Casey Anthony acquitted of murder! [Archive]

drugstore cowboy

Jul 6, 2011, 3:28 PM

Everyone knows Casey Anthony killed her daughter. That monkey faced skank is guilty as sin.

Out of the thousands of kids that drown in pools yearly none of them are found in a swamp months later with duct tape that was on their mouth, and the parents don't claim that they were "kidnapped" and then switch the story saying that they "accidentally" drowned in a pool.

Also parents who are actually rational, not sociopaths like Casey Anthony, and who actually love their children unlike Casey do not pretend that their kid was somehow "kidnapped" and then they don't call 911 for 3 months.

I've never heard of a child drowning in a swimming pool and the family covering it up. They want to have a funeral and grieve normally, she was partying when her daughter was "missing" and supposedly had "drowned". What kind of a parent does that?

I don't see it being humanely possible to not call 911 or have a proper burial of ones child after drowning. It is irrational to think one would go wrap them up in duct tape and put them in a trash bag and dispose of them in a swampy area down the street vs burying/remembering them. The defense's theory it was some cover-up was illogical and irrational. Statistically it has never happened in thousands and thousands of drowning cases for a parent to lead police on a wild goose chase while KNOWING the remains of the child were rotting and any evidence was being destroyed by the elements. Is this a one a million? Because one in a million is not a reasonable doubt IMO.

This is aside from all the other evidence (computer searches on chloroform neck breaking, spleen rupturing, smell in the trunk, etc.) not to mention the syringe with chloroform in it at the scene.

If this had been a man on trial or a woman who was NOT white and attractive, I can guarantee you that the jury would have convicted her of first degree murder and they'd be on death row.

IMO this sends a message that a pretty white girl can hide of her baby's body without reporting it, for 31 days, go party and live the "bella vida", then lead the police on a wild goose chase while all potential evidence against her is decomposing with the crime scene, and get away scot-free.

I'd have accepted this might be an accident if she had called 911 when she found out.

The Florida police did fuck up when the meter reader who found Caylee's body called this in months before and they ignored him and this information and when they finally did find Caylee's body it was not intact and an autopsy could not even have been performed on it but you don't need either of these things to tell that Caylee was murdered and did not "accidentally" drown in a pool.

Personally I watched the trail from day one everyday after work. Perhaps she didn't intentionally murder her daughter, but it was nonetheless accidental carelessness on her part. I believe she tired to sedate her child with the chloroform so she could have time to go out, but instead Caylee accidentally died. She panicked and disposed of the body thinking she could get away with it making up stories as to where she was for as long as possible . She was a scared self-absorbed child who didn't want to deal with the consequences at the moment because she wanted to live her party life without thinking of the future. But nope, now we know it's OK to go out and party while knowing your child is missing dead without reporting it until someone finds out, fucking disgusting. She may not have to answer for what she did in this life, but there will be a time where she will have to answer for her neglect.

Try your best to not look at Casey Anthony's looks (which really aren't that great) and focus instead on the issues that underline the case of a toddler who was brutally murdered.

niftyshellshock

Jul 6, 2011, 3:36 PM

I'm not surprised since money talks and Casey Anthony is like OJ Simpson and getting a slap on the wrist when everyone knows she did kill Caylee.

Justice 4 Caylee!

Karma will prevail, this just shows how corrupt the American legal and justice system is.

It shows how the American legal and justice system WORKS. I come from a country where the guy with the bigger gun or fatter wallet ALWAYS got off.

Here, let me school you a bit...

In the United States, a person is innocent until proven guilty. Ever notice how prosecutors/judges never tell the press that they "know" someone is guilty? If they did, they'd get nailed for failing to understand something that they should have learned in the first week of law school.

In order for someone to be found guilty, the burden of proof is on the state to prove that person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The state in this case failed to meet that burden.

drugstore cowboy

Jul 6, 2011, 3:44 PM

All you people who think this gives faith back to our legal system clearly don't know what you are talking about.

It just goes to show how poor our justice system has really become. Look how easy it really is to get away with murder these days. Back in the day long before they even started to use DNA as evidence or knew of its existence you didn't need DNA to convict someone. Now it seems like all you have to do is not leave behind any finger prints and BOOM you're automatically not guilty, hell anyone with half an intelligent mind could hypothetically commit a murder and be careful enough to not leave behind DNA.

Anyone who's worked in the field knows that continuously lying to the police and constantly changing stories is just bullshit to cover your own ass, this kind of behavior is anything but innocent. If you have enough colors to paint the picture with, you can still see what it is and that's guilt.

Katja

Jul 6, 2011, 3:45 PM

Everyone knows Casey Anthony killed her daughter. That monkey faced skank is guilty as sin.

Everyone knows nothing of the kind. You may believe that you know and you may be right. People are acquitted of crimes for which they are indeed guilty, just as there are those who are sent to prison for crimes for which they are innocent. But, darling, you do not know. No one knows, except Casey Anthony herself and/or the person or persons who actually committed the crime.

The evidence was not enough to convict therefore in law she is adjudged innocent of the crime for which you are so adamant you know that she is guilty.

I thank God that the legal system of your country is not in your hands for the innocent would have much more to fear than they do already, not because of your assumption of guilt, but your knowledge and surity of it. As consequence, the guilty would have so much less to fear.

It must be so wonderful to be God and know the hearts and minds of human beings.

jamieknyc

Jul 6, 2011, 3:57 PM

As the resident lawyer here, there was very little evidence to support premeditation.

As for all you people who say you 'know' she was guilty, how do you know it for a fact unless you were there doing it too?

**Peg**

Jul 6, 2011, 3:57 PM

wow.

reading some of the vitriolic comments here make me feel really glad to be Canadian (we have presumption of innocence until proven guilty as well). IMO Nancy Grace, JVM and their ilk should be put on trial for character assassination... sickening stuff.

While there was a lot of forensic evidence relating to Caylee's body, not one single piece of tangible evidence tied Casey to the crime.

I would look at George Anthony and the meter reader (who, incredibly, said he didn't know the Anthony's house number???? please !). There are whisperings that those two knew each other AND that Ray Kronk had been previously (don't know when) convicted of sexual assault (don't know where either). My point is that there were lots of other players in the mix....and maybe even Tony (Casey's ex-fiance or boyfriend) was somehow involved.

:2cents: don't shoot the messenger.....these are my opinions only.

btw, joseph1432, I agree with your posting.

niftyshellshock

Jul 6, 2011, 3:58 PM

Bolded will be my replies:

Everyone knows Casey Anthony killed her daughter. That monkey faced skank is guilty as sin.

I'm sorry, I think you must have missed the part where the jury found Casey Anthony not guilty of first degree murder and not guilty of aggravated manslaughter.

Out of the thousands of kids that drown in pools yearly none of them are found in a swamp months later with duct tape that was on their mouth, and the parents don't claim that they were "kidnapped" and then switch the story saying that they "accidentally" drowned in a pool.

Also parents who are actually rational, not sociopaths like Casey Anthony, and who actually love their children unlike Casey do not pretend that their kid was somehow "kidnapped" and then they don't call 911 for 3 months.

Exactly, so, even if she were found guilty, the defense team would have used that sociopathy and other issues to get her out on appeal, or to have the judge find her incompetent to stand trial. She would've gotten out anyhow.

I've never heard of a child drowning in a swimming pool and the family covering it up. They want to have a funeral and grieve normally, she was partying when her daughter was "missing" and supposedly had "drowned". What kind of a parent does that?

I don't see it being humanely possible to not call 911 or have a proper burial of ones child after drowning. It is irrational to think one would go wrap them up in duct tape and put them in a trash bag and dispose of them in a swampy area down the street vs burying/remembering them. The defense's theory it was some cover-up was illogical and irrational. Statistically it has never happened in thousands and thousands of drowning cases for a parent to lead police on a wild goose chase while KNOWING the remains of the child were rotting and any evidence was being destroyed by the elements. Is this a one a million? Because one in a million is not a reasonable doubt IMO.

Cite facts. "Statistically, it has never happened." I want to see proof.
The only thing the prosecution could prove beyond a reasonable doubt in this case was that there was a dead child. Otherwise the verdict would have been guilty.

This is aside from all the other evidence (computer searches on chloroform neck breaking, spleen rupturing, smell in the trunk, etc.) not to mention the syringe with chloroform in it at the scene.

Ah, I see you attended the CSI: Las Vegas School of Evidence Law. I'll let you in on a little secret...search terms are not evidence.

If this had been a man on trial or a woman who was NOT white and attractive, I can guarantee you that the jury would have convicted her of first degree murder and they'd be on death row.

O.J. Simpson - not-too-attractive black male -- found not guilty. Your argument is irrelevant.

IMO this sends a message that a pretty white girl can hide of her baby's body without reporting it, for 31 days, go party and live the "bella vida", then lead the police on a wild goose chase while all potential evidence against her is decomposing with the crime scene, and get away scot-free.

I'd have accepted this might be an accident if she had called 911 when she found out.

The Florida police did fuck up when the meter reader who found Caylee's body called this in months before and they ignored him and this information and when they finally did find Caylee's body it was not intact and an autopsy could not even have been performed on it but you don't need either of these things to tell that Caylee was murdered and did not "accidentally" drown in a pool.

I'm interested in seeing your credentials. Are you an expert on forensics evidence, or did you gleam everything you needed to know from Nancy Grace and the news media?

Personally I watched the trail from day one everyday after work. Perhaps she didn't intentionally murder her daughter, but it was nonetheless accidental carelessness on her part. I believe she tired to sedate her child with the chloroform so she could have time to go out, but instead Caylee accidentally died. She panicked and disposed of the body thinking she could get away with it making up stories as to where she was for as long as possible . She was a scared self-absorbed child who didn't want to deal with the consequences at the moment because she wanted to live her party life without thinking of the future. But nope, now we know it's OK to go out and party while knowing your child is missing dead without reporting it until someone finds out, fucking disgusting. She may not have to answer for what she did in this life, but there will be a time where she will have to answer for her neglect.

There's your problem. You weren't part of the jury. All you know about the trial is what was revealed on the news media/talk shows. The media will report soundbytes and little blurbs that'll get your attention. And by following this trial from day 1, you contributed to the media circus. You're part of the problem.
And you know what, it is fucking disgusting that a kid is found dead and no one's been found guilty. But you know what's fucking disgusting, too, the fact that people are so keen on mob rule. There is a reason we have a little thing called DUE PROCESS. It's in the United States Constitution, you know, the supreme law of the land. Here, I'll quote the specific part for you:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Try your best to not look at Casey Anthony's looks (which really aren't that great) and focus instead on the issues that underline the case of a toddler who was brutally murdered.

So far, the only one mentioning anything about her looks is you.

We live in a free country, where we are innocent until proven guilty, and where mob rule is curtailed by the way the system works. Keep this in mind if you're ever placed in as a defendant in a jury trial. I bet you'd be on your knees, crying about due process in a split second.

niftyshellshock

Jul 6, 2011, 4:01 PM

wow.

reading some of the vitriolic comments here make me feel really glad to be Canadian (we have presumption of innocence until proven guilty as well). IMO Nancy Grace, JVM and their ilk should be put on trial for character assassination... sickening stuff.

While there was a lot of forensic evidence relating to Caylee's body, not one single piece of tangible evidence tied Casey to the crime.

I would look at George Anthony and the meter reader (who, incredibly, said he didn't know the Anthony's house number???? please !). There are whisperings that those two knew each other AND that Ray Kronk had been previously (don't know when) convicted of sexual assault (don't know where either). My point is that there were lots of other players in the mix....and maybe even Tony (Casey's ex-fiance) was somehow involved.

:2cents: don't shoot the messenger.....these are my opinions only.

btw, joseph1432, I agree with your posting.

