Casey Anthony

[MaggieMae]

Well, if the jury thinks so, Florida juries do not rule kindly to women who are so brutal as the evidence suggests. Aileen Carol Wuornos executed October 9, 2002

Oh yeah, now there's a good analogy. A frustrated lesbian who shot and killed only men she used and who then tried to screw her. Just like Casey Anthony. Now why didn't I think of that?

So, if ICA is convicted of murder 1 of her own child daughter, that's a less heinous crime???

Huh? The Wuornos crime spree was well documented and provable beyond a shadow of a doubt. Big BIG difference. Just because she was a female is moot.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Isn't that what a defense team is supposed to do? Imagine that.

Be putting on a half assed defense? Nope, they're not. Imagine that.

Except they're not half-assed. Granted, Baez is a bumbling "poor soul" type of lawyer, and he would never be my choice, but if you listened to Cheney Warner(?)'s opening statement on his motion for mistrial (and that's par for the course in a criminal case, too, btw), his bullet points were all right-on. He listed each and every piece of alleged evidence presented by the prosecution and knocked them right out of play by proving, just in words alone, that they were unsustainable as to provable substance and basically nothing but speculation. Cheney is a much more dynamic lawyer. Too bad he's second chair.

 

[MaggieMae]

To your first rebuttal, Cindy herself testified she didn't know Casey was pregnant because she had never discussed it with her. A photo at some wedding with Casey obviously about 7 months pregnant standing with her mother was when that testimony took place.

As for your second, I have a different opinion. So sue me.

Your not going to convince me. Why try?

Sue you? Opinions are worthless, what would I get?


Just now Ashton:
"Why didn't you wrap your pigs in a blanket"

The bug boy is now a prosecution witness. Poor Bozo

The defense witnesses all may be cross-examined by the prosecution. What?

And I'm not convinced she's guilty of Murder One yet. Where I come from, we used to call that a Mexican Standoff before it was politically incorrect.

 

[oldsalt]

Oh yeah, now there's a good analogy. A frustrated lesbian who shot and killed only men she used and who then tried to screw her. Just like Casey Anthony. Now why didn't I think of that?

So, if ICA is convicted of murder 1 of her own child daughter, that's a less heinous crime???

Huh? The Wuornos crime spree was well documented and provable beyond a shadow of a doubt. Big BIG difference. Just because she was a female is moot.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[MaggieMae]

v
the pigs in a blanket line was funny - you know he was waiting to use it!

I actually feel bad for this kid. Ashton is tearing him apart

Not from what I saw. He's holding his ground, carefully trying to answer the questions although I haven't seen all of it yet (still on DVR). But I see nothing wrong with responses such as "I'm not sure I understand your question." (Especially when it's obvious a lawyer is trying to trip up the witness.)

 

[oldsalt]

Isn't that what a defense team is supposed to do? Imagine that.

Be putting on a half assed defense? Nope, they're not. Imagine that.

Except they're not half-assed. Granted, Baez is a bumbling "poor soul" type of lawyer, and he would never be my choice, but if you listened to Cheney Warner(?)'s opening statement on his motion for mistrial (and that's par for the course in a criminal case, too, btw), his bullet points were all right-on. He listed each and every piece of alleged evidence presented by the prosecution and knocked them right out of play by proving, just in words alone, that they were unsustainable as to provable substance and basically nothing but speculation. Cheney is a much more dynamic lawyer. Too bad he's second chair.

The motion had no merit. Denied.

 

[oldsalt]

v
the pigs in a blanket line was funny - you know he was waiting to use it!

I actually feel bad for this kid. Ashton is tearing him apart

Not from what I saw. He's holding his ground, carefully trying to answer the questions although I haven't seen all of it yet (still on DVR). But I see nothing wrong with responses such as "I'm not sure I understand your question." (Especially when it's obvious a lawyer is trying to trip up the witness.)

His pauses were so long, he had to explain them He basically admitted his own 'experiment' didn't match the case. Next.

 

[MaggieMae]

just a quick thought regarding the broken neck searches, i know i have been surfing the net while listening to the news or reading something and thought "what is that? or really?"

goodness only knows the wild and wacky crap i've googled which i have never again looked for, utilized nor remember.

just sayin'

That's true

But the collection of searches and the time frame that makes it suspicious.

Understood, and I agree (with you too OldSalt.) Truth is when I hear google searches being entered into evidence, I cringe...my internet footprint is circumspect at best.

I started erasing mine one by one because we have a potential "situation" within the family regarding an estate, to which I had done some research on and wanted to make sure no one but me saw that I had suspicions about a certain family member. I came across dozens and dozens that generated a WTF? before it got deleted.

 

[MaggieMae]

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 *****

God you're dumb. It's called retaliation for a neg rep "someone" gave me..."because [you] can." Funny how that works, ain't it?

Call me dumb all you like, but I believe it's your dumbass that tries to drill into our heads stuff you think you know all about, about this case, when you can't even get the damn name straight!
You keep calling them the Anderson's.....wtf??..they are the Anthony's!
How are we supposed to listen to your babble and believe half of what you say, when you can't get the simple name correct even.
Ready for another cause I can?

Well ****. Lock me up and throw away the key, Mz. Perfect. I'll try to tidy up my glaring errors and start using initials for the characters like some others do. Would that pass your nitpicky scrutiny?

 

[MaggieMae]

Well why not? You act like you know everything else because of your so-called "education"? Grab some wood there sister, and just calm down for a minute. I could really care less about your red diaper doper baby education. Nor do I give a crap about what your leftist professor brainwashed you with, told or taught you.

Fact is, You're playing the same spin artist game that your fellow Attorneys are playing on Fox, Nancy Grace and C.N.N every night and day. Let me guess something, you're a Defense attorney eh? ~BH

At what time does anyone on HLN or CNN root for the defense? Good grief, even Dr. Drew has lost my confidence. What an idiot. Are we supposed to continue to believe he takes a rational approach to addiction with his hit reality show "Celebrity Rehab"? I mean why not just haul those celebrities in, call 'em all drunks and druggies and throw 'em in 10X10 rooms to detox? It's how he's treated Casey Anthony after all, sans all the background, much of it still unknown.

All that said, I really wonder why some of you feel this compulsion to go off all half-cocked just because someone disagrees with you. This isn't even a POLITICAL thread, yet you've gotta throw in your stupid dig about "leftist" professors. I will say the same thing to you: Grab some wood buster and calm down.

Personally, I'm ******* sick of the attitudes.

I'm ******* sick of you too~

Find the Ignore function in your CP and use it, then.

 

[MaggieMae]

I'm ******* sick of you too~

She lacks self awareness - as does her reluctant team mate.


Don't let them bother you

How profound.

 

[MaggieMae]

So, if ICA is convicted of murder 1 of her own child daughter, that's a less heinous crime???

Huh? The Wuornos crime spree was well documented and provable beyond a shadow of a doubt. Big BIG difference. Just because she was a female is moot.

You didn't answer the question.

Cold blooded murder is cold blooded murder. That's a no-brainer, so why would you even ask the question? I was referencing back to the comment that Florida isn't picky when convicting women.

 

[MaggieMae]

Be putting on a half assed defense? Nope, they're not. Imagine that.

Except they're not half-assed. Granted, Baez is a bumbling "poor soul" type of lawyer, and he would never be my choice, but if you listened to Cheney Warner(?)'s opening statement on his motion for mistrial (and that's par for the course in a criminal case, too, btw), his bullet points were all right-on. He listed each and every piece of alleged evidence presented by the prosecution and knocked them right out of play by proving, just in words alone, that they were unsustainable as to provable substance and basically nothing but speculation. Cheney is a much more dynamic lawyer. Too bad he's second chair.

The motion had no merit. Denied.

Of course it did, but it's almost automatically going to get a denial especially in a case like this. The defense knew that. They only wanted to get the points out there and they succeeded magnificently. It was kind of a primer of things to come.

 

[MaggieMae]

I actually feel bad for this kid. Ashton is tearing him apart

Not from what I saw. He's holding his ground, carefully trying to answer the questions although I haven't seen all of it yet (still on DVR). But I see nothing wrong with responses such as "I'm not sure I understand your question." (Especially when it's obvious a lawyer is trying to trip up the witness.)

His pauses were so long, he had to explain them He basically admitted his own 'experiment' didn't match the case. Next.

