Casey Anthony

[Texas Writer]

Apparently via Cindy Anthony's testimony -- she and Casey were close enough to sit and share tears over pictures -- the last night she ever saw Caylee. But then you have that whole rumour about Cindy going commando and having Casey up against the wall by her throat that very same night. Wonder if that will be testified to?

Rumor? So the police report about that incident is rumor? So much for 'I do my research'

Man. I'm getting really tired of spelling things out for you.

First off -- it's not a police report -- it was in an LE Interview.
Secondly -- if one was to believe this story -- that BTW came from Lee Anthony's mouth to another's ears -- then Cindy's testimony of her and Caseys' tear fest is bullshit.

But regardless, YES it is a rumour because it's not been introduced into evidence. . . . YET.

For ***** sake -- please try to keep up.

 

[oldsalt]

I'm done wit cha, homeboy. Rest assured, if you post some more jacked up shit, or pretend you are omnipotent again, I'll be around to light you up. Try and keep up? It's called a police report, moron. Calling it something different to try and correct your little rumor comment makes you look dumber than you are, if that's possible. Face it, you fucked up, I called you on it, and now you look foolish for being all uppity. Let that be a lesson to you.

 

[Texas Writer]

I'm done wit cha, homeboy. Rest assured, if you post some more jacked up shit, or pretend you are omnipotent again, I'll be around to light you up. Try and keep up? It's called a police report, moron. Calling it something different to try and correct your little rumor comment makes you look dumber than you are, if that's possible. Face it, you fucked up, I called you on it, and now you look foolish for being all uppity. Let that be a lesson to you.

You're wrong . . . again.

A Police Report is a form that is filed. There was no Police Report filed on the night of June 15 2008 (or any other night for that matter) about a fight between Cindy and Casey Anthony.
There was however an LE Statement given by Lee Anthony describing the alledged incident. He also went on to tell the same story to an ex boyfriend of Casey's whom, also gave that information to officials in another LE Statement.

No **** up here.
You're an idiot.
Now, go away.

 

[oldsalt]

I'm done wit cha, homeboy. Rest assured, if you post some more jacked up shit, or pretend you are omnipotent again, I'll be around to light you up. Try and keep up? It's called a police report, moron. Calling it something different to try and correct your little rumor comment makes you look dumber than you are, if that's possible. Face it, you fucked up, I called you on it, and now you look foolish for being all uppity. Let that be a lesson to you.

You're wrong . . . again.

A Police Report is a form that is filed. There was no Police Report filed on the night of June 15 2008 (or any other night for that matter) about a fight between Cindy and Casey Anthony.
There was however an LE Statement given by Lee Anthony describing the alledged incident. He also went on to tell the same story to an ex boyfriend of Casey's whom, also gave that information to officials in another LE Statement.

No **** up here.
You're an idiot.
Now, go away.

Oh, but there's a LE report filed? It's NOT a rumor, moron, It's a fact. The way you spin info, I think you're a ICA sympathizer that doesn't have the balls to come out and say so. I'd respect your argument more.....you didn't just **** up, you are a **** up. LOL, I guess your writing skills are the same as your message board acumen, hence the reason you sit on this thread all day

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Well, her hair was in the pair of pliers and there was a witness that saw him loading a "bulk" according to the article into his truck on the morning of his "fishing trip".

In the Anthony case, there is nothing even remotely like that.

Was Caylee's DNA even found in the trunk of the car? I would think that if he body had been left in the trunk long enough to decompose, her DNA would be found in the trunk.

Immie

Are you even following this case? Of course her hair was found in the car. Actually, it was found in the trunk! Know what that means? = circumstantial evidence. One of her toys could have been put in the trunk at anytime. Hell, My daughter's hair is in our trunk because that's where we keep her broken down stroller.