I wonder, hey, Jamie--does Casey Anthony have a course of action for defamation against Nancy Grace

love1234

Jul 6, 2011, 4:18 PM

tommyswing

Jul 6, 2011, 4:37 PM

Yes in our system we are innocent until proven guilty, that is meant by a court of law. I tend to think the jury was confused about reasonable doubt, and took that to mean absence of doubt. If we have absence of doubt as the standard no one can be convicted of anything.
Having worked in mental health i can recognize a sociopath. Not meaning to be judgmental but they tend to kill people, and not feel anything at all, for them it's like taking out the garbage.I also agree her being a good looking women helped her a lot.
Talk to anyone in law enforcement and they just shake their head at the verdict. Btw one bad jury verdict does not mean the whole system is flawed.
The thing that bothers me about the verdict is you have to suspend all reason to see er as not guilty.

jamieknyc

Jul 6, 2011, 5:14 PM

Was there a shred of evidence that she was a sociopath?

12voltman59

Jul 6, 2011, 5:52 PM

If I had been on that jury--I would have voted exactly as they did---it is a very different thing to actually serve on a jury as opposed to being a passive viewer of what takes place in a jury trial from afar. Juries are tasked to only consider the evidence before them and in this case--the prosecution clearly failed to "prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" as is the standard in criminal cases--especially felony capital cases such as this-this is even more so-- that Casey Anthony pre-meditatively killed little Caylee and the jury did that their duty by not convicting her of capital murder since that is what the prosecution was going for--their mistake was that they overcharged Casey Anthony and went for the max charges that they probably could never get a conviction for--instead they should have charged her with something like "negligent homicide" or something of that nature and also included any and all "LIOs" or 'Lessor Included Offenses"--in that case-they very likely would have gotten a conviction on at least some charge of that sort--it was like going for a Grand Slam homerun with the first batter up in the first inning with no men on bases and the first hitter is in a bad hitting slump---the grand slam homer ain't gonna happen!! In this case--they went for a grand slam and wound up wiffing out a bunch of strikes--the prosecution messed up big time--the jury and the defense did what they are supposed to do in the way our legal system are set up.

The only thing the prosecution did "prove" is that Casey is a "party girl, liar" and not to a legal standard---is a "slut"--the only legal part of these three things they did prove--that she lied--they did get a conviction on those charges--but she has already served beyond the time the Florida Sentencing Guidelines would call for someone in her case to be sentenced for all those offenses combined while facing sanction for this case---someone without a past criminal history. She will probably walk free in a few days--at most--she will be on electronic monitoring under some sort of parole/probation situation.

By the way-I was in law enforcement--both on the streets and working for the courts and I am fine with this verdict--in this case it is JUSTICE!! Like it or not!

I served in the Florida court system in the state district court adjacent to the one Orange County is in--just to the east in Seminole and Brevard Counties.

12voltman59

Jul 6, 2011, 6:34 PM

This case is sort of like the OJ Simpson case and like in that case---- I don't think that there is doubt in anyone's mind that OJ was guilty in that case, I think he clearly was---the jury in that case--based on the way the prosecution fucked that one up too--they ruled right to acquit him just as this jury did right to acquit Casey Anthony for the commission of premeditated murder----I would not have voted to convict Simpson or Anthony if I had been a juror either of those cases--I have served on a number of juries as well in recent years--from little municipal cases to a high profile criminal case and a big civil case--and joy of joys--served for four months a few years ago on my county's Grand Jury.

In all cases large and small---when you sit on a jury--if you take your role on a jury seriously---you are specifically instructed and tasked to follow the rules of law as set down in each state or by the federal criminal rules that apply to juries at each court level.

They don't always get it right in picking juries--but mostly it does seem to work and most people do seem to be able to set aside their preconceived notions of things and go to work to consider only those facts that are brought before them and also disregard the things that they tell jurors that do come up--as I said--it is a very different thing to ACTUALLY sit on a jury from just watching a court case either in the gallery or on Court TV or whatever.

If a juror cannot or won't follow the rules--they should not serve on a jury and they do seem to be pretty good at watching to see what jurors are doing their duty--and if a juror doesn't--they get booted and an alternate juror who will do the job right takes that person's place

It is sorta sad that, to be charitable, so many folks are so lacking in knowledge about the way the legal system is set up to work and for the most part--not at all perfectly by any sense of course--- it does tend to work. In this case---the system did work--it prevented a person who did not commit premeditated murder from being put to death---but did fail because the prosecution overreached in this case--- prevented Anthony from facing any sort of punishment at all because I think there is no doubt--Casey Anderson was at the very least NEGLIGENT when it came to what transpired that took her daughter's life.

12voltman59

Jul 6, 2011, 6:44 PM

Florida has more people locked up than most nations do.

Its very hard to get fair trial here and the system is fixed in favor of the state. So yes it is very corrupt system that favors the state.

So odds are the state just failed in proving their case.

What is the biggest failure of not only the court system in Florida but pretty much every place in the US----they either in large numbers do convict innocent people on the flimsiest of evidence and never bring to justice those who really did do some horrible crimes.

Look at how many cases those programs like "The Innocence Project" have helped to set free--with many of those people having rotted in prison for decades, convicted of crimes they did not commit---while the real perpetrators---at least for those crimes--remained free!!!! Think of how many we have probably put to death whose only real crime in many of those cases--they had the wrong skin color, matched a vague general description of "the perp" and had the bad luck of being in the wrong place at the wrong time---like being in a place that didn't really care if they got the right person--they just had to "get someone" convicted--especially if that person who was accused---had black skin and the victim was white.

There is one thing about this case people have said I agree with--if you have money you can buy yourself a defense team that can go against the state and has a good chance of getting you off--but if you are person of little or modest means--you are pretty much fucked and you are gonna go do some time---then once the system has its hooks in you--you pretty much never get out of it now!!!

drugstore cowboy

Jul 6, 2011, 8:00 PM

Voltman why are you being such a hypocrite? Casey Anthony has clearly killed her daughter or at least knows what happened to her and no it's not justice for her daughter who was murdered by her own mother.

While a precise cause of death is 'unknown', it is a statistical fact that duct tape is not used in accidents. Nor do people who died accidentally / naturally have their bodies hidden in a dumping ground for a creepy meter reader guy to find.

All legal references aside, we all know Casey did it. I mean, can anyone really say they doubt she's responsible? No, but ya' just gotta follow the procedures and protocols.

I think they proved beyond any reasonable doubt

1. Cause of death was a homicide
2. Casey was the last person to see her alive, and to this day has not made a TRUE statement on what REALLY happened to her.

How can you say she's not responsible? You can't have a homicide where the last person who saw the victim wasn't the killer. Do you see the irrationality of that?

The pool drowning story is great. Statistically how often do people cover up ACCIDENTS? People hide bodies when they accidently die? Maybe if in fear when drugs are involved. This body wasn't simply dumped to be found, it was hidden / concealed / covered-up.

This isn't some case where somebody was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Something happened to the child while Casey had custody of her and Casey hid her body. People don't hide bodies just for the fuck of it. It's because of potential evidence of a crime. I guess the jurors doubted that was the reason

Why lie and lie to the police? Because her father molested her..? That makes no sense to me and it was proven not to have been true at all.

Statistically, how rare is it in real accidental or natural death of a child does a parent HIDE the body, and then pretend the child is with some boggus nanny (Xanny ) like you were speaking of. So ironic... "Xanny the nanny" - Zenaida Gonzales? NO. Bullshit. WE ALL KNOW Xanny = street for xanax They even said Zenaida gonzales was just bullshit. What are the odds a parent would hide the body and repeatedly lie, if they were not cause the child's death? 1/1,000,000,000? Less? That is not a reasonable doubt IMO...

Hey... I respect the jury's decision. But she is guilty. And unfortunately, there will be many more people convicted of much less in the future. That's how the jury system works folks. Prosecutions can win 10% proven cases and lose 99%, depending on the jury's interpretation of the laws and reasonable doubt.

By no means however is a guilty person being set free some 'great triumph' in the justice system. People who cannot afford such great Johnny-Cochran like defense (like myself and many of you ...) will continue to get the shaft when we get accused of any crimes... Anybody reading this think they'd have been acquitted under the exact same circumstances? These circumstances were ridiculous though.

About two years ago now when this case had recently happened----I was at a birthday party for a long time friend---he is in law enforcement on the Federal side and practically everyone at the party was in law enforcement in some fashion. As it happened one of the lead homicide detectives for the Orange County (Orlando) Florida Sheriff's Department who was the lead investigator on the case was there and he talked at length about the case---but not of course talking about specific details----he said that in his 20 plus years as a deputy and at over a decade on the homicide squad--he said there is no doubt in his mind that she is guilty--but then again--cops can get tunnel vision about such things and so can prosecutors---but I do have to defer to his expertise. I know that I spend a fair time in Central Florida and between reading about the case and watching the news reports---if the evidence is really as strong as it seems from those reports against her---then I think they will convict her. Since she is a very "unsympathetic" defendant--it is in part because of that and all the publicity surrounding the case that has made it hard to seat a jury---even a few counties away from where the crime took place.

niftyshellshock

Jul 6, 2011, 8:40 PM

Voltman why are you being such a hypocrite? Casey Anthony has clearly killed her daughter or at least knows what happened to her and no it's not justice for her daughter who was murdered by her own mother.

You have to understand that there is a difference between legal justice and actual justice. If Casey Anthony 'clearly' killed her daughter, where's your evidence? If you have evidence, why didn't you turn it in? Or better yet, since you are clearly sure about Casey doing it, why weren't you at the state's table sharing your evidence?

While a precise cause of death is 'unknown', it is a statistical fact that duct tape is not used in accidents. Nor do people who died accidentally / naturally have their bodies hidden in a dumping ground for a creepy meter reader guy to find.

Once again, unsubstantiated assertions. Where's your data? I find that sourcing from the Institute of Pulling Shit out of My Ass is never a good way to be taken seriously.

All legal references aside, we all know Casey did it.

Translation: "I disagree, therefore the law is wrong."

I mean, can anyone really say they doubt she's responsible? No, but ya' just gotta follow the procedures and protocols.

Yeah, a jury of her peers found that there was reasonable doubt. Your point?

I think they proved beyond any reasonable doubt

1. Cause of death was a homicide
2. Casey was the last person to see her alive, and to this day has not made a TRUE statement on what REALLY happened to her.

Except Casey Anthony was on trial for:
1. First degree murder
2. Aggravated Manslaughter
3. Four counts of lying to the authorities.

Everything else: irrelevant

How can you say she's not responsible? You can't have a homicide where the last person who saw the victim wasn't the killer. Do you see the irrationality of that?

I cut someone's carotid artery with a knife and run away. A minute later, a couple is walking by out of a movie and they see the victim dying. The victim dies in their arms. Are they the killers?

The pool drowning story is great. Statistically how often do people cover up ACCIDENTS? People hide bodies when they accidently die? Maybe if in fear when drugs are involved. This body wasn't simply dumped to be found, it was hidden / concealed / covered-up.

You answered your own question there, Sparky.

This isn't some case where somebody was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Something happened to the child while Casey had custody of her and Casey hid her body. People don't hide bodies just for the fuck of it. It's because of potential evidence of a crime. I guess the jurors doubted that was the reason

No, the jurors doubted she was the murderer.

Why lie and lie to the police? Because her father molested her..? That makes no sense to me lol...

Ah, trivializing an abusive relationship. You must be a blast to hang out with

Statistically, how rare is it in real accidental or natural death of a child does a parent HIDE the body, and then pretend the child is with some boggus nanny (Xanny ) like you were speaking of. So ironic... "Xanny the nanny" - Zenaida Gonzales? NO. Bullshit. WE ALL KNOW Xanny = street for xanax They even said Zenaida gonzales was just bullshit. What are the odds a parent would hide the body and repeatedly lie, if they were not cause the child's death? 1/1,000,000,000? Less? That is not a reasonable doubt IMO...

Yeah, well, that's just your 'humble' opinion, not the opinion of 12 jurors who ALL AGREED there was reasonable doubt.

Hey... I respect the jury's decision. But she is guilty.

