Sidebar for Caylee Anthony's forum #14

Status
Not open for further replies.
thanks. Not that she'd be included in the list of online personalities anyway..

Where is that "where is casey anthony now" website folks have mentioned? am I allowed to ask?

I googled it and found it on some facebook page named similarly. If you google her name and the name of the dental clinic it should be on top of the list.
 
Casey Anthony Case To Be Made Into TV Movie

Airdate: 11/29/2012

It was one of the most unexpected verdicts eve. Now, a new made for TV movie about the Casey Anthony case is sure to revive the controversy over her acquittal.

Rob Lowe plays prosecutor Jeff Ashton and Oscar Nunez of The Office fame plays defense attorney José Baez. Casey Anthony is played by a newcomer, Virginia Welch, who is a stunning lookalike for the most hated woman in America...

http://www.insideedition.com/entertainment/5427-casey-anthony-case-to-be-made-into-tv-movie
 
All this talk of Casey Anthony "working" has me laughing (sardonic laughter, of course). She's actually worked, what? A total of six months in her whole useless life? She's lied about working, but what is she qualified to do? I'm pretty sure all of her "skills" are illegal. She's uneducated and lazy. Did she even get a high school diploma or a GED? Plus, she's a felon! And a sociopath.

Casey Anthony will continue to do what's she's always done, which is be a parasite. No doubt in my mind Cindy has been funneling money to Casey from her and George's "fraudation" (now defunct since they apparently scored enough blood money to pad their wallets).

Maybe FCA cut a deal with Baez, too. I wouldn't be surprised if she has some dirt on him and maybe he's giving her hush money...their "professional" relationship always looked awfully touchy/feely to me. In fact, I fully expected that had she been convicted, she would have leaped out of her seat screaming: "My lawyer seduced me! Improper representation! Waaaah!"

She is evil. Is that a job description? Professional Evil Person.

Well. There's always the Bunny Ranch. At least she could get paid for the one thing she is apparently really good at.

(Snark aside, whatever she ends up doing for money will probably involve computers. But I still think she's harboring the delusion she can be some sort of media darling. A Kardashian or something. Good luck with that. People may roll their eyes at the Kardashians of this world, but most people HATE Casey Anthony. With good reason.)
 
We have a fw folks here international, 2goldfish from UK and sammiejam from Aussieland posting recently. Don't one of your systems differ from ours in that there is not a double jeapordy, and what are your legal differences for discussion. (DO not mean to exclude others....just know these two folks (and some of you may know 2 better as ms. X),

Good morning everyone :) I would love to hear from other's on how their criminal justice system works. I'm taking off with my hubby for a few days, time to get away from reality again :) I hope there will be some good discussion posts when I get back. Hope you all have a happy peaceful weekend :) See you all on Monday
 
Steely, that's what I couln't remember! Italy! I had something in mind that another country did to help jurors do a better job that we discussed on the threads, and having trained folks go back with the jury was what was discussed. Thanks for being the one to remember! (Must have been the mushrooms that made me forget. Ha!)

I agree. I definitely think jury "Training" is a must. Something every citizen is required by law to do at some point. Kind of like getting a driver's license.
 
I agree. I definitely think jury "Training" is a must. Something every citizen is required by law to do at some point. Kind of like getting a driver's license.

Maybe it's just me but I don't think all the training in the world is going to guarantee the 'correct' verdict or the verdict that everyone wants. I agree that a vast majority of people look at jury duty as an 'inconvienence' but I also think a vast majority, once selected and in that room making decisions to decided the fate of someones life, take it pretty seriously. There are plenty of cases where one can say the verdict is 'wrong' (whether that's being innocent or guilty) but it's the system we have, no matter how imperfect it is because it relies on regular individuals to form opinions based on facts and evidence presented to them. And no matter how clear and concise those facts and evidence is, it doesn't mean all opinions would be one and the same or even the 'correct' opinion. Because at the end of the day, it's an opinion.