As for Peterson, "Hair on the pliers"? Same thing. Hell, My wife's hair seems to wrap around my fingers on numerous items that I grab daily. And the "Witness seeing him load a bulk item into his truck? = circumstantial evidence again. So what, people load crap into their trucks all the time. It could be recycled cans, bottles, trash ect.

What you really need is alot of blood, and I mean alot of blood. However, The smell of death in my opinion border lines circumstantial. Who the hell is gonna run over an animal, and then put it inside the trunk of their car? I don't believe that she claimed that, I think she claimed it was an old box of Pizza, but that's even more entertaining than the former. Hopefully I think that you get my point. ~BH

Are you even reading this part of the thread?

When I brought up the question, I mentioned I had not been watching the trial. Obviousely you did not read that. I was getting bits and pieces from the local news which has been covering the trial extensively because I am in Central Florida and this case is hot around here.

I asked the question, because what I am hearing is that the prosecution has done a piss poor job in this trial. Obviously there are some on the board that disagree with me. I believe Casey is guilty and have believed so since Caylee was reported as missing. I don't want Casey to walk, but it seems that there has been nothing to directly tie her into the murder.

On the other hand, those on the board that disagree with me, seem to think that even if the prosecution has done such a piss poor job, the defense has screwed up even more so.

Now, regarding "her" hair, from what I understand they could not prove that the hair belonged to Caylee. And you are right, some hair in the trunk would be explainable. On the other hand, from what I can tell, the prosecution has not presented any evidence of other body fluids belonging to Caylee in the trunk. How the hell can that be possible?

Immie

No, I didn't read where you said that. I don't read every single post in this thread unless it is a response to something that I posted or a point that someone made that I was interested in. If you notice, this thread gains about 5 pages a day. I don't have the time to read through them all, but I have read most of them.

Well, I think that the prosecution is doing a fine job. You ask how there could be no bodily fluid in the vehicle? Could it be that she maybe was wrapped up in plastic, a blanket or something of the sort? Hell, even a tarp could have been layed down in the trunk. That no fluid argument is a weak one by them in my opinion. ~BH

 

[Texas Writer]

I'm laughing my ass off at Nancy DisGrace.
Seems the Defense has her panties in a wad.

Simmer down Nancy -- yes, the Defense has the right to put their evidence up.
Whether you like it or not.

 

[Texas Writer]

I'm done wit cha, homeboy. Rest assured, if you post some more jacked up shit, or pretend you are omnipotent again, I'll be around to light you up. Try and keep up? It's called a police report, moron. Calling it something different to try and correct your little rumor comment makes you look dumber than you are, if that's possible. Face it, you fucked up, I called you on it, and now you look foolish for being all uppity. Let that be a lesson to you.

You're wrong . . . again.

A Police Report is a form that is filed. There was no Police Report filed on the night of June 15 2008 (or any other night for that matter) about a fight between Cindy and Casey Anthony.
There was however an LE Statement given by Lee Anthony describing the alledged incident. He also went on to tell the same story to an ex boyfriend of Casey's whom, also gave that information to officials in another LE Statement.

No **** up here.
You're an idiot.
Now, go away.

Oh, but there's a LE report filed? It's NOT a rumor, moron, It's a fact. The way you spin info, I think you're a ICA sympathizer that doesn't have the balls to come out and say so. I'd respect your argument more.....you didn't just **** up, you are a **** up. LOL, I guess your writing skills are the same as your message board acumen, hence the reason you sit on this thread all day

Wrong again, idiot.
And you are a liar.

"I'm done wit cha, homeboy."

Shoo Shoo away little coffin fly.

 

[oldsalt]

Are you even following this case? Of course her hair was found in the car. Actually, it was found in the trunk! Know what that means? = circumstantial evidence. One of her toys could have been put in the trunk at anytime. Hell, My daughter's hair is in our trunk because that's where we keep her broken down stroller.

As for Peterson, "Hair on the pliers"? Same thing. Hell, My wife's hair seems to wrap around my fingers on numerous items that I grab daily. And the "Witness seeing him load a bulk item into his truck? = circumstantial evidence again. So what, people load crap into their trucks all the time. It could be recycled cans, bottles, trash ect.