Translation: "The jury and the court systems are a sham and I'd rather live in a place where someone was guilty until proven innocent.

And unfortunately, there will be many more people convicted of much less in the future. That's how the jury system works folks. Prosecutions can win 10% proven cases and lose 99%, depending on the jury's interpretation of the laws and reasonable doubt.

It's a great system, isn't it?

By no means however is a guilty person being set free some 'great triumph' in the justice system. People who cannot afford such great Johnny-Cochran like defense (like myself and many of you ...) will continue to get the shaft when we get accused of any crimes...

She was declared indigent by the court, she was broke. Then her family sold tapes and photos to ABC for $200,000. If you want to point fingers as to who's responsible for funding her defense, just turn on the TV and watch the media circus.

And her defense wasn't even a crack team of lawyers. George Baez went to a lower-tier law school, was formerly bankrupt, didn't sit for the bar up until almost a decade after he had graduated law school. I'm broke right now. Would I sell off videos and such of myself to the media to get money for a lawyer? Hell yes.

Anybody reading this think they'd have been acquitted under the exact same circumstances? These circumstances were ridiculous though.

Seriously, dude, just get a grip. You may not like the system, but it's there for a reason.

67torinouy

Jul 6, 2011, 9:14 PM

Listen, the ball was dropped several times in this case. First off was with her parents for not putting their foot in that bitches ass and letting her do what she pleases, giving her a car and taking no active roll in their daughters life. Lying like she does is not something your born with its acquired and she learned by example right in the house. And lets not forget the guy that ran the tow yard. He walks up to the car to inspect it and doesn't call police when he smells decomposition, WTF? I guess he figured if he called the cops the car would get impounded by CSI and he wouldn't get his repo fee of $500 and change from the Anthonys. Oh and how many times do you have to call the cops and tell them that you see something out of place in the woods? Well apparently more than 3. On the 3rd time the guy called the investigating officer that responded busted his ass in the mud next to the waterline and then commenced to chew out the guy that reported it. At least that dumbass was fired. A simple call to someone with appropriate gear would have easily been able to get back there and do a proper inspection. As myself I couldn't believe how anybody could find her not guilty. But think about it from a jurors perspective, the information they got was alot less than the public. And living just 7 or 8 miles from the house I personally am glad the shit is done. but am still left with a feeling of "Wheres the justice". And no matter the outcome that little girl will never get to grow up, go to school, and do so many of the others things.

12voltman59

Jul 6, 2011, 9:54 PM

To respond to the quote of some earlier comments I had made on this case as it got underway--I do have to say that I was swayed by the conversation I had several years ago with those Orange County Sheriff's Homicide Division detectives who were working the case and from all of the pre-trial publicity--I guess I was bit cynical about the state of our jury system, thinking that anyone who served on that jury would be tainted by all the negative publicity-I was wrong on both counts obviously---one to totally trust what the officers said--of course--detectives on a case---once they have settled on their suspect--they are not gonna back down from that--and that I did allow all the press to influence my thinking.

Once the trial got underway and I got bits and pieces of it here and there--I surely didn't go out of my way to watch the coverage--I thought to myself--"these prosecutors are gonna blow the case--they sure have left lots of doubt" and the defense----did what they are supposed to do--shoot even more holes in the case of the prosecution.

In the time since the case was decided by the jury---many legal experts hired by the news networks have been saying the same thing that struck me--the prosecutors blew it by going for only the highest charges possible----premeditated, capital murder charges---which is an even higher mountain to climb to persuade a jury to go there over the standard burdens of legal proof----juries really do want to have all of the "T's" crossed and the "I's" dotted before they will convict and rule for death.

I found this article written several weeks back now even before the verdict that shows that legal eagles were finding fault with the way the case was charged by prosecutors:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/15/did-prosecutors-in-casey-anthony-murder-trial-overtry-their-case/%27%20rel=%27nofollow

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/07/05/why-casey-anthonys-verdict-makes-sense/

A debate between Fox New's Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo Rivera on this verdict: http://video.foxnews.com/#/v/1039530737001/oreilly-vs-geraldo-on-casey-anthony-verdict/?playlist_id=87485

Actually they got off the issue at hand--the trial was to convict or acquit Casey Anthony of the charges of murder--all that stuff about neglect and such were not at actual criminal legals issue in the case---people forget that fact.

I looked--I wished it had gotten posted on the web some place--but it was FOX News legal commentator, Judge Andrew Napalitano, who said on a show earlier today what I have been saying here--the prosecution in this case made a grave error by over charging the crimes and they lost!! I could not find a video of that clip.

I choose these news stories today from FOX News just to show that even networks with a strong conservative bias---that you might think would take the "law and order" stand by denouncing this verdict--even their legal reporters and commentators are largely supportive of this verdict--they did have the one gal---she was a former judge and prosecutor as well who thought it wrong--but she always favors a conviction no matter what.

I will agree with the "hang Casey Anthony high" side on one thing--she is "a whoring, lying little cunt" and all of that stuff--but that is not against the law and was not at issue in the case--she surely doesn't deserve to die for that--unless we want to be like the Taliban.

At trial----you have to go with the charges at hand and like I keep on saying-the prosecution fucked up on that score by charging way too high. That is the only real issue at a trial, can the charges being brought in any particular case be proven to the legal standard of "BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT"

That standard by all legal measure was not met by the prosecution in this case--END OF FUCKING STORY(or at least this chapter of it)

pepperjack

Jul 6, 2011, 9:58 PM

Actually, I had a day in court recently where I was facing my adversary's false accusations and I prevailed; I can relate in different ways to this situation; I went into that courtroom basically confident but still nervous because I know travesties do occur; case was dismissed due to no evidence;my accusers wound up looking like fools;

pepperjack

Jul 6, 2011, 10:22 PM

now the buzz is book & movie deals; if she walks & profits from this, is she going to do the right thing & repay the taxpayers for their burden & the people who struggled to save her life? God granted her not only a reprieve but a miracle.

DuckiesDarling

Jul 6, 2011, 11:34 PM

Everyone knows? Excuse me, but there are 12 people who were not proved to by the prosecution that she did. So no, not everyone knows, and apparently people who had access to all the evidence and heard everything, not just sound bites and lawyers (who do not practice anywhere anymore except for appearing on TV) had to say to the public.

The system works, when the prosecution proves their case. If anything ever happens and you are on the defense table hoping they don't prove you didn't do something that you didn't do, you will hope like the hell the juror votes on the evidence and not because Nancy Grace said you were guilty. :2cents:

Long Duck Dong

Jul 7, 2011, 12:34 AM

drugstore, its people like you that see innocent people put in jail and executed in the US... cos the burden of proof doesn't matter in your eyes, just the desire to have somebody hung high

look at the people in the US that have served time for rape and murder and been cleared by DNA testing.... but evidence has been twisted by lawyers to * fit * the person accused.....

when a person is seen as guilty by a juror before the trial even starts, there are fuck all chance of a fair trial..... regardless of what proof there is to clear them completely.....

the only person that knows for sure what happened, is dead, the only other person that may know what happened, is a liar and convicted of lying....
yet there are so many people that claim to know the truth...... and that is why we have trial by jury... and even they are not perfect......

niftyshellshock

Jul 7, 2011, 12:42 AM

I for one am sad DSC never replied to any of my counters :(

Nancy Grace is a dipshit.

drugstore cowboy

Jul 7, 2011, 12:43 AM

The acquittal happened because the jury was made up of unemployable, weak minded, scatter-brains. It could be that the courthouse was just too close to Walt Disney World down there in Orlando.

I think most people with at least average intelligence or higher, and ability to think logically, know that Casey did kill her daughter.

The jurors represent your average American. Not very intelligent, and easily fooled.

Why people keep saying there was no evidence amazes me.

The woman did not call cops until 1 month latter. She was found guilty of lying to the cops about it all too and has never told the truth. She was obviously hiding something.

Her defense team said it was an accident too. She was cpr and first aid trained. People rarely die from accidents when there is a person with that kind of knowledge and training on site, unless of course there is something malicious behind the accident.

She was also googling chloroform and had some in her possession. The experts testified to that as did her own mother. Why she doing that and why did she have that if there was not something nefarious behind it? Come on, people who need chloroform for legit reasons/purposes don't go around googling it as they already know what it is and used for.

Her mom tried to claim that she herself somehow magically wound up googling choloroform and how to make it and that these things wound up on her computer because of spyware and internet ads. That's total bullshit and anyone who has actually ever been on the intetnet or searched with a search engine knows that yes there are ads and spyware but they don't automatically make you go to youtube videos or somehow force you to type things into a search engine and search for them.

I hope that Casey Anthony does not become a "celebrity", do the talkshow circuit, have a ghostwritten book, movie, or anything like that published or made so she can profit from it since middle America eats that sort of thing up and they would buy the book or buy the movie on DVD.

Yes she probably did kill Caylee.

Casey constantly lied, had crocodile tears, changed her story, and she's a white well off attractive woman who had a media circus of a trial.

If this had been a person of color or a man on trial believe me they would NOT be getting off with a slap on the wrist like Casey did.

Casey is the last person to have seen her daughter Caylee alive, she's constantly lied about what happened to her daughter from the start and even if Caylee did accidentally drown in the pool what sort parent that supposedly loves their child does not call 911?

Caylee's body was found hidden in a swamp and had a plastic bag and duct tape on it so a murder did happen. Caylee clearly did not do this to herself.

The whole "Caylee drowned in the pool!" argument was completely unbelievable and Caylee did not die from an "accident" that somehow involved duct tape, a trash bag, and hiding her body near the Casey house in a swamp.

If Casey did not kill Caylee then who did? Casey clearly knows what happened to her daughter and has from the start but has never told the truth at all and she got away with murder and is laughing about it just like OJ Simpson.

I don't believe in the death penalty so I think that Casey should have just gotten life in prison instead of the slap on the wrist she received since she does know what happened to her daughter who did not die in a pool by accident since she was found hidden in a swamp wrapped up in a trash bag and had duct tape on her.

DuckiesDarling

Jul 7, 2011, 12:44 AM

Nifty, Nancy Grace is a whole another story. She is actually responsible for an innocent woman committing suicide because of an attack on her show on CourtTv. It shames me that people actually pay attention to her instead of actually listening to the evidence.

DuckiesDarling

Jul 7, 2011, 12:46 AM

If this had been a person of color or a man on trial believe me they would NOT be getting off with a slap on the wrist like Casey did.
.

Can we say OJ?

drugstore cowboy

Jul 7, 2011, 12:56 AM

OJ was a pro athlete, he's a celebrity or was a celebrity at one time, and has tons of cash so it's nowhere near the same comparison at all.

OJ was famous long before the trial. It wouldn't have been national sensation if it was just some random black guy who murdered his white ex wife and the white guy she was either banging on the side or who was being nice and returning her glasses since she left them at the restaurant where he worked and was at the wrong place at the wrong time.

There was a similar Florida case a decade ago involving a foster child, Rilya Wilson.

Though relatively few are familiar with the the case, it is arguably much more important than the Anthony case because the State of Florida was in charge of the 5 year old and didn't find out about her disappearance until two years later. They just forgot she existed.

Long Duck Dong

Jul 7, 2011, 1:03 AM

The acquittal happened because the jury was made up of unemployable, weak minded, scatter-brains. It could be that the courthouse was just too close to Walt Disney World down there in Orlando.

Why people keep saying there was no evidence amazes me.

The woman did not call cops until 1 month latter. She was found guilty of lying to the cops about it all too and has never told the truth. She was obviously hiding something.

Her defense team said it was an accident too. She was cpr and first aid trained. People rarely die from accidents when there is a person with that kind of knowledge and training on site, unless of course there is something malicious behind the accident.

She was also googling chloroform and had some in her possession. The experts testified to that as did her own mother. Why she doing that and why did she have that if there was not something nefarious behind it? Come on, people who need chloroform for legit reasons/purposes don't go around googling it as they already know what it is and used for.