As I said, I haven't seen it all yet. But if something doesn't "match the case," then it doesn't benefit either side, correct? We've seen a lot of that, too.

 

[oldsalt]

Huh? The Wuornos crime spree was well documented and provable beyond a shadow of a doubt. Big BIG difference. Just because she was a female is moot.

You didn't answer the question.

Cold blooded murder is cold blooded murder. That's a no-brainer, so why would you even ask the question? I was referencing back to the comment that Florida isn't picky when convicting women.

If it's a no-brainer, why did you dodge it? So now you're knocking FL juries?

 

[oldsalt]

Except they're not half-assed. Granted, Baez is a bumbling "poor soul" type of lawyer, and he would never be my choice, but if you listened to Cheney Warner(?)'s opening statement on his motion for mistrial (and that's par for the course in a criminal case, too, btw), his bullet points were all right-on. He listed each and every piece of alleged evidence presented by the prosecution and knocked them right out of play by proving, just in words alone, that they were unsustainable as to provable substance and basically nothing but speculation. Cheney is a much more dynamic lawyer. Too bad he's second chair.

The motion had no merit. Denied.

Of course it did, but it's almost automatically going to get a denial especially in a case like this. The defense knew that. They only wanted to get the points out there and they succeeded magnificently. It was kind of a primer of things to come.

I didn't see success there at all.

 

[Dabs]

At what time does anyone on HLN or CNN root for the defense? Good grief, even Dr. Drew has lost my confidence. What an idiot. Are we supposed to continue to believe he takes a rational approach to addiction with his hit reality show "Celebrity Rehab"? I mean why not just haul those celebrities in, call 'em all drunks and druggies and throw 'em in 10X10 rooms to detox? It's how he's treated Casey Anthony after all, sans all the background, much of it still unknown.

All that said, I really wonder why some of you feel this compulsion to go off all half-cocked just because someone disagrees with you. This isn't even a POLITICAL thread, yet you've gotta throw in your stupid dig about "leftist" professors. I will say the same thing to you: Grab some wood buster and calm down.

Personally, I'm ******* sick of the attitudes.

I'm ******* sick of you too~

Find the Ignore function in your CP and use it, then.

No, because it's your stupidity and dumbass posts that give me the laughter I need to get thru the day

 

[oldsalt]

Not from what I saw. He's holding his ground, carefully trying to answer the questions although I haven't seen all of it yet (still on DVR). But I see nothing wrong with responses such as "I'm not sure I understand your question." (Especially when it's obvious a lawyer is trying to trip up the witness.)

His pauses were so long, he had to explain them He basically admitted his own 'experiment' didn't match the case. Next.

As I said, I haven't seen it all yet. But if something doesn't "match the case," then it doesn't benefit either side, correct? We've seen a lot of that, too.

Incorrect. Ashton shredded their expert, that benefits the PT.

 

[freedombecki]

The baby drowned and she tried to cover it up. She will do a couple years for hindering an investigation and that is it.

There is no way she will be found guilty of murder. No way.

(How she could bury her child and not be bothered by that is beyond me though). Oh and she is batshit crazy.

Zona, as I recollect having read facts pertinent to the prosecution is that the death chemicals present were more consistent with asphyxiation than with drowning. In fact, zero evidence was present for death by drowning.

She won't get two years for lying about some pie-in-the-sky accidental drowning, but she could get life or even death for the callous, cruel murder of her daughter.

The trumped-up excuse of smearing noncooperative family members with sexual abuse does not ring true.

Everything about the woman's verbal and irreconcilable behaviors does ring one familiar chord, however: predator.

I'm not buying the abuse fibbie. Her family has had its share of abuse, however, by her tall tales. The two people she's accused of molestation will spend the rest of their lives being regarded as sex criminals, which has not been proven to my satisfaction, and I am most often sympathetic with sexual abuse victims.

The Duke University LaCrosse Team scandal is a landmark in our society's moral history: the perpetrator of the myth of sexual abuse made modern men in America the targets of witch hunts, only this was worse: the lying perpetrator was coddled by a D.A. who decided to burn the witches to death in the media before the trial.

That case sent a message to trial lawyers representing truly bad women: horrify the public with male indecency against the accused perpetrator.

 

[oldsalt]

So, is JB still playing this 'Vasco Thompson' card>?