What you really need is alot of blood, and I mean alot of blood. However, The smell of death in my opinion border lines circumstantial. Who the hell is gonna run over an animal, and then put it inside the trunk of their car? I don't believe that she claimed that, I think she claimed it was an old box of Pizza, but that's even more entertaining than the former. Hopefully I think that you get my point. ~BH

Are you even reading this part of the thread?

When I brought up the question, I mentioned I had not been watching the trial. Obviousely you did not read that. I was getting bits and pieces from the local news which has been covering the trial extensively because I am in Central Florida and this case is hot around here.

I asked the question, because what I am hearing is that the prosecution has done a piss poor job in this trial. Obviously there are some on the board that disagree with me. I believe Casey is guilty and have believed so since Caylee was reported as missing. I don't want Casey to walk, but it seems that there has been nothing to directly tie her into the murder.

On the other hand, those on the board that disagree with me, seem to think that even if the prosecution has done such a piss poor job, the defense has screwed up even more so.

Now, regarding "her" hair, from what I understand they could not prove that the hair belonged to Caylee. And you are right, some hair in the trunk would be explainable. On the other hand, from what I can tell, the prosecution has not presented any evidence of other body fluids belonging to Caylee in the trunk. How the hell can that be possible?

Immie

No, I didn't read where you said that. I don't read every single post in this thread unless it is a response to something that I posted or a point that someone made that I was interested in. If you notice, this thread gains about 5 pages a day. I don't have the time to read through them all, but I have read most of them.

Well, I think that the prosecution is doing a fine job. You ask how there could be no bodily fluid in the vehicle? Could it be that she maybe was wrapped up in plastic, a blanket or something of the sort? Hell, even a tarp could have been layed down in the trunk. That no fluid argument is a weak one by them in my opinion. ~BH

I agree. The DT seems to be all over the map, trying to discredit thing that if you believe their story, didn't even happen! That's like a legal wassup! Again, I assert, the defense is going to be messed up, they didn't have much to work with. Laying out all the evidence, way beyond a reasonable doubt Casey killed her little girl.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Are you even following this case? Of course her hair was found in the car. Actually, it was found in the trunk! Know what that means? = circumstantial evidence. One of her toys could have been put in the trunk at anytime. Hell, My daughter's hair is in our trunk because that's where we keep her broken down stroller.

As for Peterson, "Hair on the pliers"? Same thing. Hell, My wife's hair seems to wrap around my fingers on numerous items that I grab daily. And the "Witness seeing him load a bulk item into his truck? = circumstantial evidence again. So what, people load crap into their trucks all the time. It could be recycled cans, bottles, trash ect.

What you really need is alot of blood, and I mean alot of blood. However, The smell of death in my opinion border lines circumstantial. Who the hell is gonna run over an animal, and then put it inside the trunk of their car? I don't believe that she claimed that, I think she claimed it was an old box of Pizza, but that's even more entertaining than the former. Hopefully I think that you get my point. ~BH

Are you even reading this part of the thread?

When I brought up the question, I mentioned I had not been watching the trial. Obviousely you did not read that. I was getting bits and pieces from the local news which has been covering the trial extensively because I am in Central Florida and this case is hot around here.

I asked the question, because what I am hearing is that the prosecution has done a piss poor job in this trial. Obviously there are some on the board that disagree with me. I believe Casey is guilty and have believed so since Caylee was reported as missing. I don't want Casey to walk, but it seems that there has been nothing to directly tie her into the murder.

On the other hand, those on the board that disagree with me, seem to think that even if the prosecution has done such a piss poor job, the defense has screwed up even more so.

Now, regarding "her" hair, from what I understand they could not prove that the hair belonged to Caylee. And you are right, some hair in the trunk would be explainable. On the other hand, from what I can tell, the prosecution has not presented any evidence of other body fluids belonging to Caylee in the trunk. How the hell can that be possible?