Her mom tried to claim that she herself somehow magically wound up googling choloroform and how to make it and that these things wound up on her computer because of spyware and internet ads. That's total bullshit and anyone who has actually ever been on the intetnet or searched with a search engine knows that yes there are ads and spyware but they don't automatically make you go to youtube videos or somehow force you to type things into a search engine and search for them.

I hope that Casey Anthony does not become a "celebrity", do the talkshow circuit, have a ghostwritten book, movie, or anything like that published or made so she can profit from it since middle America eats that sort of thing up and they would buy the book or buy the movie on DVD.

Yes she probably did kill Caylee.

Casey constantly lied, had crocodile tears, changed her story, and she's a white well off attractive woman who had a media circus of a trial.

If this had been a person of color or a man on trial believe me they would NOT be getting off with a slap on the wrist like Casey did.

Casey is the last person to have seen her daughter Caylee alive, she's constantly lied about what happened to her daughter from the start and even if Caylee did accidentally drown in the pool what sort parent that supposedly loves their child does not call 911?

Caylee's body was found hidden in a swamp and had a plastic bag and duct tape on it so a murder did happen. Caylee clearly did not do this to herself.

If Casey did not kill Caylee then who did? Casey clearly knows what happened to her daughter and has from the start but has never told the truth at all and she got away with murder and is laughing about it just like OJ Simpson.

I don't believe in the death penalty so I think that Casey should have just gotten life in prison instead of the slap on the wrist she received since she does know what happened to her daughter who did not die in a pool by accident since she was found hidden in a swamp wrapped up in a trash bag and had duct tape on her.

ok.......

even medical trained people, have people die on them.... cos nobody is jesus christ, and even the best trained people can not always save a life

sex offenders google porn, bored house wife googles porn.... any lawyer can twist that around to make it look innocent or bad..... and choloform has a number of non medical uses....... so the idea is prove the reason for it.....
otherwise, a chef could be accused of googling knifes cos he is going to stab a person, not perpare your dinner....

caylee was found in a swamp with duct tape on her...... that means that somebody had a hand in what happened, and casey is not the only person in the us with duct tape.... so DNA testing is normally used and it did not find any traces of DNA

the average person doesn't have the understanding of how to cover their tracks that well.... and most people that commit a murder that is so carefully done as to not leave a trace of DNA, generally would not only google chloroform....

if casey moved the body as claimed, then there would be trace evidence on the body, clothing and duct tape..... the lack of any DNA on the body, stands out to people that understand that something is wrong there.... and so the lawyers rely on the fact that most people do not know that.... but the defence knew it......

its why some rapist use condoms and shave their pubic area... but even then, clothing fibres and skin cells can be transfered between people....

if casey did murder her daughter, whoever cleaned up and moved the body, is either incredibly lucky or very good as leaving no trace evidence

DuckiesDarling

Jul 7, 2011, 1:04 AM

It didn't matter that he was a celebrity or a professional athlete. He was famous and now is infamous. The case had the same media attention and the same talking heads and the same lack of proof provided by the prosecution.

OJ walked, Casey will walk for murder/manslaughter. Unlike OJ, Casey doesn't even have a place to live currently and absolutely no way to get any money anytime soon.

There are plenty of cases where there were innocent people who were crucified by the media. Look at Richard Jewell, he was accused of placing a bomb in Centennial Park, they even took his tupperware. He was completely innocent and his life was destroyed because of an allegation.

Is Casey completely innocent? No and she wasn't found innocent she was found not guilty due to burden of proof not provided by prosecution. Dr. G, who is a pretty famous medical examiner Jan Garivaldia, couldn't even determine cause of death. How do you prove someone killed someone when you can't even determine how it happened?

niftyshellshock

Jul 7, 2011, 1:16 AM

The acquittal happened because the jury was made up of unemployable, weak minded, scatter-brains. It could be that the courthouse was just too close to Walt Disney World down there in Orlando.

The acquittal happened because, alright, say it with me: The prosecution failed to meet its burden.

Why people keep saying there was no evidence amazes me.

The woman did not call cops until 1 month latter. She was found guilty of lying to the cops about it all too and has never told the truth. She was obviously hiding something.

And she was found not guilty of murder 1 and aggravated manslaughter.

Her defense team said it was an accident too. She was cpr and first aid trained. People rarely die from accidents when there is a person with that kind of knowledge and training on site, unless of course there is something malicious behind the accident.

She was also googling chloroform and had some in her possession. The experts testified to that as did her own mother. Why she doing that and why did she have that if there was not something nefarious behind it? Come on, people who need chloroform for legit reasons/purposes don't go around googling it as they already know what it is and used for.

If search terms were evidence, I'd have a rap sheet the size of Texas to my name.

Her mom tried to claim that she herself somehow magically wound up googling choloroform and how to make it and that these things wound up on her computer because of spyware and internet ads. That's total bullshit and anyone who has actually ever been on the intetnet or searched with a search engine knows that yes there are ads and spyware but they don't automatically make you go to youtube videos or somehow force you to type things into a search engine and search for them.

I hope that Casey Anthony does not become a "celebrity", do the talkshow circuit, have a ghostwritten book, movie, or anything like that published or made so she can profit from it since middle America eats that sort of thing up and they would buy the book or buy the movie on DVD.

You contributed to her fame, every time you turned on the TV, every post, every time you discussed it with your coworkers around the watercooler, every time you listened to Nancy Grace and all these "journalists" speak about how she was "guilty", you contributed.

Yes she probably did kill Caylee.

"Probably" doesn't cut it in the American legal system.

Casey constantly lied, had crocodile tears, changed her story, and she's a white well off attractive woman who had a media circus of a trial.

There you go, bringing race again. Do you have a problem with white people?

If this had been a person of color or a man on trial believe me they would NOT be getting off with a slap on the wrist like Casey did.

<coughhhhh cough cough> O.J. <cough><cough>

Casey is the last person to have seen her daughter Caylee alive, she's constantly lied about what happened to her daughter from the start and even if Caylee did accidentally drown in the pool what sort parent that supposedly loves their child does not call 911?

Caylee's body was found hidden in a swamp and had a plastic bag and duct tape on it so a murder did happen. Caylee clearly did not do this to herself.

If Casey did not kill Caylee then who did? Casey clearly knows what happened to her daughter and has from the start but has never told the truth at all and she got away with murder and is laughing about it just like OJ Simpson.

I don't believe in the death penalty so I think that Casey should have just gotten life in prison instead of the slap on the wrist she received since she does know what happened to her daughter who did not die in a pool by accident since she was found hidden in a swamp wrapped up in a trash bag and had duct tape on her.

Funny, you don't believe in the death penalty, but you're all for mob rule. Innnnnnnnnnteresting. How do you feel about the United States Constitution?

12voltman59

Jul 7, 2011, 12:14 PM

Found this column in a major publication where a legal expert makes the points I have been making:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/07/07/2011-07-07_casey_anthony_trial_was_a_case_of_overzealous_p rosecution_death_penalty_was_a_ba.html

As the verdict was read in the Casey Anthony murder trial on Tuesday in a Florida courtroom, our collective jaws dropped.

How could the jury possibly find Anthony not guilty of murdering her daughter, Caylee? Wasn't Anthony a sociopathic party girl who didn't want to be a young unwed mother, so she killed her own daughter in cold blood?

That is certainly the image of her portrayed by the prosecutor and the news media during the course of the highly publicized trial. But while the public and the media generally blame Anthony for Caylee's murder, the jury was unconvinced by the prosecutor's case against her - and there are several understandable reasons why.

It must be remembered that the burden of proof on the prosecution of any trial is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a very high hurdle to clear in a criminal case, especially one involving the grave allegation of murder.

Against Anthony, the prosecutor employed an extremely high-risk strategy by charging her with first-degree murder and, in addition, asking for capital punishment. This strategy meant that all of the jurors had to be willing and prepared to apply the death sentence if, in the end, they believed that Anthony was guilty of the premeditated murder of her daughter. But before that, they had to be convinced of her guilt in order to do so, and that strenuous burden of proof weighed heavily on the state throughout the trial.

Indeed, capital punishment is a very difficult decision for a jury to reach in a first-degree murder trial, even when there is direct forensic evidence of the crime - such as, for example, the murder weapon with the defendant's fingerprints on it.

But in this trial, however, the state had only a "circumstantial" case against Anthony, meaning that none of the evidence linked Anthony directly to Caylee's murder. Although it is not impossible (Scott Peterson, convicted in 2004 of killing Laci Peterson, being a notable exception), juries rarely convict or invoke the death penalty in first-degree murder trials when all of the evidence is circumstantial.

In just about every case, jurors like to see the "smoking gun." But in this case, the most convincing evidence was the "smell of death" and presence of Caylee's hair in the trunk of Anthony's car that showed postmortem growth (i.e., occurring after death). Although powerful, it was still circumstantial evidence.

There is also the question of motive on Anthony's part. She was portrayed by the prosecutor as a lying and irresponsible party girl who wanted her freedom. However, there was no evidence at all in the trial that Anthony was either abusive or neglectful of Caylee. Moreover, the mother had no prior criminal record.

In short, the evidence presented by the prosecution was simply not enough to fully convince the jury that Anthony was guilty of murder - and the jury clearly sensed as much.

Arguably, the prosecution "overcharged" the case against Anthony and would have been better off going with a charge of nonnegligent manslaughter or even second-degree murder, both of which do not require proof of deliberation or premeditation by the defendant. In the end, boldness did not carry the day.

Also, it must be remembered that due to pretrial publicity, the jurors in this case were selected in Clearwater, Fla., rather than Orlando, where Anthony lived and was charged with the crime. It is possible that the nonlocal jury did not feel the same moral responsibility to the community or emotional connection to the outcome that a "homegrown" jury might have felt.

A phenomenon called "collective efficacy" shows that local residents feel a powerful bond and commitment to restoring justice and order when their community is violated or threatened. The importance of jury makeup and its emotional stake in the outcome cannot be overstated, particularly in a capital murder trial.

That's pretty much why Anthony was found not guilty of murdering her daughter by a jury of 12 reasonable people in Orlando while an outraged world watched.

However, finding her not guilty is not the same as finding her innocent. The prosecution failed to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Anthony was guilty of premeditated murder. As a result, Anthony, a probable murderer, is free, while little Caylee cries out for justice from her grave.

Scott Bonn is professor of criminology at Drew University and the author of "Mass Deception: Moral Panic and the U.S. War on Iraq." He is currently writing a book on the public's fascination with serial killers.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/07/07/2011-07-07_casey_anthony_trial_was_a_case_of_overzealous_p rosecution_death_penalty_was_a_ba.html#ixzz1RQtP3j uc

If you click on the link to this page---do take a few minutes to watch the segment from the CBS News Early Show where they have a conversation with several legal experts about this verdict--it once again--reinforces what I have been saying.

There are many legal experts who are making these points both in op ed pieces such as this and on the various networks.

12voltman59

Jul 7, 2011, 12:22 PM

Drugstore Cowboy--your comments on this case and the jury are totally way off base---for one thing--get the facts right--the jury was selected out of Orange County over in the Tampa Bay/Clearwater/St. Pete areas because they felt that due to all of the pre-trial publicity in the Orlando area media both broadcast and the Orlando Sentinel--the jury pool would have been tainted.

They did not have an easy time of it in getting a jury seated from, I believe it was Collier County, as it was.

As far as the make up of the jury was concerned--they were not a bunch of unemployed jerks or however you categorized them---they were a mix of people from "working class" to "professionals" such as teachers, accountants, business owners etc to retirees and they were a mix of men, women, young, old, racially and ethnically mixed---I am of course talking about the entire pool of jurors selected for this trial---both those who actually served and the alternates.

DC--not only did you not have your facts straight when it comes to this jury---you don't have any idea about the specifics of the way our criminal justice system works when it comes to the courts, trials, rules of evidence, standards of proof in criminal cases etc.