Italy was brought up as an example but I'm sure there are folks that could point to the Amanda Knox case and say that was the wrong verdict (in their opinion). Is it because the jurors were trained/not trained enough?
 
Maybe it's just me but I don't think all the training in the world is going to guarantee the 'correct' verdict or the verdict that everyone wants

I agree with you, training would not rid our system of travesties of justice, they would however, maybe, just maybe make people have a basic understanding that this is their duty not an inconvenience to be dreaded or taken so lightly.

I think it should also address legalese. It's difficult to understand, I think people get overwhelmed sometimes and just check out instead of asking the judge. There should be a way for judges instructions, the law, etc to be put into layman's terms. That stuff is confusing as all hell when you hear it.

It's like reading a letter from The Riddler.

I don't think any of this would have mattered with this jury, but I do think these things could help with attitudes toward jury duty and with confidence and clarity when trying to decipher the law.
 
Based on the timeline, Caylee was most likely dead by the time they were renting the movies on the Blockbuster security tape. I think she was suffocated by 4:00, when Casey made the flurry of phone calls.

I agree. When I said the baby was in the trunk, I meant she was already deceased. She was never seen again alive by anyone.
 
Juries are not suppose to take a lead from the judge regarding the case. The judge is there to make sure she gets a fair trial, which is what Judge Perry did......and obviously, very well.

The jury is suppose to think like the adults they are, use their common sense and look at all the evidence. Some of the jury members admitted they had questions but never looked at the evidence that was within the very room where they deliberated. They never used their option to ask the judge questions (which they knew how to do because they asked for pretzels and a number of other things during the trial). They disregarded what instructions were given to them by the judge. So what happened?????

One of them apparently caught the eye of Ms. Anthony which you can see her making eye contact and her expression shows she is happy with the response she is receiving from this person. The courtroom camera is focused on her and she is clearly looking at the jury who was in front of the position where she was seated. So who was she focusing on? If it was a person on the jury, which one? My guess, by the look on her face, it was a male. If someone were infatuated by her there is no way that one person was going to find her guilty. If they put themselves in a position of control there goes the whole jury unless members were self-thinkers. We know that most of the people on this jury were not leaders, but followers....and they proved that. jmo


Funny (or sad) you should bring this up about FCA working the jury.

I feel like attorneys and judges paid close attention to the FCA trial and were shocked and dismayed about the way the shenanigans in court were conducted.

In the Abraham Shakespeare lottery winner trial going on now, the judge has been warning the defendant Moore about facial expressions, etc. and threatening to have her removed from the courtroom. I wonder if this is a direct result of FCA's obvious actions in her trial with no admonishments from HJP?

I had watched a news story about this on tv last night and when I read your post, I had to go find some links to post since I knew we had sleuthed this case back when he was first missing. Very interesting case.

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104804&page=30
Coldpizza's post #727 linked this article as one story. There are plenty more though.
http://www2.tbo.com/news/news/2012/...k-over-lottery-winners-bank-accoun-ar-578358/
 
There has to be a loop hole.....

I don't see how, considering DNA evidence basically proved OJ killed his wife and double jeopardy prevents him from serving time for that crime. Even if they changed the law today, it would not be retroactive to past cases.

I understand the frustration though. If an innocent person gets put in jail for life for a crime they did not commit, there are avenues to pursue (no matter how slight) that allows for a re-trial or even a dismissal of a conviction. But it doesn't work like that the other way around, there is no potential do-over/appeal for someone who committed a crime but was not convicted.
 
Just dropped in to see what was new - if anything - and am now one happy camper.

For anyone who hasn't yet seen KarmaGet'em's new post in the News No Discussion yet, check this out!

Thank you Greta and Mark Fuhrman - the most clear, succinct description so far - by far!!

Mark Fuhrman's comments on search error:
Fuhrman: No excuse for sloppiness in Casey Anthony case
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1990769772001/fuhrman-no-excuse-for-sloppiness-in-casey-anthony-case/?intcmp=obinsite

Great to see the tide turning and the media ignoring Baez's hype!
 
