|
|
Post by MacReady on Jul 5, 2011 14:02:57 GMT -5
This is why I hate Facebook..... I've literally been getting update after update of people going on and on about this trial, most of whom I'm SURE have not followed it worth a  ing shit. "I can't wait till somebody gives her hers!" "I shouldve been on the jury" "Wow America I've lost all faith in you" People are so ing stupid its pathetic. As soon as something catches the public eye, they automatically become the utmost authority on a topic they've literally never known anything about before. Do a little research before spouting off intellectually- disabled crap just because you're angry. Know what you're talking about before making a fool of yourself. She's guilty, in my opinion, but at this point, what can they do now? "ZOMG I HOPE SHE GETS TEH KILLED BY A BABY IN THE FOOTURE" Give it a rest. GOD! That's my rant..... |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 5, 2011 14:03:31 GMT -5
She got a tattoo that said "the good life" while her daughter was dead. She was out partying while her child was "missing." Shes shown no remorse throughout this entire trial. She searched chloroform. A decomposing body smell emitting from her car. How can anybody not think shes guilty?!?!?! And 3 out of 5 of those pieces of "evidence" prove nothing. The fact that they made such a big deal about the tattoo is preposterous. That's not evidence, it's twisting something into nothing. A tattoo's meaning is not a knife in someone's hand. It's an attempt at poetically drawing sympathy, and it failed. Don't get me wrong, I like everyone else feel something is amiss, especially in the state of Florida where some of the country's biggest "average dopes" come from, but the prosecution made a weak case. Not half a**ed, not incomplete, just weak. The tattoo thing would have been enough for me, as a juror, to roll my eyes. Her daughter is dead/missing and she gets a tattoo saying "Living the good life." Why would someone get a tattoo like that while their kid is missing/dead? I think they proved she killed her daughter. |
|
|
|
Post by spamdfms101 on Jul 5, 2011 14:05:13 GMT -5
This is why I hate Facebook..... I've literally been getting update after update of people going on and on about this trial, most of whom I'm SURE have not followed it worth a ing poop. "I can't wait till somebody gives her hers!" "I shouldve been on the jury" "Wow America I've lost all faith in you" People are so ing stupid its pathetic. As soon as something catches the public eye, they automatically become the utmost authority on a topic they've literally never known anything about before. Do a little research before spouting off intellectually- disabled crap just because you're angry. Know what you're talking about before making a fool of yourself. She's guilty, in my opinion, but at this point, what can they do now? "ZOMG I HOPE SHE GETS TEH KILLED BY A BABY IN THE FOOTURE" Give it a rest. GOD! That's my rant..... Agreed. Ive been watching this stuff for like a year and a half now. The worst part is all the people making jokes about it. "Anybody in orlando need a babysitter hahahaha im so funny." A ing child has been murdered. Thats nothing to make jokes about. |
|
|
|
Post by RSCTom on Jul 5, 2011 14:05:26 GMT -5
And 3 out of 5 of those pieces of "evidence" prove nothing. The fact that they made such a big deal about the tattoo is preposterous. That's not evidence, it's twisting something into nothing. A tattoo's meaning is not a knife in someone's hand. It's an attempt at poetically drawing sympathy, and it failed. Don't get me wrong, I like everyone else feel something is amiss, especially in the state of Florida where some of the country's biggest "average dopes" come from, but the prosecution made a weak case. Not half a**ed, not incomplete, just weak. The tattoo thing would have been enough for me, as a juror, to roll my eyes. Her daughter is dead/missing and she gets a tattoo saying "Living the good life." Why would someone get a tattoo like that while their kid is missing/dead? I think they proved she killed her daughter. getting a tattoo proves absolutely nothing, man. I could walk out right now, shoot someone in the face as clean as possible and cover up everything pinning me at the scene, throw the gun into a volcano, and walk away and get "I shot that guy in the face" tattooed on my forehead, and nothing about ink being drilled into my skin places me at the crime. |
|
|
|
Post by MacReady on Jul 5, 2011 14:07:29 GMT -5
Her daughter is dead/missing and she gets a tattoo saying "Living the good life." Why would someone get a tattoo like that while their kid is missing/dead? I think they proved she killed her daughter. getting a tattoo proves absolutely nothing, man. I could walk out right now, shoot someone in the face as clean as possible and cover up everything pinning me at the scene, throw the gun into a volcano, and walk away and get "I shot that guy in the face" tattooed on my forehead, and nothing about ink being drilled into my skin places me at the crime. I think what Slappy is talking about more, (correct me if I'm wrong Slappy) would be the timing of it all. While this whole thing was going on, if it wasn't HER doing that her daughter was missing, she'd be distraught to no end; clearly NOT living a good life. But there was the tattoo..... a little too convenient is all. |
|
|
|
Post by RSCTom on Jul 5, 2011 14:13:04 GMT -5
getting a tattoo proves absolutely nothing, man. I could walk out right now, shoot someone in the face as clean as possible and cover up everything pinning me at the scene, throw the gun into a volcano, and walk away and get "I shot that guy in the face" tattooed on my forehead, and nothing about ink being drilled into my skin places me at the crime. I think what Slappy is talking about more, (correct me if I'm wrong Slappy) would be the timing of it all. While this whole thing was going on, if it wasn't HER doing that her daughter was missing, she'd be distraught to no end; clearly NOT living a good life. But there was the tattoo..... a little too convenient is all. No, totally! Is there implied question in something like that? Absolutely. Does that make it evidence? Definitely not. It's highly questionable for her to get a tattoo like that and seem carefree as the child she gave birth to is dead. That question, however, is not a fingerprint on a murder weapon. It just simply isn't. And on a jury in a state full of goofballs like Florida who massacred an entire presidential election, I can absolutely see how a defense could make a case against a weak prosecution like that. That's really all I'm saying. The entire system is down to this weird mathematical science and if you don't have the evidence you need, you're not going to get anywhere. Even with a questionable tattoo. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnny on Jul 5, 2011 14:13:42 GMT -5
getting a tattoo proves absolutely nothing, man. I could walk out right now, shoot someone in the face as clean as possible and cover up everything pinning me at the scene, throw the gun into a volcano, and walk away and get "I shot that guy in the face" tattooed on my forehead, and nothing about ink being drilled into my skin places me at the crime. I think what Slappy is talking about more, (correct me if I'm wrong Slappy) would be the timing of it all. While this whole thing was going on, if it wasn't HER doing that her daughter was missing, she'd be distraught to no end; clearly NOT living a good life. But there was the tattoo..... a little too convenient is all. It's suspicious, yes, but it doesn't prove anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Jord on Jul 5, 2011 14:15:39 GMT -5
When on holiday in Orlando just a couple of weeks ago, I became interested in this because it was all over the local news stations. I've heard most of the evidence against Casey and I am extremely shocked to hear she got not guilty.