I can say--the way this case turned out--in terms of its place in the overall picture of where our legal system currently stands--it reaffirms it for me that even though it is not a perfect system and surely does have its many faults---it did worked as designed and for all of us--that is a very good thing indeed. Perhaps the best thing that it does show--that even when a case does get this media circus atmosphere aspect to it as this case did-----the court case can proceed in the way it is supposed to---considered according the evidence that was presented or lack thereof---considered with objectivity and dispassionately (as much as possible) and a jury is not swayed by the passions of mob rule.

It should be noted that the one juror who gave an interview said--they did consider Casey Anthony guilty of doing something in Caylee's death--they simply could not vote to convict her of capital murder charges and then vote for the death penalty when they did not have the compelling evidence necessary to vote to convict her for the crimes for which she was charged.

As I keep saying and the commentary piece I posted above makes clear---if you are mad at any party in this--be pissed at the prosecutors--they quite simply FUCKED UP!!!!!!

jamieknyc

Jul 7, 2011, 12:59 PM

12voltman59

Jul 7, 2011, 1:35 PM

Actually, apart from violent felony offenders, few defendants in American courts are likely to get jail time, especially in state courts.

That is not quite true-if someone gets convicted of having over a certain amount of pot---even if they have no prior criminal history of any sort--people can expect to spend many years in prison thanks to the fact that most states have pretty severe, Minimum Mandatory sentences for possession of and or selling pot. In many cases--simply having over a certain set amount of pot---even if a person doesn't sell it or give it away--they charge them with "trafficking in drugs."

They do make sure that people rot in prison for a long time for such charges---hell--I heard that I one state--I think it is the state of Virginia---possessing as little as just two pot plants that are growing in your house---can get you a MM sentence of something like 25 to 30 years for each plant and they will "stack consecutively" the sentences for each plant possession!!!!

Of course we have to throw the book at those who would use that evil weed!!!!

void()

Jul 7, 2011, 1:52 PM

"Probably" doesn't cut it in the American legal system.

Concur & thank you for beating me to the buzzer.

People rarely die from accidents when there is a person with that kind of knowledge and training on site, unless of course there is something malicious behind the accident.

even medical trained people, have people die on them.... cos nobody is jesus christ, and even the best trained people can not always save a life

Concur with you on the later, thanks for hitting the buzzer before me.

While I may not exude complete unadulterated faith in the American Way, so far it seems the best we have, and we need to place some faith in it. I feel the state did not meet burden of proof in order to convict. I may also feel the lady did kill her child. But I accept the ruling of the court, end of discussion from here. There was not sufficient proof to convict. So, I am left to doubt she killed the child. That is a reasonable doubt, too.

jamieknyc

Jul 7, 2011, 2:09 PM

That is not quite true-if someone gets convicted of having over a certain amount of pot---even if they have no prior criminal history of any sort--people can expect to spend many years in prison thanks to the fact that most states have pretty severe, Minimum Mandatory sentences for possession of and or selling pot. In many cases--simply having over a certain set amount of pot---even if a person doesn't sell it or give it away--they charge them with "trafficking in drugs."

They do make sure that people rot in prison for a long time for such charges---hell--I heard that I one state--I think it is the state of Virginia---possessing as little as just two pot plants that are growing in your house---can get you a MM sentence of something like 25 to 30 years for each plant and they will "stack consecutively" the sentences for each plant possession!!!!

Of course we have to throw the book at those who would use that evil weed!!!!

Those laws are paper sentences because over ninety per cent of convictions are plea bargained. Simple possession offenses rarely lead to jail time.

According to the BJS, about 800,000 people are arrested for marijuana offenses of all types. There are 37,000 inmates serving time for marijuaua offenses in state prisons.

sammie19

Jul 7, 2011, 2:42 PM

Those laws are paper sentences because over ninety per cent of convictions are plea bargained. Simple possession offenses rarely lead to jail time.

According to the BJS, about 800,000 people are arrested for marijuana offenses of all types. There are 37,000 inmates serving time for marijuaua offenses in state prisons.

37000 is a little more than Rarely Jamie. Or is my definition of rarely wrong? Or am I misuderstanding what you are saying?

jamieknyc

Jul 7, 2011, 4:19 PM

37000 is a little more than Rarely Jamie. Or is my definition of rarely wrong? Or am I misuderstanding what you are saying?

Out of a population of over 300 million it is an infinitesimal percentage, especially when only drug-trafficking offenses carry jail time. By comparion, in your country you can get 5 years for simple possession.

jamieknyc

Jul 7, 2011, 4:23 PM

The acquittal happened because the jury was made up of unemployable, weak minded, scatter-brains. It could be that the courthouse was just too close to Walt Disney World down there in Orlando.

I am pretty sure that I am the only person here who has ever actually picked a jury. No one who is unemployable or feeble-minded gets put onto a jury.

12voltman59

Jul 7, 2011, 5:17 PM

I have the "solution" to this whole thing of a jury not doing its duty and bringing someone to "justice"--we can scrap all of these little niceties and troublesome things that get in the way of justice such as, the Magna Carta, a constitution, "the rule of law," presumption of innocence, etc and go to system where we have a tribunal ( composed of only rich, white men) sit in judgement of a criminal--with of course the presumption that once the authorities have concluded their very through and complete investigations--they will have found the guilty party and all that does need to be determined at a hearing are the particulars of the crime and pleading of the guilty for mercy before due sentence is cast.

If the criminal does not admit his or her guilt and asks for the mercy of the court---the sentence meted out will be slow and painful--but if they do admit their crimes--then their sentence will be swift and merciful.

Then we can all join in the procession--in this case to "Kill the slut!!" "Stone the slut!!!" We will then, being good citizens, in the interests of keeping order--will vie to be the first to cast the stone that will take the life of the wanton whore--even though we may be as big a sinner as she--and when we are done--we can all shout: "THE SLUT IS DEAD!!! THE SLUT IS DEAD!!!"

Oh wait---we did try that at one time in society--we called those days "The Dark Ages."

To Jaime--I don't know how many people are doing time on charges such as what you said---but to my mind--if the figure is "ONLY" 37,000 people who are serving such time-that is probably about 36,900 who are serving too much prison time for a non-violent offense like merely possessing X amount of pot.

I can tell you---I personally worked on a number of cases of people who had no other transgressions against the good order of society other than maybe having some parking or traffic tickets who got caught with an amount of pot over and above the amount that kicks things into the major felony category. In those cases--there was no plea bargaining and along with facing many years of prison---like say in the 10 to 15 year range at least--with Ohio having enacted a reform of the sentencing guidelines at the time to require that defendants had to serve a minimum of 80 percent of sentence before being eligible for any sort of early release or parole. The prosecutors also were able to often secure the "forfeiture" of much of the person's property----like cars, boats, motorcycles and sometimes even the homes of such people--citing the connection such property supposedly had in the "drug operation" or was "ill obtained gains."

jamieknyc

Jul 7, 2011, 6:15 PM

I suppose you are right if you are talking about aging hippies growing their supply of weed who had the misfortune to find the rare assistant DA who actually wants to take cases to trial insterad of pleading them to loitering. Considering how many innocent people die each year because of violence carried out by drug dealers and their gangs, I wouldn't be so sure to classify narcotics offenders as 'non-violent,' altho I know the BJS does.

drugstore cowboy

Jul 7, 2011, 8:32 PM

TaylorMade

Jul 7, 2011, 9:07 PM

The jurors made it clear that while they didn't have enough evidence to convict her, they do not regard her as innocent. She proved herself to be a bad person to these jurors, but that's not evidence for murder.

That's the most we can ask for, I guess.

*Taylor*

Cherokee_Mountaincat

Jul 7, 2011, 10:30 PM

Oh Please dont get me started on this. Makes me sick to my stomach when I saw her smirking, smug face. I wanted to smash it in..:disgust::soapbox: I wanted to do the same to Susan Smith when she was in front of the cameras talking about her kids, and it looked like she was trying to keep from smileing..
She'll get hers one of these days and I hope its as horrific as what happened to her little girl..
Cat

drugstore cowboy

Jul 7, 2011, 10:38 PM

Now Casey Anthony wants to have another child and even possibly adopt a kid, hopefully that will not happen at all.

niftyshellshock

Jul 7, 2011, 10:47 PM

I like how people are now rallying around her and claiming that this is somehow "justice" since Casey got away with murder, when most of these people were convinced that she was guilty from the start when she claimed that her daughter went off with some "nanny" that didn't even exist and had been missing for an entire month, and her dead daughter has not had any "justice" brought to her at all.

How many people that support her now actually believed the entire time both before the trial and during the trial that she's completely innocent?

timeline ...

June 16, 2008 — 2 1/2-year-old Caylee Anthony is last seen alive leaving the home of her grandparents, George and Cindy Anthony, along with her mother Casey.[1]
June 18, 2008 — Casey Anthony borrows a shovel from Brian Burner, a neighbor of George and Cindy Anthony. Burner says that Anthony returned it an hour later.
June 20, 2008 — Casey Anthony is captured in various photos partying at Fusion nightclub and participating in a “hard body contest.”

hmmmm

Well, since you're the only one around here who's been contributing to the media circus (that incidentally, paid for her defense...congrats, by the way), I don't care one way or the other. No one's rallying around her. We're rallying around the United States legal system, and its presumption of innocence.

As far as 'justice' goes, here, you do understand there is a difference between legal justice and actual justice?

Your mentality is outdated. I remember a time when people were guilty until proven innocent:

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.switched.com/media/2008/05/homosexuality_spanish_inquisition.jpg

Want to go back there?

12voltman59

Jul 7, 2011, 11:28 PM

Just wanted to add a correction to something I had said about where the jury pool was selected for the trial--I had incorrectly said that I thought that the jury was selected in Collier County--that was way wrong--it was selected in Pinellas County.

Back to Jaime and our little disagreement---as far as I am concerned there are way too many people sitting in jails and prison for a long time for relatively minor possession cases-----spots that should be taken by up by those who have committed truly violent offenses or do have a significant criminal record---to you 37,000 people serving such sentences may not be that big a deal--but it is a big deal to those who are serving that time--the same for their families and it sure does hit the taxpayer in the rear-in the place their wallets are because jail and prison slots are becoming expensive--37,000 people serving such sentences equals about 300 or so prisons---each at a cost of at least many millions of dollars per each institution to build, operate, staff, maintain, etc.

Just like it is getting way to expensive to fight our actual wars to little effect--the war on drugs has been a failure with billions wasted and nothing much to show for it.

12voltman59

Jul 8, 2011, 9:07 AM

Katja

Jul 8, 2011, 10:33 AM

This is my last post on this topic----no sense in beating a dead horse. The verdict in this case---"Is what it is" and that is a fact---our bitching about it either way cannot change that--I guess we all needed to blow off some steam-and with this subject like most others these days---it is most likely the case that whatever a person's view is on the matter--that is their view and that is that--because we aren't going to change each other's minds.

I put this one last post to give a mea culpa on my last post above---after waking up and thinking about what I had written----it hit me that I think I had posted the number of 37,000 prison inmates equates out to 300 prisons---which is what I did type---that is wrong----if you say that the average correctional institution has a population of between a thousand and two thousand---the number of prisons is between 10 and 20 prisons--not that great a number of course when you talk about all the states--but still considering that nearly every state in the US is pretty much officially broke---that number of prisons does represent a large degree of expenditure for those states----and of course---entire prisons are not dedicated to only housing those who are serving sentences on otherwise non-violent drug charges---but with those spaces still costing the states lots of money they really don't have, if they didn't have such tough drug laws--they could free those spaces up for the those who really belong in prison---the truly violent or those who are "career criminals."

My bigger point on that subject---I think we need to get rational and reasonable about the "drug war" thing.

Now--let's put the Casey Anthony trial behind us because we have something really potentially bad for all facing us----namely things like potential of the meltdowns of the economies of the "PIGS" countries in Europe and the effect that would have on the world economy--and here in the US--that we have this brinkmanship playing over raising the US debt ceiling---if the US does default----we can all start singing "Let's party like its NINETEEN TWENTY NINE!!!"