Immie

No, I didn't read where you said that. I don't read every single post in this thread unless it is a response to something that I posted or a point that someone made that I was interested in. If you notice, this thread gains about 5 pages a day. I don't have the time to read through them all, but I have read most of them.

Well, I think that the prosecution is doing a fine job. You ask how there could be no bodily fluid in the vehicle? Could it be that she maybe was wrapped up in plastic, a blanket or something of the sort? Hell, even a tarp could have been layed down in the trunk. That no fluid argument is a weak one by them in my opinion. ~BH

If I remember right she was placed in a cloth laundry bag and two plastic trash bags. No leaks......

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Are you even reading this part of the thread?

When I brought up the question, I mentioned I had not been watching the trial. Obviousely you did not read that. I was getting bits and pieces from the local news which has been covering the trial extensively because I am in Central Florida and this case is hot around here.

I asked the question, because what I am hearing is that the prosecution has done a piss poor job in this trial. Obviously there are some on the board that disagree with me. I believe Casey is guilty and have believed so since Caylee was reported as missing. I don't want Casey to walk, but it seems that there has been nothing to directly tie her into the murder.

On the other hand, those on the board that disagree with me, seem to think that even if the prosecution has done such a piss poor job, the defense has screwed up even more so.

Now, regarding "her" hair, from what I understand they could not prove that the hair belonged to Caylee. And you are right, some hair in the trunk would be explainable. On the other hand, from what I can tell, the prosecution has not presented any evidence of other body fluids belonging to Caylee in the trunk. How the hell can that be possible?

Immie

No, I didn't read where you said that. I don't read every single post in this thread unless it is a response to something that I posted or a point that someone made that I was interested in. If you notice, this thread gains about 5 pages a day. I don't have the time to read through them all, but I have read most of them.

Well, I think that the prosecution is doing a fine job. You ask how there could be no bodily fluid in the vehicle? Could it be that she maybe was wrapped up in plastic, a blanket or something of the sort? Hell, even a tarp could have been layed down in the trunk. That no fluid argument is a weak one by them in my opinion. ~BH

If I remember right she was placed in a cloth laundry bag and two plastic trash bags. No leaks......

SFC, Just so I don't misunderstand you bro, you're agreeing that there is a reasonable chance that there would be no leaks correct? ~BH

 

[SFC Ollie]

No, I didn't read where you said that. I don't read every single post in this thread unless it is a response to something that I posted or a point that someone made that I was interested in. If you notice, this thread gains about 5 pages a day. I don't have the time to read through them all, but I have read most of them.

Well, I think that the prosecution is doing a fine job. You ask how there could be no bodily fluid in the vehicle? Could it be that she maybe was wrapped up in plastic, a blanket or something of the sort? Hell, even a tarp could have been layed down in the trunk. That no fluid argument is a weak one by them in my opinion. ~BH

If I remember right she was placed in a cloth laundry bag and two plastic trash bags. No leaks......

SFC, Just so I don't misunderstand you bro, you're agreeing that there is a reasonable chance that there would be no leaks correct? ~BH

From the description I read of how the body was wrapped, I would believe that there would probably not be any leakage. That is my opinion.....

 

[Sunshine]

Right now, I don't think the case against Casey Anthony has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If the burden of proof were lower, like preponderance of the evidence, then, yes, I'd say the case has been made against her.

Right now, there are just too many holes and missing links in the evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. And the fact that the prosecution decided to grandstand and go for the death penalty, IMNSHO, will make the jury more critical of those missing links. No juror, I hope, wants to risk killing an innocent person. Not to mention that the death penalty may be a little more difficult to get for a woman than a man. Traditionally, I believe it has been. Don't think anything has changed there.

 

[oldsalt]

Right now, I don't think the case against Casey Anthony has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If the burden of proof were lower, like preponderance of the evidence, then, yes, I'd say the case has been made against her.