|
|
|
|
Post by MacReady on Jul 5, 2011 14:15:44 GMT -5
I think what Slappy is talking about more, (correct me if I'm wrong Slappy) would be the timing of it all. While this whole thing was going on, if it wasn't HER doing that her daughter was missing, she'd be distraught to no end; clearly NOT living a good life. But there was the tattoo..... a little too convenient is all. No, totally! Is there implied question in something like that? Absolutely. Does that make it evidence? Definitely not. It's highly questionable for her to get a tattoo like that and seem carefree as the child she gave birth to is dead. That question, however, is not a fingerprint on a murder weapon. It just simply isn't. And on a jury in a state full of goofballs like Florida who massacred an entire presidential election, I can absolutely see how a defense could make a case against a weak prosecution like that. That's really all I'm saying. The entire system is down to this weird mathematical science and if you don't have the evidence you need, you're not going to get anywhere. Even with a questionable tattoo. Yeah, obviously if the timing of a tattoo is the best the prosecution can do, then they were destined to lose. Clearly, whatever they did, didn't work. |
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Jul 5, 2011 14:22:51 GMT -5
You can pretty much put me in the same camp as RSC Tom. Everything he has said, I completely agree with.
It's a lot harder to prove murder now. Because out technology to produce such things is so much greater now, everyone expects a smoking gun, and physical evidence tying them to the actual murder. Without it, it's difficult to get a conviction.
|
|
|
|
Post by RSCTom on Jul 5, 2011 14:28:19 GMT -5
Thinking a little more on the whole tattoo issue, can you imagine if that had been a tattoo that said "My Angel Calee" or something? Something the defense could have potentially "used?" People would be in an uproar, saying that her sympathetic tattoo would be absolutely no proof that she didn't kill her daughter. If she had been found not guilty over something like that, people would be going apesh*t. The door luckily just swings both ways in this case but that's why I'm shocked that a professional, licensed prosecution would even bother bringing something like that up.
At the end of the day, as Cap says, it's difficult to get a conviction without something tying someone to the actual case.
Oh yeah, throw me on to the same boat as MacReady, by the way. I can't even look at my facebook without barfing right now. The experts are out in full.
|
|
|
|
Post by spamdfms101 on Jul 5, 2011 14:31:22 GMT -5
I think dr drew made a good point. They were going for the death penalty. Its hard for a person to find somebody guilty when there is a chance that they can put to death, especially when there isnt that much evidence. Tom has convinced me. I do believe she played a part, but the evidence is just too circumstantial for her to be convicted. That said, she can rot in hell.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tye Hyll on Jul 5, 2011 14:33:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Scotty on Jul 5, 2011 14:33:46 GMT -5
Biggest bullcrapsince OJ
|
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Jul 5, 2011 14:37:12 GMT -5
Obviously she was guilty...but the bottom line is nobody can prove it. That's the loophole.
I mean let's be honest...who doesn't report their daughter missing for 31 days? I have a panic attack if my mail doesn't arrive by 3:30pm.....so for somebody to be photographed out getting drunk and having a good time at night clubs during that time period is a little shocking that they would be found innoncent....
But it's not evidence and it doesn't prove anything. Maybe she was just a horrible mother and didn't care that her daughter was missing?
The more damning piece of evidence was her saying the child was kidnapped by a nanny who does not exist......
Who knows. Criminals are criminals for a reason. Just like OJ, she'll screw up again and land herself back in jail where she belongs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr.GT on Jul 5, 2011 14:41:28 GMT -5
Bored Jury = "Not Guilty...Let's go home....Everyone in favor say I."
|
|
|
|
Post by JDSFullmetal on Jul 5, 2011 14:43:24 GMT -5
It's not enough to "know" or "think" she's guilty. They didn't do a great job of proving it. I think most people believe she did do it. Well put. We all know she did it. They just can't prove she did it. IMO the jury did the right thing. I know i wouldn't want to get put in jail with the case they had on her. |
|
|
|
Post by MC2 on Jul 5, 2011 14:58:07 GMT -5
Also acquitted on aggravated child abuse. Bullsh*t either way.
|
|
|
|
Post by KrimV on Jul 5, 2011 15:01:33 GMT -5
The jury may have declared her innocent, but it doesn't mean she is. Karma will come back to get her in due time.
|
|
|
|
Post by RSCTom on Jul 5, 2011 15:02:34 GMT -5
Also acquitted on aggravated child abuse. Bullsh*t either way. yeah that seems a little more crazy to me. I'd assume that if by their own admittance she drowned in the pool while they weren't paying attention that would fall under the category, but I guess not. |
|
