Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

THEY LET THE b***h GO!

Page 8 of 20 [ 306 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 20  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

09 Jul 2011, 8:40 am

Quote:
THEY LET THE b***h GO!


they had to let her go. she was not found guilty.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,961
Location:      

09 Jul 2011, 8:41 am

What trumps this entire discussion is the fact that the jury acquitted the defendent of the murder charges. Anything beyond that is mere speculation ... "What if" ... "Maybe" ... "It could be" ... blah, blah, blah ...

:roll:

Meanwhile, a Wyoming man kills his three kids...

> Link to Story <


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Jul 2011, 8:50 am

b9 wrote:
Quote:
THEY LET THE b***h GO!


they had to let her go. she was not found guilty.


And she was found not guilty because an insufficient case was made for her guilt.

The system works!

ruveyn



b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

09 Jul 2011, 9:07 am

ruveyn wrote:
b9 wrote:
Quote:
THEY LET THE b***h GO!


they had to let her go. she was not found guilty.


And she was found not guilty because ......


i am sorry. i thought she was not "found guilty".
i was not aware that she was found "not guilty"



OneStepBeyond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,310

09 Jul 2011, 9:23 am

b9 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
b9 wrote:
Quote:
THEY LET THE b***h GO!


they had to let her go. she was not found guilty.


And she was found not guilty because ......


i am sorry. i thought she was not "found guilty".
i was not aware that she was found "not guilty"


hah!



psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

09 Jul 2011, 11:09 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
If anything, growing up with abuse can lead to Borderline Personality Disorder, with all the pathological lying and manipulative scheming that goes along with it. If there was actually abuse and denial going on in the Anthony home, that would make it all the more likely that she could grow up to be so self centered and lacking in actual love that she would murder her own child.

I actually agree with that part. However, the tendency towards dissociation in borderline personality disorder also makes it far more likely that she would go into denial about her child's death for a month afterwards, even if the death was accidental.



phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

09 Jul 2011, 11:47 am

I'm not sure if that's related, but you can look at the Guy Turcotte incident which recently affected Quebec. Cardiologue stabbed his 2 childrens to death while in instance of being divorced from his wife, after having drank anti-frost (whatever you put in the car to stop the motor from freezing, the word escapes me) to attempt to end his days. The guy recently was found not criminally guilty.

I don't know if it's the same thing in the USA, but here, apparently the jury are cloistered away from public attention, and are not given the opinion of the "outside" media outlets, so as to not influence their decision. The defense actually pushed that he was in an alternate state of consciousness, or somesuch. you can read more about the story in Canadian news, it should still be fairly recent.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Jul 2011, 11:56 am

phil777 wrote:
I'm not sure if that's related, but you can look at the Guy Turcotte incident which recently affected Quebec. Cardiologue stabbed his 2 childrens to death while in instance of being divorced from his wife, after having drank anti-frost (whatever you put in the car to stop the motor from freezing, the word escapes me) to attempt to end his days. The guy recently was found not criminally guilty.

I don't know if it's the same thing in the USA, but here, apparently the jury are cloistered away from public attention, and are not given the opinion of the "outside" media outlets, so as to not influence their decision. The defense actually pushed that he was in an alternate state of consciousness, or somesuch. you can read more about the story in Canadian news, it should still be fairly recent.


In the U.S. juries are sometimes sequestered. When they are not the judge admonishes the jury not to discuss the case with anyone and not to read any accounts in the press or listen to any accounts on the media.

ruveyn



phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

09 Jul 2011, 12:01 pm

ruveyn wrote:
phil777 wrote:
I'm not sure if that's related, but you can look at the Guy Turcotte incident which recently affected Quebec. Cardiologue stabbed his 2 childrens to death while in instance of being divorced from his wife, after having drank anti-frost (whatever you put in the car to stop the motor from freezing, the word escapes me) to attempt to end his days. The guy recently was found not criminally guilty.

I don't know if it's the same thing in the USA, but here, apparently the jury are cloistered away from public attention, and are not given the opinion of the "outside" media outlets, so as to not influence their decision. The defense actually pushed that he was in an alternate state of consciousness, or somesuch. you can read more about the story in Canadian news, it should still be fairly recent.


In the U.S. juries are sometimes sequestered. When they are not the judge admonishes the jury not to discuss the case with anyone and not to read any accounts in the press or listen to any accounts on the media.

ruveyn


Hmmm, that is interesting. Of course that makes it all the more harder on the jury, i'd think, due to the quasi omni-presence of the media or its retainers.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

09 Jul 2011, 1:51 pm

Fnord wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
I am going by her pattern of behavior and it is disconcerting. She has written bad checks. She has lied to cops. She has failed to report a missing person who she has sole custody of, someone under the age of what, three? No excuse for those behaviors and they do indicate a personality disorder. She could very well be a sociopath.

Do you think you have discovered who really murdered Nicolle Simpson?

Or are you just trying to impose the idea that "disconcerting" behavior should be counted as evidence in a criminal case?

And by "disconcerting behavior, I also mean trouble with social situations, dislike of changes in routine, apparent lack of empathy, avoiding eye contact, formal style of speaking, inability to recognize tonal changes in speech, unusual facial expressions or postures, preoccupation with only one or few "special" interests, delayed motor development, holds one-sided conversations, and easy to be overstimulated by sudden increases in sensory stimuli ... you know ... the typical Aspie.

It's a major leap of faith to go from "she acts weird" to "she's a sociopathic killer". It's like knowing that a person is an aspie, and then concluding that he or she should be locked away as a menace to society.

Bringing up OJ, good example! The guy sits behind bars for committing armed robbery.
I don't think Casey Anthony acts weird. In fact, she acts way too normal which is why she is getting away with this. Truth is, she belongs behind bars. The woman has shown a pattern of criminal behavior, has lied and lied again. You know she lied to the cops, what makes you think she didn't lie to the jury? She has already proved she can lie with the best of 'em in more ways than one, or should I say, the worst of em?
And the jury just let her go to do something else which will mean another victim and tax payers spending more on lawyers and trials. I wonder what lie she will come up with next time?

Remember duct tape was found on little Caylee's mouth. Now, why would an accidental drowning victim have something like that on her?



League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,318
Location: Pacific Northwest

09 Jul 2011, 2:19 pm

Fnord wrote:
PM wrote:
Fnord wrote:
PM wrote:
She was found innocent by a jury of her peers, end of story. :roll:

WRONG! She was found "Not Guilty" by a jury of her peers. "Innocent" means that she didn't do it. "Not Guilty" means that the prosecution failed to prove its case against her beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Jury's decision is final. Whether you use the term "not guilty" or the term "innocent", the fact is that she can not be tried again for this. I just don't see why the court of public opinion refuses to accept the ruling of a court of law.

They're being manipulated by the media.

She can be retried, but only if the prosecution discovers and presents previously unknown evidence. What with the intensity of the investigation, it is likely that no new evidence will be found, much less presented.

And by "evidence", I mean valid material evidence that is both relevant and directly related to the case. This means that no assumptions, beliefs, "holy" revelations, opinions, "psychic" impressions, or other unsupportable claims could be admitted as evidence.



But OJ was never tried again.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

09 Jul 2011, 3:54 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Fnord wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
I am going by her pattern of behavior and it is disconcerting. She has written bad checks. She has lied to cops. She has failed to report a missing person who she has sole custody of, someone under the age of what, three? No excuse for those behaviors and they do indicate a personality disorder. She could very well be a sociopath.

Do you think you have discovered who really murdered Nicolle Simpson?

Or are you just trying to impose the idea that "disconcerting" behavior should be counted as evidence in a criminal case?

And by "disconcerting behavior, I also mean trouble with social situations, dislike of changes in routine, apparent lack of empathy, avoiding eye contact, formal style of speaking, inability to recognize tonal changes in speech, unusual facial expressions or postures, preoccupation with only one or few "special" interests, delayed motor development, holds one-sided conversations, and easy to be overstimulated by sudden increases in sensory stimuli ... you know ... the typical Aspie.

It's a major leap of faith to go from "she acts weird" to "she's a sociopathic killer". It's like knowing that a person is an aspie, and then concluding that he or she should be locked away as a menace to society.


Whatever Casey Anthony is, she's certainly not an Aspie. She has a reputation as a party girl - which in itself implies social skills way beyond those of us on WP - and the fact that she can manipulate people by spinning intricate lies puts the nail in the coffin of any speculation of Asperger's.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The point I got from that post is not a speculation that she's an Aspie but rather that if you attempt to criminalize one person's "disconcerting behaviour" you make it easier for other people to criminalize what they may see as your disconcerting behaviour. Convicting people of a crime because there is something not socially expected in how they act is a dangerous precedent to set. Luckily the jury didn't do that. And for that I thank them. They stuck firmly to the rules.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

09 Jul 2011, 4:03 pm

Casey Anthony's disconcerting behavior was criminal. She lied to cops by making up a false story about a nanny, which she is in the process of being sued over, and she wrote bad checks.
People misunderstood what I meant by disconcerting behavior. I am not talking about harmless behavior by innocent people. It is so clear Casey Anthony is not an innocent person displaying harmless, disconcerting behavior.
Keep in mind, Casey Anthony has already been convicted of felonies. Hardly an innocent angel being unjustly persecuted!



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Jul 2011, 5:38 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Casey Anthony's disconcerting behavior was criminal. She lied to cops by making up a false story about a nanny, which she is in the process of being sued over, and she wrote bad checks.
People misunderstood what I meant by disconcerting behavior. I am not talking about harmless behavior by innocent people. It is so clear Casey Anthony is not an innocent person displaying harmless, disconcerting behavior.
Keep in mind, Casey Anthony has already been convicted of felonies. Hardly an innocent angel being unjustly persecuted!


If the prosecution could not prove murder, neither can you. Lying to the cops does not prove the women committed murder.

ruveyn



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

09 Jul 2011, 6:11 pm

ruveyn wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Casey Anthony's disconcerting behavior was criminal. She lied to cops by making up a false story about a nanny, which she is in the process of being sued over, and she wrote bad checks.
People misunderstood what I meant by disconcerting behavior. I am not talking about harmless behavior by innocent people. It is so clear Casey Anthony is not an innocent person displaying harmless, disconcerting behavior.
Keep in mind, Casey Anthony has already been convicted of felonies. Hardly an innocent angel being unjustly persecuted!


If the prosecution could not prove murder, neither can you. Lying to the cops does not prove the women committed murder.

ruveyn


But you do have to ask why she would lie in a murder case.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,961
Location:      

09 Jul 2011, 6:46 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
But you do have to ask why she would lie in a murder case.

Because anything you say can and will be used against you during the prosecution of the case.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.