Casey Anthony has been found Not Guilty of murder. In law that means she has been found innocent of the crime of killing her child. We may argue the technicalities of what Not Guilty means but that is the reality and she should now be allowed to live out her life in peace free of the stain of having killed her child.

Suspicion will remain as it always does in such high profile and controversial cases and there will be those who will always ensure that whether she is in reality guilty or innocent, be prepared to make her life a living hell.

In a sense it is a victory for justice whatever people may say, for it proves that unless the prosecution is able to prove without a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty, the system works, and that the state cannot just arrest and try people with their presumption of the defendants guilt and convict them without sufficient evidence a jury would accept. That in my view is a healthy thing no matter the guilt or innocence of a defendant, and ensures our rights and liberties as a people are protected still.

Better a guilty person goes free than an innocent banged up and deprived of their liberty.

Void has a good point regarding the US prison population. In my country there is always debate as to who and why people are sent to prison. It is generally acknowledged that we imprison too many people for what are relatively trivial offences, usually but not always crimes. Debate rages about alternatives to imprisonment for such people. What we can never get agreement on is what offences should be exempt from prison sentences and whether or not the alternatives an appropriate punishment.

In the United Kindgom, per head of population, there is a combined prison population around 20% of the size of the United States. It is recognised that imprisonment is often wasteful and for many more minor offences costly. The US has the largest prison population of any country on earth and that incudes China and India, two nations far larger in terms of population and must have many offences for which imprisonment is not appropriate. I would be surprised if that is not the case.

Around 2.4 million people are imprisoned at any one time in the USA costing something over 30000 dollars per head every year. Why the disparity with other nations? The wastefulness of such a large prison population is enormous, for not only is the cost of over 2 million people deprived of liberty massive, there has to be taken into account the loss of earning potential and creativity to the economy which such large numbers represent. The cost of so many in prison requires taxation to fund their incarceration and those tax dollars could be more wisely spent elsewhere. Possibly even left in the pockets of taxpayers.

I do not believe that the US is so criminalised that such a large population should be imprisoned. Other western countries have far lower populations and much less of a crime rate. The UK has the largest prison population per head in the European Union, and precisely the same arguments hold good there, yet while the UK has a lower rate of crime than the US, no one in the UK suggests that we imprison 5 times as many of our population to deal with the problem of crime.

Different solutions exist and should be considered and every country should be left to decide on these things for themselves. Many even work which may come as a shock to many. But every country should be looking at their own system of penal servitude and at the ways other countries penal systems operate and find out what alternatives exist which would stop the wastefulness of so much human incarcertion and may be appropriate for their own society.

That we require prisons to incarcerate those who truly deserve punishment is without question. What is not without question is should we, either in the US or my own country with its much lower prison population, incarcerate as many is we do?

Long Duck Dong

Jul 8, 2011, 12:39 PM

in NZ, if we were as harsh as the US on the serious offences ( murder etc ) the NZ prison population would double over night.....

there was a issue over here with possession of child porn.... the goverment wanted the jail term increased to 5 years for possession, the greenies opposed that by saying that possession of child porn is not as serious as doing it so it should only be 3 years.... never mind the fact, its somebodies child being abused for the images..... yet the same greenies wanted jail terms for parents that smack their children, cos its child abuse.....

holding up the fiqures of the us, doesn't tell us, how many prisoners are remanded in custody, awaiting trial, how many are lifers ( never get out ) and how many are repeat offenders when other forms of punishment have failed....

jamieknyc

Jul 8, 2011, 1:34 PM

Void has a good point regarding the US prison population. In my country there is always debate as to who and why people are sent to prison. It is generally acknowledged that we imprison too many people for what are relatively trivial offences, usually but not always crimes. Debate rages about alternatives to imprisonment for such people. What we can never get agreement on is what offences should be exempt from prison sentences and whether or not the alternatives an appropriate punishment.

In the United Kindgom, per head of population, there is a combined prison population around 20% of the size of the United States. It is recognised that imprisonment is often wasteful and for many more minor offences costly. The US has the largest prison population of any country on earth and that incudes China and India, two nations far larger in terms of population and must have many offences for which imprisonment is not appropriate. I would be surprised if that is not the case.

Around 2.4 million people are imprisoned at any one time in the USA costing something over 30000 dollars per head every year. Why the disparity with other nations? The wastefulness of such a large prison population is enormous, for not only is the cost of over 2 million people deprived of liberty massive, there has to be taken into account the loss of earning potential and creativity to the economy which such large numbers represent. The cost of so many in prison requires taxation to fund their incarceration and those tax dollars could be more wisely spent elsewhere. Possibly even left in the pockets of taxpayers.

I do not believe that the US is so criminalised that such a large population should be imprisoned. Other western countries have far lower populations and much less of a crime rate. The UK has the largest prison population per head in the European Union, and precisely the same arguments hold good there, yet while the UK has a lower rate of crime than the US, no one in the UK suggests that we imprison 5 times as many of our population to deal with the problem of crime.

Different solutions exist and should be considered and every country should be left to decide on these things for themselves. Many even work which may come as a shock to many. But every country should be looking at their own system of penal servitude and at the ways other countries penal systems operate and find out what alternatives exist which would stop the wastefulness of so much human incarcertion and may be appropriate for their own society.

That we require prisons to incarcerate those who truly deserve punishment is without question. What is not without question is should we, either in the US or my own country with its much lower prison population, incarcerate as many is we do?

Prison populations are of course a function of crime. Britain is a vastly more law-abiding society.

niftyshellshock

Jul 8, 2011, 1:37 PM

Prison populations are of course a function of crime. Britain is a vastly more law-abiding society.

Yeah. Ever seen the Bill Hicks on English crime?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZnEpaSOFwk

Lisa (va)

Jul 8, 2011, 2:14 PM

Just watching the news, seems that at least one of the jurors "wished they could have found her guilty, but the simple fact was the evidence just didn't measure up for a conviction".

Lisa

hugs n kisses

drugstore cowboy

Jul 9, 2011, 3:08 AM

Scott Peterson and David Camm were convicted with less evidence than Casey Anthony.

Pasadenacpl2

Jul 9, 2011, 3:19 AM

I disagree. But, for the sake of argument, let's say you're right. Why? What reason were they convicted when she was not?

Pasa

love1234

Jul 9, 2011, 3:47 AM

What is the biggest failure of not only the court system in Florida but pretty much every place in the US----they either in large numbers do convict innocent people on the flimsiest of evidence and never bring to justice those who really did do some horrible crimes.

Look at how many cases those programs like "The Innocence Project" have helped to set free--with many of those people having rotted in prison for decades, convicted of crimes they did not commit---while the real perpetrators---at least for those crimes--remained free!!!! Think of how many we have probably put to death whose only real crime in many of those cases--they had the wrong skin color, matched a vague general description of "the perp" and had the bad luck of being in the wrong place at the wrong time---like being in a place that didn't really care if they got the right person--they just had to "get someone" convicted--especially if that person who was accused---had black skin and the victim was white.

There is one thing about this case people have said I agree with--if you have money you can buy yourself a defense team that can go against the state and has a good chance of getting you off--but if you are person of little or modest means--you are pretty much fucked and you are gonna go do some time---then once the system has its hooks in you--you pretty much never get out of it now!!!

They do not hire cops with high IQs. I would guess many are just a few points above retarded but smart enough to want job where they get to play smart bad ass and the boss of people. In big cities many cops are on steroids and even state police in many places are on steroids and speed as they work for state and do other work on the side. In the gyms you hear of cops bench pressing 500 to over 600 pounds. Doing this for most people that live on this earth takes strong drugs. Steroids make you aggressive though many taking them do not see it this way. I have heard the power lifters in gym talking about this over and over again. Mix these Steroids with Speed so they can work that other job and you have ticking time bombs that just want to bust someone for the crime and get to next job, family or the gym.

Its a game to prosecutors and they keep their jobs most places by putting someone in prison. Anyone will do and many could care less they have put an innocent person in prison. They keep their job.

Money can buy the system in many places!!!!

Yes the hooks are deep and can be costly to break....

love1234

Jul 9, 2011, 4:08 AM

I disagree. But, for the sake of argument, let's say you're right. Why? What reason were they convicted when she was not?

Pasa

Beyond a reasonable doubt. Some people understand it. Others do as the state wants as they have been trained to do this from kindergarten or before kindergarten.

In like 1800, 1900 and after for many years in this country in most places people got a fair judgement and it was hard for the state to win as people understood "Beyond a reasonable doubt". They also understood the Bible and as the Bible was used in court rooms like it is now they knew what God required for conviction.

From Salem, Mass. we all know they railroaded people back in the day also.

Pasadenacpl2

Jul 9, 2011, 5:49 AM

Ahhh... so it wasn't that she was rich. She wasn't. It wasn't that she was a white male. She wasn't. It wasn't that she was popular. She wasn't.

Those men were everything we equate with judicial favoritism, and yet they were convicted. She was a single poor woman with no real resources and a now shattered family.

The judicial system is not broken. Even a poor single mother gets her day in court, and gets a good enough defense to beat the rap.

Pasa

void()

Jul 9, 2011, 8:31 AM

"Void has a good point regarding the US prison population. In my country ..."

No worries, merely typographical I'm sure. :) Voltie / 12 Volt, was discussing the prison issue. I might agree with him about it, there are too many incidents of non-violent 'criminals' in jail because they used pot. I might agree too that the war on drugs, especially when in context of pot, is a sham.

Tazers are legal and wind up hurting more folks than responsible pot use. Go figure that one out. Of course, I could have said guns, cars, booze, aspirin, sex, sugar, knives, towels, chickens, microwave ovens were legal and hurt more than responsible pot use. Bah, at any given it's all just a Grand Illusion.

niftyshellshock

Jul 9, 2011, 11:26 AM

I disagree. But, for the sake of argument, let's say you're right. Why? What reason were they convicted when she was not?

Pasa

Don't bother with Drugstore Cowboy, he's yet to respond to any of my points and seems to be comfortable sniping from a distance and then backing up when faced with facts.

niftyshellshock

Jul 9, 2011, 11:31 AM

They do not hire cops with high IQs. I would guess many are just a few points above retarded but smart enough to want job where they get to play smart bad ass and the boss of people. In big cities many cops are on steroids and even state police in many places are on steroids and speed as they work for state and do other work on the side. In the gyms you hear of cops bench pressing 500 to over 600 pounds. Doing this for most people that live on this earth takes strong drugs. Steroids make you aggressive though many taking them do not see it this way. I have heard the power lifters in gym talking about this over and over again. Mix these Steroids with Speed so they can work that other job and you have ticking time bombs that just want to bust someone for the crime and get to next job, family or the gym.

Its a game to prosecutors and they keep their jobs most places by putting someone in prison. Anyone will do and many could care less they have put an innocent person in prison. They keep their job.

Money can buy the system in many places!!!!

Yes the hooks are deep and can be costly to break....

Wow, another person throwing out blanket statements without backing them up.

Are there a lot of people in prisons, yeah, but that's more because, oh, I don't know, THERE'S STUPID LAWS? And cops have to enforce them. If you light up a joint in front of a cop and start passing it around, you'll get locked up for possession and distribution. Cop's doing his job, which is ENFORCING the law. Want to keep people out of jail? Talk to your legislature about stupid laws.

niftyshellshock

Jul 9, 2011, 11:36 AM

Beyond a reasonable doubt. Some people understand it. Others do as the state wants as they have been trained to do this from kindergarten or before kindergarten.

In like 1800, 1900 and after for many years in this country in most places people got a fair judgement and it was hard for the state to win as people understood "Beyond a reasonable doubt". They also understood the Bible and as the Bible was used in court rooms like it is now they knew what God required for conviction.

