For those who agree with the verdict...help me understand.

Discussion in 'Caylee Anthony 2 years old' started by mrsu, Jul 5, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. beccalecca1

    beccalecca1 New Member

    Messages:
    856
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think it was a few nights within those 31 days. There was the "Anything but Clothes" Party, then the few Friday nights at Fusion. It definitely wasn't 31 days of straight partying, TL went to NY for almost a week, and he had classes throughout the week.
     


  2. Leomoon80

    Leomoon80 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,025
    Likes Received:
    383
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I think they may be Christians, or people who buy into Christianity and it's teacher, the ultimate one who said, "judge not, lest ye be judged"
     
  3. lajones81

    lajones81 trying to think of something witty to put here

    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wearing cremated remains creeps me out! :crazy:
     
  4. MarthaM

    MarthaM New Member

    Messages:
    871
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think there's any right way to grieve, nor do I think there's a mandatory timeline for it. Each person grieves in his or her own way. I also think that it's very very possible for someone who has killed another person or participated somehow in her death to still grieve for her.

    And yes, I imagine I could still sympathize in some way for someone who throws their child away like trash. Of course, in this case I don't know if that describes Casey Anthony or not. Her role, if any, in Caylee's death hasn't been proven to me.
     
  5. GracieLu

    GracieLu New Member

    Messages:
    467
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    nope, but we did see 31 days straight of texts to come and party w/her as well as friends who did party with her, more friends who shopped with her on stolen check money, more friends who she shopped w/in orlando while laughing about what a good liar she was, a brother who almost caught up with her at a bar, and TL who spent every moment w/her when not at school (he is the one she was sexing it up with while GRIEVING)...

    oops, i forgot, more friends she partied it up with on July 4th, one of which she led on and he thought they were gonna hook up but she blew him off while picking TL up from the airport, more old friends she stayed with while TL was away....

    I dont recall any testimony of a GRIEVING ICA (she was like she had always been "happy go lucky")... of course not because CA/GA were watching Caylee, this time it was because Caylee was thrown away like garbage and it was permanent, yippie for her i guess - BARF!

    and yes, you are right, the hot body contest pic too!
     
  6. Hot Dogs

    Hot Dogs New Member

    Messages:
    1,780
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't really sympathize with Casey. But on the other hand I don't really know what happened. The evidence doesn't automatically point to murder. There are other possibilities and an accident is front and center on the list. Her "happy party" behavior looks like someone who is pretending that their daughter isn't dead. She wanted everyone to think that she didn't already know Caylee was dead. People don't smile and laugh when their child is dead, so you put on that act to fool people.

    At some point she was going to have to announce that Caylee was gone. But she could pretend that it was recent because "well you saw me all happy and she wasn't gone yet at that point".


    Well the jury had a problem in that the prosecution had no evidence to present them that proved that Casey put Caylee in the swamp. You bet they would have appreciated such evidence and the State would have loved to give it. But they couldn't. They even had the leaves analyzed that were stuck under the car. Those were from a Camphor tree which is a species not found at the dump site. The State tried but didn't get a match-up in that area.
     
  7. french75

    french75 New Member

    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    FWIW, the anything but clothes party was May 25 so it was prior to all of this. I agree that it was definitely not 31 days of partying but it was 31 days of carrying on as usual, perhaps with the exception of the nightmares/waking up in a cold sweat that Tony reported happened once he was back from NY.
     
  8. Peepers

    Peepers Member

    Messages:
    564
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    KC wasnt on trial for behavior and grieving..she was on trial for murder and 12 jurors that were hand picked with the agreement of the State and defense gave them the decision to make. The state didnt prove the case..does not mean KC is innocent, nor did the jurors say that she was innocent. Perhaps people should direct their accusations and anger at the state and the not the jurors.
    12 people said the state did not meet the burden of proof, and if you take the emotion and opinions out of it, its easier to see where they didnt meet the burden of proof. I dont like that KC will walk free and become a millionaire, but it is the jury system we have and its arrogant to judge the jury, call them stupid, or call them lazy...
     