Right now, there are just too many holes and missing links in the evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. And the fact that the prosecution decided to grandstand and go for the death penalty, IMNSHO, will make the jury more critical of those missing links. No juror, I hope, wants to risk killing an innocent person. Not to mention that the death penalty may be a little more difficult to get for a woman than a man. Traditionally, I believe it has been. Don't think anything has changed there.

IMNSHO, the DT has been the grandstanders. Only one gonna support their claims is ICA, and they've admitted she is a pathological liar! If each peice of evidence is looked at alone, perhaps your argument is valid. Altogether, the evidence is overwhelming that ICA is responsible for the death of her daughter. The punishment is the only question.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

If I remember right she was placed in a cloth laundry bag and two plastic trash bags. No leaks......

SFC, Just so I don't misunderstand you bro, you're agreeing that there is a reasonable chance that there would be no leaks correct? ~BH

From the description I read of how the body was wrapped, I would believe that there would probably not be any leakage. That is my opinion.....

Oh ok bud. We agree then. Also, If she was suffocated or drowned (which the second I believe is complete bullshit) there wouldn't be any fluids anyway unless she was drowned or suffocated while inside the trunk? Weak arguement by the defense. They are in trouble. The only thing left to do now is put the guilty ***** on the stand, and let the hammer come crushing down on her weak minded defense for the final circus side show covered by Nancy Grace. ~BH

 

[Sunshine]

Right now, I don't think the case against Casey Anthony has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If the burden of proof were lower, like preponderance of the evidence, then, yes, I'd say the case has been made against her.

Right now, there are just too many holes and missing links in the evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. And the fact that the prosecution decided to grandstand and go for the death penalty, IMNSHO, will make the jury more critical of those missing links. No juror, I hope, wants to risk killing an innocent person. Not to mention that the death penalty may be a little more difficult to get for a woman than a man. Traditionally, I believe it has been. Don't think anything has changed there.

IMNSHO, the DT has been the grandstanders. Only one gonna support their claims is ICA, and they've admitted she is a pathological liar! If each peice of evidence is looked at alone, perhaps your argument is valid. Altogether, the evidence is overwhelming that ICA is responsible for the death of her daughter. The punishment is the only question.

What you describe is the legal concept of Totality of the Circumstances. That is a very low burden of proof and a conceopt that is often used to determine if there is Probable Cause to make an arrest, etc. Once the arrest is made and criminal charges filed, the burden of proof changes to Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.


Knowledge Base: Totality of Circumstances

Illinois v. Gates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, you must remember that this is not a Probable Cause hearing. This is a capital murder case that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There have been many areas of reasonable doubt, IMO.

 

[Immanuel]

If I remember correctly Scott Peterson was convicted on a little more than circumstantial evidence... isn't he the one the fed his wife to the sharks outside the Golden Gate?

Immie

Careful, fellas, Dabs doesn't like anyone discussing other cases... She always has her trigger finger on the neg rep.

You betcha, and btw Maggot, it takes a ***** to know a *****.
So careful ladies, and gents, if you aren't on Maggot's good side, you'll be Rep-ed with being called a *****

I guess that is not much different than being called an Asshole.

Immie

 

[SFC Ollie]

Casey will never take the stand. She would get caught in too many lies. But hey, I could be wrong. Her lawyers could be dumber than I believe them to be.

 

[Immanuel]

Are you even following this case? Of course her hair was found in the car. Actually, it was found in the trunk! Know what that means? = circumstantial evidence. One of her toys could have been put in the trunk at anytime. Hell, My daughter's hair is in our trunk because that's where we keep her broken down stroller.

As for Peterson, "Hair on the pliers"? Same thing. Hell, My wife's hair seems to wrap around my fingers on numerous items that I grab daily. And the "Witness seeing him load a bulk item into his truck? = circumstantial evidence again. So what, people load crap into their trucks all the time. It could be recycled cans, bottles, trash ect.

What you really need is alot of blood, and I mean alot of blood. However, The smell of death in my opinion border lines circumstantial. Who the hell is gonna run over an animal, and then put it inside the trunk of their car? I don't believe that she claimed that, I think she claimed it was an old box of Pizza, but that's even more entertaining than the former. Hopefully I think that you get my point. ~BH

Are you even reading this part of the thread?

When I brought up the question, I mentioned I had not been watching the trial. Obviousely you did not read that. I was getting bits and pieces from the local news which has been covering the trial extensively because I am in Central Florida and this case is hot around here.

I asked the question, because what I am hearing is that the prosecution has done a piss poor job in this trial. Obviously there are some on the board that disagree with me. I believe Casey is guilty and have believed so since Caylee was reported as missing. I don't want Casey to walk, but it seems that there has been nothing to directly tie her into the murder.

On the other hand, those on the board that disagree with me, seem to think that even if the prosecution has done such a piss poor job, the defense has screwed up even more so.

Now, regarding "her" hair, from what I understand they could not prove that the hair belonged to Caylee. And you are right, some hair in the trunk would be explainable. On the other hand, from what I can tell, the prosecution has not presented any evidence of other body fluids belonging to Caylee in the trunk. How the hell can that be possible?

Immie

No, I didn't read where you said that. I don't read every single post in this thread unless it is a response to something that I posted or a point that someone made that I was interested in. If you notice, this thread gains about 5 pages a day. I don't have the time to read through them all, but I have read most of them.

Well, I think that the prosecution is doing a fine job. You ask how there could be no bodily fluid in the vehicle? Could it be that she maybe was wrapped up in plastic, a blanket or something of the sort? Hell, even a tarp could have been layed down in the trunk. That no fluid argument is a weak one by them in my opinion. ~BH

Not a problem and I don't read all the posts either.

I was just trying to get a feel for other people's opinion on the prosecution.

I don't believe a tarp would have prevented the fluids from leaking onto the floor of the trunk, but I could be wrong on that. It seems to me that moving the body after it had decomposed would have spilled some of the fluids into the trunk of the car.

I am actually glad to hear that people feel the prosecution is doing better than it seems to me.

Immie

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Casey will never take the stand. She would get caught in too many lies. But hey, I could be wrong. Her lawyers could be dumber than I believe them to be.

Exactly bro. ~BH

 

[oldsalt]

Right now, I don't think the case against Casey Anthony has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If the burden of proof were lower, like preponderance of the evidence, then, yes, I'd say the case has been made against her.

Right now, there are just too many holes and missing links in the evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. And the fact that the prosecution decided to grandstand and go for the death penalty, IMNSHO, will make the jury more critical of those missing links. No juror, I hope, wants to risk killing an innocent person. Not to mention that the death penalty may be a little more difficult to get for a woman than a man. Traditionally, I believe it has been. Don't think anything has changed there.

IMNSHO, the DT has been the grandstanders. Only one gonna support their claims is ICA, and they've admitted she is a pathological liar! If each peice of evidence is looked at alone, perhaps your argument is valid. Altogether, the evidence is overwhelming that ICA is responsible for the death of her daughter. The punishment is the only question.

What you describe is the legal concept of Totality of the Circumstances. That is a very low burden of proof and a conceopt that is often used to determine if there is Probable Cause to make an arrest, etc. Once the arrest is made and criminal charges filed, the burden of proof changes to Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.


Knowledge Base: Totality of Circumstances

Illinois v. Gates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, you must remember that this is not a Probable Cause hearing. This is a capital murder case that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There have been many areas of reasonable doubt, IMO.

Research reasonable doubt, and circumstantial evidence. This case is every bit provable. A sympathetic jury will convict her of manslaughter. A not so jury will give her murder 1. The defense has been all over the map, and not swayed the jury, IMNSHO.