From Salem, Mass. we all know they railroaded people back in the day also.

http://www.memecenter.com/uploaded/82f3f98de212b8520f67befce3fd9cdf.jpg

Could you rephrase that into something more intelligible?
Because it seems that you just said that people got a fair trial in 1800-19XX, which is kind of a stupid thing to say.
Then you go on to say that people "knew what God required for conviction" and again, what the fuck?

Michigan_cpl

Jul 9, 2011, 12:48 PM

casey anthony is guilty and she knows it. it is a crying shame that her father who just happens to be an ex cop covered up the crime to save his daughter ass.

in my eyes they both should hang. some one will knock casey off. what real bitch she is any ways. as far as the father goes he should be knocked off also.

bruker

Jul 9, 2011, 2:37 PM

you weren't on the jury. All you get is the CNN hype version. I guess her terrible "parenting" led to the kids death. You have to prove she murdered her in a court of law though..

bruker

Jul 9, 2011, 2:40 PM

oh and by the way, god doesn't exist. why is 4 billion years of evolutuion so hard to understand?

niftyshellshock

Jul 10, 2011, 4:59 AM

niftyshellshock

Jul 10, 2011, 5:00 AM

oh and by the way, god doesn't exist. why is 4 billion years of evolutuion so hard to understand?

Ah, you're one of -those- atheists.*

void()

Jul 10, 2011, 11:34 AM

Ah, you're one of -those- atheists.*

Void chuckles, takes three steps away from bruker. "Might be atheist myself, but not a militant. On your own bud. I'm gonna try creating a program which eliminates sesame seeds. C'ya."

MikeSoFla

Jul 13, 2011, 12:28 PM

tragic....that evil chic deserves nothing but bad things to happen to her, and her parents too, they were part of this mess. What a FUBAR family. :soapbox:

love1234

Jul 13, 2011, 3:43 PM

love1234

Jul 13, 2011, 3:47 PM

She wasn't proven guilty. Get over yourself. Mob rule is not welcome in this country.

Democracy means mob rule. Demon-crazy. The u.s. is a mob rule (democracy) demon-crazy country these days.

niftyshellshock

Jul 13, 2011, 4:11 PM

Yeah, love1234, because we have so many lynchings nowadays. Totally.

love1234

Jul 14, 2011, 6:43 PM

http://www.memecenter.com/uploaded/82f3f98de212b8520f67befce3fd9cdf.jpg

Could you rephrase that into something more intelligible?
Because it seems that you just said that people got a fair trial in 1800-19XX, which is kind of a stupid thing to say.
Then you go on to say that people "knew what God required for conviction" and again, what the fuck?

The system has a Bible in it. The system was based on the Ten Commandments, the Law of God. People back in olden times were smarter when it came to the Bible and the Law of God.

In the legal system the judges and lawyers are members of the BAR "Esquires". The King or Queen of England is the Head of this system. When they are crowned they are Crowned on Jacobs Pillar and but their hand on a Bible and swear to enforce The Laws of God. http://jahtruth.net/signed-o.jpg "I will to the utmost of my power maintain the Law of God"

"The Revolutionary War was fought and concluded when Cornwallis surrendered to Washington at Yorktown. As Americans we have been taught that we defeated the king and won our freedom. The next document I will use is the Treaty of 1783, which will totally contradict our having won the Revolutionary War. (footnote 2).

I want you to notice in the first paragraph that the king refers to himself as prince of the Holy Roman Empire and of the United States. You know from this that the United States did not negotiate this Treaty of peace in a position of strength and victory, but it is obvious that Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and John Adams negotiated a Treaty of further granted privileges from the king of England. Keep this in mind as you study these documents. You also need to understand the players of those that negotiated this Treaty. For the Americans it was Benjamin Franklin Esgr., a great patriot and standard bearer of freedom. Or was he? His title includes Esquire.

An Esquire in the above usage was a granted rank and Title of nobility by the king, which is below Knight and above a yeoman, common man. An Esquire is someone that does not do manual labor as signified by this status, see the below definitions.

"Esquires by virtue of their offices; as justices of the peace, and others who bear any office of trust under the crown....for whosever studieth the laws of the realm, who studieth in the universities, who professeth the liberal sciences, and who can live idly, and without manual labor, and will bear the port, charge, and countenance of a gentleman, he shall be called master, and shall be taken for a gentleman." Blackstone Commentaries p. 561-562

"Esquire - In English Law. A title of dignity next above gentleman, and below knight. Also a title of office given to sheriffs, serjeants, and barristers at law, justices of the peace, and others." Blacks Law Dictionary fourth ed. p. 641

Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay as you can read in the Treaty were all Esquires and were the signers of this Treaty and the only negotiators of the Treaty. The representative of the king was David Hartley Esqr..

Benjamin Franklin was the main negotiator for the terms of the Treaty, he spent most of the War traveling between England and France. The use of Esquire declared his and the others British subjection and loyalty to the crown." http://www.civil-liberties.com/books/colony2.html

So the system is suppose Obey the Laws of God. Under the Law of God most the people in u.s. prisons are guilty of no crime. imho

The people that put them there are guilty of many crimes that have Gods death sentence attached to them. It is all in your Bible start in Genesis and keep reading the whole thing is explained if you are smart enough to understand that you are reading. Most people today are not smart enough to get it.

love1234

Jul 14, 2011, 6:56 PM

Yeah, love1234, because we have so many lynchings nowadays. Totally.

The lynchings are now done by legislating. A small mob vote in an illegal system and the elected make up laws to put people who have committed no crime in prison many time the enforcers of this lynching system beat, tazer or murder people that have committed no crime in the Eyes and Law of God.

If you do not understand the way the system was suppose to work you will not understand. Many, if not all or most all people involved in the (demon-crazy) system today are criminals.

niftyshellshock

Jul 14, 2011, 6:59 PM

The lynchings are now done by legislating. A small mob vote in an illegal system and the elected make up laws to put people who have committed no crime in prison many time the enforcers of this lynching system beat, tazer or murder people that have committed no crime in the Eyes and Law of God.

If you do not understand the way the system was suppose to work you will not understand. Many, if not all or most all people involved is the (demon-crazy) system today are criminals.

Whatever it is you're smoking, it's probably illegal in the 48 continental states.

love1234

Jul 14, 2011, 7:42 PM

Whatever it is you're smoking, it's probably illegal in the 48 continental states.

I'm not smoking or drinking anything just pointing out the Truth.

"Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth. Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happened." Just as a bell that has been rung cannot be "unrung", the annoying problem with the Truth is that, once you learn it, you can not "unlearn" it. Winston Churchill

"It is very simple to see that democracy is a lie and a confidence-trick. All you have to do is analyse what it is supposed to be and then compare that definition to the reality.

Democracy is supposed to be the rule of the majority. Government of the majority of the people, for the majority of the people, by the majority of the people.

Let us now compare the smooth deceptive definition, to stark reality.

In the western world approximately 95% of the wealth is possessed by approximately 5% of the people. That means, using these same figures, that 95% of the people, the overwhelming majority, possess only 5% of the wealth.

The politicians would have us all believe that this is the will of the majority. That is the politician's idea of what they call democracy.

When did the 95% of people, the overwhelming majority, ever vote for the right for themselves to be poor and vote for the tiny 5% minority to possess their own (the poor people's) share of the nation's wealth, that the poor majority's ancestors have fought and died to protect?

Many people can see the Democracy (demon-crazy) Deception and refuse to vote, so the wily politicians made-up special rules to allow themselves to rule using only a majority of the votes, even when the number of people who vote is only a minority of the population. How can that possibly be conceived to be the rule of the majority? Of course it is not the rule of the majority; it is a confidence-trick.

Those who can see the deception, unfortunately do not know what to do about the confidence trick; because they do not study; understand and apply the teachings of The Bible, having been deceived yet again by the misinterpretations of the churches, who work with, and are part of, the political-system; and so just watch the puppets* dancing on their strings, not knowing how to cut those strings forever.

A young child viewing a puppet show will sit happily entranced and fascinated by the animated, talking marionettes, believing that they are very much alive and real. One day, when the child is older, and sees the strings attached to the puppets for the very first time, the illusion is forever shattered. The child will always know that hidden hands control the lifeless puppets.

Most people living today have advanced into adulthood without ever having known of, or seen, the hidden hands controlling their systems of money, taxation, public education and social reform. The nearly invisible strings attached to the marionettes are well concealed, and the marionettes themselves - politicians; religious leaders; heads of colleges, scientists, foundations and think-tanks; media moguls and other officials held in general-esteem by the people - act so lifelike as to blend perfectly with their audience.

For the young child, the puppet-theatre is a small box with curtains, and the strings - usually transparent nylon fishing-line - rise up to the hands of loving parents and friendly neighbours.

For the adult, the "Virtual Puppet-theatre" is the controlled space between their ears. The space within which their belief-system can be manipulated - held entranced and fascinated - by puppet-masters directing cleverly crafted plays, dramas and crises, the plots to which the audience is told will unfold to their general benefit and to the endings which have already been written.

Invisible strings called beliefs rise up to hidden hands holding global-wealth and power. As long as the illusion can be maintained, the audience can be held spellbound. For them, the show is their reality.

Until, one day - they see the strings." J.A Hill

Darkside2009

Jul 14, 2011, 10:25 PM

The system has a Bible in it. The system was based on the Ten Commandments, the Law of God. People back in olden times were smarter when it came to the Bible and the Law of God.

In the legal system the judges and lawyers are members of the BAR "Esquires". The King or Queen of England is the Head of this system. When they are crowned they are Crowned on Jacobs Pillar and but their hand on a Bible and swear to enforce The Laws of God. http://jahtruth.net/signed-o.jpg "I will to the utmost of my power maintain the Law of God"

"The Revolutionary War was fought and concluded when Cornwallis surrendered to Washington at Yorktown. As Americans we have been taught that we defeated the king and won our freedom. The next document I will use is the Treaty of 1783, which will totally contradict our having won the Revolutionary War. (footnote 2).

I want you to notice in the first paragraph that the king refers to himself as prince of the Holy Roman Empire and of the United States. You know from this that the United States did not negotiate this Treaty of peace in a position of strength and victory, but it is obvious that Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and John Adams negotiated a Treaty of further granted privileges from the king of England. Keep this in mind as you study these documents. You also need to understand the players of those that negotiated this Treaty. For the Americans it was Benjamin Franklin Esgr., a great patriot and standard bearer of freedom. Or was he? His title includes Esquire.

An Esquire in the above usage was a granted rank and Title of nobility by the king, which is below Knight and above a yeoman, common man. An Esquire is someone that does not do manual labor as signified by this status, see the below definitions.

"Esquires by virtue of their offices; as justices of the peace, and others who bear any office of trust under the crown....for whosever studieth the laws of the realm, who studieth in the universities, who professeth the liberal sciences, and who can live idly, and without manual labor, and will bear the port, charge, and countenance of a gentleman, he shall be called master, and shall be taken for a gentleman." Blackstone Commentaries p. 561-562

"Esquire - In English Law. A title of dignity next above gentleman, and below knight. Also a title of office given to sheriffs, serjeants, and barristers at law, justices of the peace, and others." Blacks Law Dictionary fourth ed. p. 641

Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay as you can read in the Treaty were all Esquires and were the signers of this Treaty and the only negotiators of the Treaty. The representative of the king was David Hartley Esqr..

Benjamin Franklin was the main negotiator for the terms of the Treaty, he spent most of the War traveling between England and France. The use of Esquire declared his and the others British subjection and loyalty to the crown." http://www.civil-liberties.com/books/colony2.html

So the system is suppose Obey the Laws of God. Under the Law of God most the people in u.s. prisons are guilty of no crime. imho

The people that put them there are guilty of many crimes that have Gods death sentence attached to them. It is all in your Bible start in Genesis and keep reading the whole thing is explained if you are smart enough to understand that you are reading. Most people today are not smart enough to get it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you are confusing yourself. Historically a Squire or Esquire was the servant to a knight, the one who looked after his armour and shield and his horse. As the shield was emblazoned with the Knight's coat of arms it was symbolic of his Family honour, so the position of Squire was one of a trusted servant. Often the Squire was an aspiring Knight themselves.

Latterly it came to mean a landed gentleman of considerable means. As they were large land owners they had a vested interest in maintaining order, so they were often appointed as Justice of the Peace.

Esquire is also a general term of respect formerly used in letter writing as an alternative to the prefix Mr. So one could write either Mr Benjamin Franklin or Benjamin Franklin Esquire. Often the Esquire was abbreviated to Esq.

It was that simple, it was meant to convey the person was a person of honour, a man of their word, a gentleman, nothing more, nothing less.

In recent years it has fallen out of usage, and the prefix Mr is more often applied.

In the UK we would in formal situations still refer to a countries Ambassador as His Excellency, in order to accord him dignity and respect as his country's representative to our nation. In America, I believe you give him the more egalitarian title of Mr Ambassador.

As to your other remarks about the rich manipulating the poor for their own ends, Karl Marx among others, thought the same, so you are not alone in thinking that. I suppose it is inherent in Human nature for the strong to exploit the weak, it has always been so for as long as societies have existed.

That situation will not be cured by a few random posts on this site or any other. As long as there exists differences in Humans as regards, talents; abilities; energy and the determination to succeed, there will always be inequality of bargaining power.

Not everyone can be a brain surgeon, not everyone wishes to sweep roads or empty trash cans for a living. Supply and demand dictates what each person can realise with their own particular set of talents.

As you have seen in your own country, as in mine, if a person in China can make the same goods for a fraction of the wages it requires in the USA or the UK, then the Chinese man will get the work and the American or Brit will be unemployed. Cheaper operating costs mean larger profits for shareholders and owners and more Corporation tax for Governments.

Now we could retreat behind tariff barriers as you suggest, but this would eventually lead to a stagnating economy, their would be little incentive to modernise or work harder to improve one's lot in life.

Therein lies the dilemma.

void()

Jul 15, 2011, 2:23 AM

Treaty of Paris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_%281783%29) ( Google & Wikipedia are great tools.)

1. Acknowledging the Thirteen Colonies to be free, sovereign and independent States, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof;[2]
2. Establishing the boundaries between the United States and British North America (for an account of two strange anomalies resulting from this part of the Treaty, based on inaccuracies in the Mitchell Map—see Northwest Angle and the Republic of Indian Stream);
3. Granting fishing rights to United States fishermen in the Grand Banks, off the coast of Newfoundland and in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence;
4. Recognizing the lawful contracted debts to be paid to creditors on either side;
5. The Congress of the Confederation will "earnestly recommend" to state legislatures to recognize the rightful owners of all confiscated lands "provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects [Loyalists]";
6. United States will prevent future confiscations of the property of Loyalists;
7. Prisoners of war on both sides are to be released and all property left by the British army in the United States unmolested (including slaves);
8. Great Britain and the United States were each to be given perpetual access to the Mississippi River;
9. Territories captured by Americans subsequent to treaty will be returned without compensation;
10. Ratification of the treaty was to occur within six months from the signing by the contracting parties.

From the above, with me adding a little emphasis in order to highlight the point, in case someone missed it.

1. Acknowledging the Thirteen Colonies to be free, sovereign and independent States, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof;[2]

And also I want to mention the Treaty of Tripoli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli). I will add emphasis in the quoted section below, also further alliterating the point.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

That was our President John Adams whom submitted it to congress, which ratified it and passed as lex terrae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_land) for The United States of America, an independent and sovereign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign) nation, unanimously (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unanimously).

So bud, yeah, you're smoking something. We can all speculate about the evil Freemasons and Iluminati but ultimately I do believe these are no worse than Unitarians or Quaker Friends and probably have roughly the same objectives. And in believing that, one concludes they are not really so evil as to think global dominance can happen. Or maybe I'm just brainwashed. "Ha good luck there, I can admit it, smoked myself to perma-stoned bro, got no brain left."
:)

But seriously, I quit smoking exactly because of opinions such as yours, and understanding it really doesn't solve problems or get you anywhere. No toking means I get people who love me, understand goofs at times and just let it be. Anyway, I'm out. Too damn late to be philosophical with no-wits.

jamieknyc

Jul 15, 2011, 12:07 PM

"Esquire" in the United States is not a professional title for lawyers. It is generally used a courtesy (a letter to me would be address to "Jamieknyc, Esq.") but it is not a formal title.

In eighteenth-century America the term did not mean a lawyer but was a form of address to any person of distinction. Thus Benjamin Franklin was addressed as "Esquire" even though he was not a lawyer.

Gttuner17

Jul 15, 2011, 12:19 PM

love1234

Jul 17, 2011, 1:11 AM

From the above, with me adding a little emphasis in order to highlight the point, in case someone missed it.

1. Acknowledging the Thirteen Colonies to be free, sovereign and independent States, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof;[2]

And also I want to mention the Treaty of Tripoli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli). I will add emphasis in the quoted section below, also further alliterating the point.

That was our President John Adams whom submitted it to congress, which ratified it and passed as lex terrae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_land) for The United States of America, an independent and sovereign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign) nation, unanimously (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unanimously).

So bud, yeah, you're smoking something. We can all speculate about the evil Freemasons and Iluminati but ultimately I do believe these are no worse than Unitarians or Quaker Friends and probably have roughly the same objectives. And in believing that, one concludes they are not really so evil as to think global dominance can happen. Or maybe I'm just brainwashed. "Ha good luck there, I can admit it, smoked myself to perma-stoned bro, got no brain left."
:)

But seriously, I quit smoking exactly because of opinions such as yours, and understanding it really doesn't solve problems or get you anywhere. No toking means I get people who love me, understand goofs at times and just let it be. Anyway, I'm out. Too damn late to be philosophical with no-wits.
The winner is not granted rights!! The winner in a war takes the fishing rights.

Do you own land. If you think you own land look at your paper work. You are a tenant. You do not even own the money you use it is a note. Federal Reserve Note. A note is a loan. Your home is loaned to you your car is loaned to you.
Treaties are broken all the time. Did not the British Army take the White House take what ever paper work they wanted and set it on Fire?
The king controlled the government by the time the North won the Civil War, through the use of lawyers that called the shots behind the scenes, just as they do now and well placed subjects in the United States government. This would not have been possible if not for England destroying our documents in 1812 and the covering up of state documents of the original 13th Amendment.

According to International law, what took place when the North conquered the South? First, you have to understand the word "conquest" in international law. When you conquer a state you acquire the land; and those that were subject to the conquered state, then become subject to the conquers. The laws of the conquered state remain in force until the conquering state wishes to change all or part of them. At the time of conquest the laws of the conquered state are subject to change or removal, which means the law no longer lies with the American people through the Constitution, but lies with the new sovereign. The Constitution no longer carries any power of its own, but drives its power from the new sovereign, the conqueror. The reason for this is the Constitution derived its power from the people, when they were defeated, so was the Constitution.

He never gave up being king of the u.s. He just let the people set up a government.

The people set up a Government in England also. He still was king.

"His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof." You see any thing about the people not being his people?

I wonder if you have seen the main and obvious point? This Treaty was signed in 1783, the war was over in 1781. If the United States defeated England, how is the king granting rights to America, when we were now his equal in status? We supposedly defeated him in the Revolutionary War! So why would these supposed patriot Americans sign such a Treaty, when they knew that this would void any sovereignty gained by the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War? If we had won the Revolutionary War, the king granting us our land would not be necessary, it would have been ours by his loss of the Revolutionary War. To not dictate the terms of a peace treaty in a position of strength after winning a war; means the war was never won. Think of other wars we have won, such as when we defeated Japan. Did McArther allow Japan to dictate to him the terms for surrender? No way! All these men did is gain status and privilege granted by the king and insure the subjection of future unaware generations. Worst of all, they sold out those that gave their lives and property for the chance to be free.

Every time you pay a tax you are transferring your labor to the king, and his heirs and successors are still receiving interest from the original American Charters.

The following is the definition of tribute (tax).

"A contribution which is raised by a prince or sovereign from his subjects to sustain the expenses of the state. A sum of money paid by an inferior sovereign or state to a superior potentate, to secure the friendship or protection of the latter." Blacks Law Dictionary forth ed. p. 1677

As further evidence, not that any is needed, a percentage of taxes that are paid are to enrich the king/queen of England. For those that study Title 26 you will recognize IMF, which means Individual Master File, all tax payers have one. To read one you have to be able to break their codes using file 6209, which is about 467 pages. On your IMF you will find a blocking series, which tells you what type of tax you are paying. You will probably find a 300-399 blocking series, which 6209 says is reserved. You then look up the BMF 300-399, which is the Business Master File in 6209. You would have seen prior to 1991, this was U.S.-U.K. Tax Claims, non-refile DLN. Meaning everyone is considered a business and involved in commerce and you are being held liable for a tax via a treaty between the U.S. and the U.K., payable to the U.K.. The form that is supposed to be used for this is form 8288, FIRPTA - Foreign Investment Real Property Tax Account, you won't find many people using this form, just the 1040 form. The 8288 form can be found in the Law Enforcement Manual of the IRS, chapter 3. If you will check the OMB's paper - Office of Management and Budget, in the Department of Treasury, List of Active Information Collections, Approved Under Paperwork Reduction Act, you will find this form under OMB number 1545-0902, which says U.S. withholding tax-return for dispositions by foreign persons of U.S. real property interests-statement of withholding on dispositions, by foreign persons, of U.S. Form #8288 #8288a. These codes have since been changed to read as follows; IMF 300-309, Barred Assement, CP 55 generated valid for MFT-30, which is the code for 1040 form. IMF 310-399 reserved, the BMF 300-309 reads the same as IMF 300-309. BMF 390-399 reads U.S./U.K. Tax Treaty Claims. The long and short of it is nothing changed, the government just made it plainer, the 1040 is the payment of a foreign tax to the king/queen of England. We have been in financial servitude since the Treaty of 1783.

The crown used slavery to destroy property rights. The southern States were not fighting so much for the slave issue, but for the right to own property, any property. These property rights were granted by the king in the Treaty of 1783, knowing they would soon be forfeited by the American people through ignorance. Do you think you own your house? If you were to stop paying taxes, federal or state, you would soon find out that you were just being allowed to live and pay rent for this house. The rent being the taxes to the king, who supplied the benefit of commerce.

void()

Jul 17, 2011, 1:38 PM

"Do you own land. If you think you own land look at your paper work.
You are a tenant. You do not even own the money you use it is a note.
Federal Reserve Note. A note is a loan. Your home is loaned to you,
your car is loaned to you."

Personally, no I do not own any land. And despite your inference
posited herein, I am not dullard enough to have not ever undestood
about your point. I have known of this for some time actually. It
really makes a person begin to wonder when they look up the word
mortgage. The meaning goes back to some obscure Latin for 'death oath',
you pay for a home with your life. This term was fisrt introduced by
the Church, i.e. Holy Roman Caltholics. This led to people as capital,
serfs used for harvest and land stewardship. Now, it is handled much
the same by banks. And following your logic, it all funnels back to a
king.

"I wonder if you have seen the main and obvious point?"

That is possible. I see on this end someone whom seems to beat a dead
horse. That is to say you seem adament in proving your superior
knowledge over me. Frankly, I do not care if you do have access to such
knowledge. It still proves nothing. And that may not be 'the main and
obvious point', but it is what I see.

If your main point is that we are all planned and damned, so what? Lots
of us realize this. If we've been so planned and damned, not much we may
do is there? I would rather find another path and feel able to do so.
There are others whom share this view and are also able. But you want
to keep weilding doom and gloom, have at it.

"Life is what happens while you're busy making other plans." - Lennon

Sorry, got life to live. Can't be bothered with your gloominess. Guess
you never learned about freedom being a state of mind as much as anything
else. I can be free in chains. Can you?