This is what I really can't comprehend. They focused so much attention on every single thing ....after 3:04 PM (or really 2;04 )pm and Kc's behavior and activities from blockbuster onwards. How could they have missed so many important aspects of the computer forensics and not gone over every single minute of her day before - omg...100% connected to a screen computer or phone.

What doesn't surprise me was how much time that evidence proves KC spent online- so many photos of Caylee are posed with her in front of cams of sorts. Think of all the phone shots and ones @ the computer . :-(

How could defense have used GA as the " searcher" wasn't he suicidal ...several months after Caylee had died? After he realized.....

What was the disconnect do you think? Do you think it could be technology? GA's connections ?some sort of " blue code "? OR could slick JB have gotten just that piece ( those files) " out " of the (wrong) hands - at the right time. of...JA and JDB and from one of the laziest juries in history.

Obviously, if they just turned them all over to websleuths and AZlawyer and JWG this could have been all figured out a long time ago.
Thank you for the great work !

Yes, I think it was technology. Reading the JA's book, you can definitely tell he didn't know much about it. You need to realize that KC was born and grew up as a generation attached to cell phones and the internet. (Observe a teenager for 24 hours and you'll know what I mean). I'm more than 10 years older than she is and, I admit, I'm as much addicted to it, as she was. I'm not into cell phones but my laptop is more important to me than anything (lol).
So, looking at online presence, deleted files, google searches, texts, file transfers, etc. should have been looked at VERY closely. And, as we see, they weren't. Also, anyone remotely associated with technology knows that deleted files, searches, etc. are not permanently gone until the drive is formatted or empty space is overwritten. WHY did they not dig into this deeper? For example, KC's laptop was retrieved from TL's and LA stated that nothing could be done because "it crashed". Even after things "crash" (whatever exactly that meant we don't know), things can still be found on the drive, etc. What that checked closely? Were e-mail providers subpoenaed to provide more details about e-mails? Did MySpace provide any details that could help? I truly don't think enough was done in the technology department. Not all avenues were explored, sadly...
 
Just curious, why do you suppose the SA allowed those with prior records to be seated on the jury? Looks to me like just another example of how inept the SA was.






The P12 were the exact opposite. Perhaps because some of them had prior records such as DUI and writing bad checks, they had more of a "you'll never catch me copper" attitude. In fact, I believe juror #5 who refused to look at Jeff during his closing arguments was one of those with a prior DUI.
 
So, in your opinion, the SA's office bears no responsibility for Casey Anthony's acquittal?


Have to agree. It was all futile, 95% because of the jury and the other 5% due to Perry (still gets me that perjury was committed in a murder trial in his court and he didn't bat an eye).

Well, hopefully the Pinellas 12 are enjoying some donuts and dvds.
 
Good morning everyone :) I would love to hear from other's on how their criminal justice system works. I'm taking off with my hubby for a few days, time to get away from reality again :) I hope there will be some good discussion posts when I get back. Hope you all have a happy peaceful weekend :) See you all on Monday

Enjoy your time with your husband! :)

In Holland we don't have a jury. In small criminal cases there is one judge who decides whether a person is guilty or not. In bigger criminal cases there are three judges who make that decision. We also don't have double jeopardy. The state prosecution can appeal against a not guilty verdict if there is new evidence. This evidence can be introduced during a retrial. If a person is found guilty during a retrial, the defense can make an appeal to the supreme court. If this appeal is granted then the case will be reopened and tried again at another district court. It goes on and on... Luckily I have never had any encounters with the law but for those who have or will it is a scary thought.
 
I can't help but wonder, with this new information of the failed computer forensics investigation, if the list of people who let Caylee down will ever end . . .

Just when I think surely there's no more possible insult to her or her memory ~ another failed opportunity or disappointing character is revealed. Isn't it becoming almost surreal? The astonishing amount of shady characters and atypical blunders nearly rival the number of astonishing coincidences attached to this case.

. . . as if, with each heartbreaking discovery, she's crying out from the grave for justice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
65
Guests online
2,540
Total visitors
2,605

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,914
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top