  9. Peepers

    Peepers Member

    Messages:
    564
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The state focused alot on her behavior that 31 days..yes it was heartless and made her look heartless, but...her partying did not prove how or when she killed Caylee. the state does not know if she died from chloroform or duct tape..how do you expect the jury to decipher that. The judge's instructions were not "hey, now you guys go in that deliberation room and try to ddecide what happened to Caylee", The instructions were clear. The state has the burden to prove what happened ..they did not do that.
     
  10. GracieLu

    GracieLu New Member

    Messages:
    467
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    "fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth... as he has injured the other, so he is to be injured"

    not being snarky, believe me im the nicest person on earth, but just saying....
     
  11. Chablis

    Chablis Inactive

    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So two confirmed nights of partying?
     
  12. MarthaM

    MarthaM New Member

    Messages:
    871
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    One of the State's problems is that those 31 days occurred after-the-fact. What they needed were witnesses from the weeks before Caylee disappeared/died that would show the behavior of a person who is planning to kill her child, or who wanted her child gone for good. They didn't have that.

    Interestingly enough, there's almost always a focus on a defendant's behavior after the crime in these big murder cases. Often, psychologists testify about grief and how it isn't the slightest bit unusual to demonstrate erratic or seemingly inappropriate behavior after a death. I've seen that happen so often myself that I never really give it much weight during trials like this anymore.
     
  13. wfgodot

    wfgodot Former Member

    Messages:
    30,167
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not to toss around New Testament verses cavalierly, but

    Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
    But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
    (Matthew 5:38-9 KJV)
     
  14. Controversialist

    Controversialist New Member

    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    With all respect, IMO the above quote does not preclude all forms of discipline against offenders. Jesus is denouncing hypocritical judgment.

    In the same context of your quote (Matt. 7:1), He says, "you hypocrite, first take the beam of timber from your own eye, then you will see clearly to take the particle from your brother's eye." (Matt. 7:5).

    He said elsewhere, "Be honest in your judgment and do not judge at a glance; but judge fairly and righteously" (John 7:24).

    He Himself instructed church members to treat an unrepentant offender as "a pagan and a tax collector." (Matt. 18:17).

    In all these cases, it is the human disciple doing the judging. Proper, honest judging is allowed. Improper or hypocritical judging is prohibited.

    :coffeews::eek:nline::detective:
     
  15. Leomoon80

    Leomoon80 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,025
    Likes Received:
    383
    Trophy Points:
    83
    an "Eye for an Eye" or "Tooth for a Tooth" philosophy is from the Old Testament, and Hebrew texts and teachings, which is not what Jesus (Christianity ) taught. This is strictly a Jewish concept and Law as well in Muslem Law (Abrahamic) law. They both (cultures) had Abraham as a forefather

    Here is the interesting background however, of this quote as it was indeed and continues to be part of the Jewish and Arab cultures and religions:

    It's about "Proportion " in law, and this is where it started: (so one doesn't demand 2 eyes for 1 in otherwords)
    From Wikipedia Excerted (snipped)
    3.1.1 Objective of reciprocal justice in Judaism
     
  16. suzihawk

    suzihawk New Member

    Messages:
    3,618
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't know if it was one night or 31. Frankly, one night of hoochie dancing while your daughter is lying dead in the swamp is one night too many, IMO. I guess the other times she was just being motherly to her new little shot girl family.

    Add to that her strolling happily arm and arm with Tony in Blockbuster followed by them spending the entire next day in bed. We have days of carefree shopping (using other people's funds). And so it goes...

    I guess that didn't leave too much time for grieving.
     
  17. Chablis

    Chablis Inactive

    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah,but two nights out and a stroll into Blockbuster just does not seem like a reason to kill your child.
     
  18. SarahEcho

    SarahEcho New Member

    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The burden of proof is on the state, not the defendant. It's very possible had the body been recovered "immediately" that autopsy would show a child that had drowned. There is no proof of any other cause of death. Even Dr G arrived at her conclusions by default.
     
  19. Hot Dogs

    Hot Dogs New Member

    Messages:
    1,780
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Her behavior was so out-of-place that the jury may not have known what to deduce from it. It almost looked like she didn't even know that Caylee was dead. It doesn't seem to serve as evidence of anything in particular.
     
  20. SarahEcho

    SarahEcho New Member

    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's called denial and disassociation.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice