Crime Lab Chemist from the FBI who tested the same samples and said the levels were normal in everyday levels, nothing shocking about the levels. He stated many chloroform signatures come from household cleaning products. The State knew of the FBI's findings but it was the Defense who brought him to the stand. So who do we trust? A guy from a research lab that didn't have a chemistry backround or a guy who is a forensic chemist from the worlds leading crime lab. It's a no brainer. Bye bye Chloroform as a reasonable cause of death or even being involved in any way whatsoever.
The duct tape was only a cause of death in the eye of the beholder. Sure there was duct tape found on the skull but it had moved over time and it wasn't as clear cut as to where on the skull it was placed. The WHEN was the duct tape placed is where I think the State failed. I have always had a theory that the duct tape was placed over the mouth and nose days after the death. The smell from the car leads one to believe that the body had been in the trunk for at least a few days. It's reasonable to say the body fluids were starting to seep out during decomposition and someone (Casey) might have wanted to stop the spilling of these fluids by wrapping duct tape around the head. Historically, care takers have been known to place cotton in the mouth and nose of decomposing bodies to avoid this such thing.
Even the County Cheif Medical Examiner, Dr. Jan Garavaglia, didn't claim without a doubt that the duct tape was the cause of death, she just claimed the circumstances were consistent with homecide.
Now I'm not saying Casey is an angel or didn't do anything wrong. She's an extremely disturbed girl and was definitely involved in aspects of the child's death. I firmly believe Casey was at least guilty of covering up an accidental death of her child. wrapping the body in a blanket, stuffing it into trash bags, and tossing the body in the swamp. But to make the leap to murder? Nope. Not going to go there and neither was the jury. This Jury bashing is getting on my nerves, the State didn't prove murder, they were asking for murder in their indictment, but didn't prove it so it's as simple as that.
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Where did I contend that chloroform or duct tape was the cause of death ?
The claim I responded to, was that there was no evidence of foul play ..
Is that your contention also ?
The claim I responded to, was that there was no evidence of foul play ..
Is that your contention also ?
In the particular case of Casey Anthony, if by "foul play" you mean an obvious murder, then no, this is not my contention because it's not conclusive. If by "foul play" you mean someone was trying to cover up an accidential death, then no as well, because it wasn't conclusive that way either.
Obviously there was some "foul play" involved so saying "foul play" is a correct term to use, I won't argue there. I just assumed you meant "foul play" equalled murder, so maybe I was wrong to assume that is what you were implying, my apologies. Defining "foul play" is tricky because in Casey Anthony's case it has multiple conclusions.
The two reasons you presented for evidence of foul play (chloroform or duct tape) I simply demonstrated were pretty much rebuffed in the trial to show the foul play involved could lead to multiple conclusions, which again I assumed you meant murder and only murder so again I apologize. Or the evidence you mentioned could be thrown out with no conclusion at all because they became non-conclusive evidence to show one way or another it was murder or accidential death or had nothing to do with nothing.
I believe the original poster who mentioned "foul play" was defining that as murder and that there was no evidence of murder. Your response I took to be countering the no evidence of a murder claim.
Last edited: